Part 1 of 2: Understanding King James Onlyism and Its Claims
Few controversies stir as much debate as King James Onlyism. This view holds that the KJV is the only divinely inspired English Bible. It dismisses all other translations as flawed. But is there real evidence and sound biblical scholarship to support this claim? Not quite.
In this analysis, we’ll:
- Explore the origins of King James Onlyism
- Break down its main arguments
- Look at the manuscript evidence behind different translations
- Discuss the value of modern Bible translations
Whether you’re a curious seeker or someone struggling with conflicting translations, this analysis will help you understand how biblical texts have been transmitted through history.
We need to see King James Onlyism’s flaws. It’s not just wrong about history. It can warp our view of God’s Word and impede us from truly grasping Scripture.
What is King James Onlyism?
You might think King James Onlyism is an age-old doctrine. It’s actually a new idea from the 20th century, long after the King James Bible was published in 1611. This movement gained traction mainly in U.S. conservative Protestant circles. It stirred quite a bit of debate along the way.
So, what are the key claims of KJV Onlyists? Here’s a quick rundown:
Key Claims of KJV Onlyists:
- Divine Preservation: They believe the KJV is God’s only preserved English translation.
- Textual Superiority: The KJV’s manuscripts, mainly the Textus Receptus, are the most accurate.
- Doctrinal Purity: Modern translations have introduced heretical ideas and changed key doctrines.
Many KJV Onlyists go so far as to call modern translations heretical and accuse them of being part of a plot to undermine God’s Word. Some argue it is spiritually dangerous to read anything but the KJV. They suggest it is rejecting the true Bible.
Why Are These Claims Problematic?
It’s important to recognize that these claims are false. They tend to instill fear and promote the idea that the KJV is the only valid Bible, yet history and scholarship tell a different story. Several factors contributed to the rise of KJV Onlyism in the 20th century:
- Backlash Against New Translations: The 20th century saw a surge in new English Bible translations. KJV Onlyists reacted strongly against them.
- Concerns Over Liberalism: As biblical scholarship grew more diverse, with liberal approaches gaining traction, KJV Onlyists feared these trends would lead to a dilution or distortion of Scripture’s purity.
- Defending Scripture’s Authority: KJV Onlyism is, at its core, a reactionary movement. It seeks to defend the Bible’s authority from perceived modern critiques but does so by elevating one translation to an undue status.
- Misunderstandings of Textual Criticism: Many KJV Onlyists misunderstand how textual criticism works and how biblical manuscripts have been transmitted over time.
The Harmful Impact of KJV Onlyism
Unfortunately, KJV Onlyism has only led to confusion and division within the church. Proponents say modern translations are part of a conspiracy to corrupt the Bible. These faulty claims have misled many sincere believers. They have also caused discord among Christians. It’s important to know the flaws in King James Onlyism. It’s historically inaccurate and can be spiritually harmful. It can lead to:
- A twisted view of God’s Word and its history
- Needless walls between believers using different translations
- Trouble sharing faith, especially with young people
- An anti-intellectual stance that rejects legitimate biblical scholarship
The KJV is a monumental work in Christianity. But, the claim that it is the only accurate translation needs historical and textual scrutiny.
Historical Context: The Origins of the King James Bible
To fully grasp the King James Only debate, we must know how the King James Version was created. In 1604, King James I of England commissioned a new English Bible. It aimed to fix issues with existing versions and unite the Church of England. The translation work was done by 47 scholars.
The Translation Process
The translators were among the best scholars of their day. They used the most reliable manuscripts of the time. These included what we now call the Textus Receptus for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. They also consulted earlier English translations such as the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible to create a text that was both accurate and readable. The translation process was thorough, with each scholar’s work being reviewed by others to ensure accuracy and consistency.
But the KJV translators had limits. They only had manuscripts from the early 1600s. They lacked the early texts we’ve found since then. The KJV was not written by prophets or apostles. Skilled Anglican clergymen did the work with their best tools. Like all translations, it came from careful human effort, not divine inspiration.
The translators knew this. In their preface, they wrote:
“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.”
