A special brand of Fundamentalism called King James Onlyism is a particularly odd variety of faith simply because of its required backing and filling.In brief, this particular evangelical position claims that the only inspired translation of the Bible is the King James Version.It’s best not to look too closely at the KJV, however, or the problems start.Primary among them is that the version most Onlyists cite is not the original King James.Published in 1611, this translation is immediately evident by its use of “I” for “J” and for the long s (the one that looks like an f).Perhaps more troubling for Onlyists, it also includes the Apocrypha.There was still some debate at the time concerning the status of these deuterocanonical books, and they were part of the actual KJV.
The typical King James used by Onlyists is a revised KJV.In England, where the translation was done, revisions were made from time to time, leading to an Oxford version (Blayney text of 1769) and a Cambridge version (Scrivener text of 1873).On these shores further adjustments were made leading to the rather strange situation where there is no single King James Version of the Bible.There are many King James Versions.Attempts to control Scripture often end up like that.The underlying problem is the belief that there is a single version of Holy Writ.Inerrantists are pledging their faith to something that doesn’t exist.Defending this approach many would claim that the revisions are minor, but small changes can make huge differences.
The belief in one single version relies on the belief that God inspired not only the original writers, but the translators as well.It denies that the better manuscripts that have come to light since the early seventeenth century (including the Dead Sea Scrolls) contain any authentic information of what the Good Book says.Textual criticism, in the absence of any original manuscripts, is the best way we have of discovering what the original likely said.Onlyists argue that the manuscripts from which King James’ translators worked were the divinely selected ones and their work was inspired—a position against which no empirical proof can be offered.This faith trades in certainties that only bringing in direct heavenly control can achieve.And it means that Catholics are wrong, despite King James’ inspired error to include the Apocrypha.That’s the thing about a trump card like inspiration—once it’s played there’s no way to overcome it.
Nothing is as simple as it seems. Not that the Bible ever claims simplicity for itself. Among those who make up their minds before seeing all the evidence, there’s a strong preference for the “King James Version” of the Bible. Many with that preference will claim that they don’t interpret the Good Book, they just read it. Reading itself is an act of interpretation and stakes tend to be pretty high when the claim for divine authorship is on the table. So I figured I’d better interpret something about the King James Bible myself. Gordon Campbell’s Bible: The Story of the King James Version is an informative, authoritative, and often witty treatment of the topic. One of the immediate takeaways is that there is no single KJV.
Beginning in the beginning, Gordon tells the story of the Bible in English. There were translations before the King James, and its translation companies used these previous efforts and sometimes borrowed extensively from them. In other words, there’s nothing new under the sun. Once the King James was done in 1611 it had to be printed, and printing, being what it is, led to errors. Although these were of the secular, human kind, they nevertheless appear from the beginning and new typesettings led to corrections and other errors, some perhaps intentional. Then came the revisions. What readers buy—and some claim is an inspired translation—as the KJV is a revision of a revision. Of a revision. In other words, the inspiration seems to lie with the redactors rather than the translators themselves. There are many different “official” King James versions. Translations are never static.
King James Onlyists (a modern movement) may not realize that the New Revised Standard Version is the modern descendant of the King James. The Revised Version (RV), followed by the Revised Standard Version (RSV), and its more recent, feared progeny (the NRSV) are all based on the King James translation. That is the version “Revised” in each of these efforts. They consult improved versions of ancient texts that have been discovered since the Jacobean era, but where they earn the ire of conservatives is in the updating of the modern language. A Bible with no thees or thous hardly seems sacred at all. The line of continuity is there, however. Other Bible translations “start over” but still consult the KJV, such is its stature. The real problem comes in supposing that any one translation is the original. No original Hebrew or Greek biblical manuscripts survive, and no original King James Version exists. How uncomfortable these facts are, everyone will have to interpret for her or himself.