This candid admission contrasts sharply with modern KJV Onlyism, which often portrays the KJV as a perfect, divinely ordained translation. The translators themselves understood that their work was an improvement on earlier translations, not the creation of an infallible text.
Key Review Points: The Creation of the King James Version
The King James Version of the Bible has a rich and complex history:
- Commission: King James I of England ordered a new English Bible translation in 1604.
- Purpose: The KJV aimed to fix errors in earlier translations. It sought to provide a single English Bible for the Church of England.
- Publication: The KJV was first published in 1611.
- Literary Impact: Its majestic language made it important in both religion and literature.
Understanding Textual Criticism: Recovering the Original Text
KJV Onlyists often mischaracterize textual criticism. They see it as an attack on the Bible. They often use this term pejoratively. They think textual critics are undermining the authority of God’s Word. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.
What is Textual Criticism?
Textual criticism examines Bible manuscripts to find the most accurate original text. It is the process of carefully analyzing the available manuscript evidence with the goal of determining, as closely as possible, the original wording of the biblical text.
Here’s why textual criticism is necessary and valuable:
We don’t have the originals: We don’t have the first writings (called “autographs”) of the Bible authors. We have copies of copies, handwritten over centuries.
Variants exist: As these texts were copied by hand, minor variations naturally occurred. Most are inconsequential (spelling differences, word order changes).
Abundance of evidence: We have thousands of manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament, far more than any other ancient text. This abundance of evidence allows for thorough comparison and analysis.
How Textual Criticism Works
Textual critics use established principles to weigh the evidence and decide which readings are likely original.
These principles include:
- Age of Manuscripts: Older ones are usually more reliable, being closer to the original.
- Geographical Distribution: Readings from manuscripts of various regions are preferred over those from a single area.
- Assessing Manuscript Quality: Some manuscripts were more carefully copied. They are considered more trustworthy.
- Analyzing Scribal Changes: Critics decide if a variant is an accidental error or a deliberate change.
- Examining the Context: The reading that fits the author’s style and the passage context is preferred.
This is a rigorous, objective process. Textual criticism is not a modern invention. Its principles have been used by Bible scholars for centuries. Even the KJV translators engaged in a form of textual criticism. They evaluated variant readings and decided which to follow. The difference is that modern textual criticism has a larger pool of manuscripts. It includes many early and reliable witnesses not available in the 17th century.
The truth is, textual criticism strengthens our confidence in the Bible’s authenticity. Rather than undermining Scripture, it allows us to recover the original inspired text more accurately. Does that not bolster our assurance that what we hold today is faithful to what was written? Indeed, textual criticism serves to affirm, not question, the authority of the Bible.
The Reality of Manuscript Transmission
KJV Onlyists often use fear about manuscript differences to attack modern translations. This fear is due to a misunderstanding of how manuscripts are transmitted and the role of textual criticism.
Understanding Variants
What exactly is a variant? Simply put, a variant is any difference between two copies of the same biblical passage. The word “variant” may sound alarming, but consider the nature of these differences:
- One manuscript may read “Jesus Christ” while another reads “Christ Jesus.” Does this alter the message?
- A difference in spelling—like “colour” versus “color.”
- A word appearing in one manuscript but being absent in another.
Are these differences a cause for panic? Hardly. These variants are natural and to be expected when dealing with hand-copied texts that span centuries. Crucially, they do not alter the core message of Scripture.
Variance vs. Error
It’s crucial to differentiate between variance and error:
- Variances are differences in wording, phrasing, or order. They do not change the text’s meaning.
- Errors are mistakes from copying, like misspellings or missing words. They can sometimes affect interpretation.
Variances are natural. They are a result of centuries of hand-copying the Bible. It’s not evidence of corruption but of the text’s rich history of transmission.
The Nature of Biblical Variants
Here are some key facts about biblical variants:
- Most are minor: The vast majority of textual variants are minor. They do not affect core Christian doctrine.
- Early detection: Many variants were noted by early Christian writers. This shows the church was aware of, and attentive to, textual differences.
- No doctrinal impact: No essential Christian doctrine rests on a disputed text. The core teachings of Christianity are abundantly clear from undisputed passages.
- Consistency across traditions: Different manuscript traditions share more similarities than differences. This shows Scripture was faithfully transmitted.
- Translations’ transparency: Many translations include footnotes on key text variants. They let readers see where the differences are.
These differences in manuscripts are neither unexpected nor nefarious. They are an integral part of understanding how God’s Word has reached us through human history—faithfully preserved, even if not perfectly copied by human hands. Are variants a reason to fear modern translations? No, they are evidence of a faithful God who took great care in passing down the words of Scripture.
Understanding Manuscript Families: Alexandrian vs. Byzantine Manuscripts
Biblical manuscripts are grouped into families based on shared traits and origins. The two main groups we need to know are:
- Alexandrian Text:
- Known for being short and precise
- Used for most modern translations, like the NIV, ESV, and CSB
- Byzantine Text:
- Also called the Majority Text
- Has many copies, especially in Eastern Orthodox churches
- Includes fuller readings: longer passages or additional phrases compared to the Alexandrian texts
- Forms the basis of the Textus Receptus, the text that was used for the King James Version (KJV).
The Alexandrian text-type has some of the oldest surviving manuscripts. It is often deemed the most reliable for its brevity and precision. By contrast, the Byzantine text-type—while historically important—emerges from a later period and contains more variations due to repeated copying.
The KJV relies heavily on the Byzantine text-type, which is represented in the majority of later medieval manuscripts. But does having more copies necessarily mean having better copies? Textual scholars overwhelmingly agree that, while there are fewer early Alexandrian manuscripts, they are ultimately more reliable. Why? Because they are older and closer to the original texts of Scripture.
The Logic of Prioritizing Older Manuscripts: Why Older Manuscripts Matter
KJV Onlyists claim the KJV is based on a “pure, providentially preserved text.” They say modern translations rely on flawed manuscripts, the Alexandrian texts. However, this claim is not consistent with sound textual criticism. Here’s why:
- Age Matters: If you have two text copies, one from the 2nd century AD and another from the 10th century AD, the older one is more likely to reflect the original writing. It’s closer in time to when the original was written.
- Accumulation of Changes: Over time, as manuscripts are copied and recopied, small changes can add up. This means that later manuscripts, like those in the Byzantine family, have had more time to accumulate variants.
- Fewer Intermediaries: Older manuscripts went through fewer copying steps. This means less chance for errors or changes.
A key principle of textual criticism then is to favor older texts. Older manuscripts are closer in time to the originals. They have been copied fewer times, so they are less likely to have errors.
Does this mean all modern translations rely solely on the Alexandrian tradition? Not quite—but we’ll get to that. Neverthless, the preference for Alexandrian texts in modern translations isn’t arbitrary—it’s grounded in careful scholarship and a commitment to accuracy. At the same time, that doesn’t mean the Byzantine tradition is without value. Understanding these textual families helps us appreciate the rich history behind the Bible translations we use today.
The Alexandrian Text: Early, Reliable, and Misunderstood
The Alexandrian manuscripts are among the oldest texts of the New Testament. They date back to the early centuries of Christianity. Yet KJV Onlyists often criticize these texts, but here’s why they’re wrong:
- Early Dating: A key, often overlooked point is the closeness of the Alexandrian manuscripts to the original New Testament writings. Many of these texts originate from the 2nd to 4th centuries—placing them much closer in time to the original compositions than the much later Byzantine manuscripts, which were copied during the medieval period. Does it make sense to rely more heavily on documents created centuries later rather than those that bring us closer to the source? The answer, quite plainly, is no.
- Fewer Changes: A major strength of the Alexandrian tradition is the comparative lack of textual variants. By being closer to the initial composition, these manuscripts avoided the many variations that accumulated over centuries of copying.
- Not “Missing” Content: Critics of the Alexandrian text often claim that it is shorter than the Byzantine text, implying that it has been stripped of vital material. But ask yourself—is it more plausible that scribes, centuries removed from the apostles, were adding or omitting content? The reality is that Alexandrian texts often preserve a more succinct version because they have not been subjected to later expansions added by well-meaning scribes. The so-called “missing” content in Alexandrian manuscripts often reflects the absence of variations that crept into the Byzantine tradition over time.
Omissions vs. Additions: Setting the Record Straight
Think about those times when the King James Version has longer readings not in modern translations. Are these modern versions deficient? Or, do later additions appear in the KJV instead of the original scripture? The evidence suggests the latter. The textual expansions found in the Byzantine manuscripts were frequently the product of scribes aiming to clarify or elaborate on passages—motivations we can understand but must not confuse with the intent of the original authors.
How Older Manuscripts Help
Modern translations benefit from the Alexandrian manuscripts in several ways:
- More Manuscripts: Modern translations use the Alexandrian manuscripts and many others. They benefit from rigorous, broad-based textual scholarship. By using a wider array of sources, they reduce reliance on a single manuscript tradition. This reflects the breadth of available evidence.
- Better Understanding: Centuries of scholarly work have sharpened our understanding of ancient languages, cultures, and scribal practices, allowing for more accurate translations.
- More Transparency: Many modern translations use footnotes to show important textual differences. This lets readers see where manuscript traditions differ.
Debunking the Heretical Corruption Claims
KJV Onlyists often say heretics corrupted Alexandrian texts. But history doesn’t back this up. In fact, the Alexandrian church firmly defended biblical truth.
The Alexandrian Myth
- Origen and His Interpretations: Origen, an early Christian scholar from Alexandria, is often blamed for corruption. Origen’s allegorical methods differ from today’s hemenutics. But, there is no solid evidence that he or his followers altered the biblical texts. The idea that one theological view could corrupt entire manuscript traditions oversimplifies the complex history of biblical transmission.
- Alexandria’s Orthodox Faith: Far from being a source of heresy, Alexandria was home to strong defenders of orthodox Christianity. Athanasius, a bishop from Alexandria, opposed Arianism, a major heresy in the 4th century, and defended biblical truth. The notion that Alexandria uniquely produced corrupted Bibles is a myth without historical support.
Heresy Wasn’t Just in One Place
The claim that Alexandria was a unique source of heresy ignores history.
- Heresy Was Widespread: Heresies emerged in various regions. For example, Arius, a notorious heretic of the fourth century, was from Antioch, not Alexandria.
- The Church Fought Heresy: The early church fought heresy with councils and debates. The Council of Nicaea, led by Athanasius of Alexandria, sought to preserve orthodoxy and the Scriptures.
- No Proof of Systematic Corruption: Heretics like Arius posed doctrinal challenges. But, there’s no proof they caused widespread text corruption. Manuscript evidence shows consistency across regions. So, no group changed the biblical text to fit their beliefs.
Key Points on King James Onlyism
As we finish the first part of our study on King James Onlyism, let’s review the key points:
- King James Onlyism is a modern belief. It holds the KJV of the Bible above all other English translations.
- The King James Bible is important in history. It was made using the best tools of its time.
- Textual criticism is a scholarly method to find the most accurate original text. It is not meant to attack Scripture.
- The process of copying manuscripts is complex. Variations in texts do not weaken the integrity of Scripture.
- Older manuscripts, especially those from the Alexandrian tradition, are more reliable. They are closer to the original texts.
We must know these basics as we explore King James Onlyism. They help us evaluate the claims of KJV Only advocates. They also help us to appreciate both the KJV and modern translations.
In the next part, we will examine the King James Version more closely. We will look at its text, the translation process, and how it compares to modern translations. We will address common objections from KJV-only advocates. We will also explore how to value God’s Word in various translations.
We do not aim to diminish the King James Version. It is important in the history of the English Bible. We aim to promote a balanced, informed view of Bible translation. This can unite believers and deepen our engagement with Scripture.
Join 700+ believers receiving free, weekly Biblical content that will equip you with a deeper understanding of God’s Word.
Subscribe now and receive:
- Thorough Scripture examination
- Practical applications for Christian living
- Immediate access to new articles
Click the link below, enter your email, and start receiving these enriching articles straight to your inbox!
Discover more about church health with A Preach Well Church
For those looking to improve their church’s health and support their pastoral staff, check out my book “A Preach Well Church: How Churches Can Stop Burning Out Pastors.”
Learn more about A Preach Well Church