It’s the “Onlyists” that I’m talking about. I can see why some would prefer the KJV over other translations, but to say that it is the only valid English translation just seems ridiculous to me. I, and several others, have tried to tell these people that if they want a perfect translation, that they should go back to the original Hebrew and Greek. However, they just come back claiming that there are no original Greek and Hebrew sources, and that the “original Greek and Hebrew” is not original, because they claim that it was corrupted by the church of Rome. If that’s the case, then how can the KJV be valid, since it was mostly translated from the same manuscripts as the Vulgate? Their reasoning sounds very circular to me.
Strict “Onlyists” are rare but those who are around are voluble. I doubt they insist that there are no Hebrew or Greek sources to draw from–they probably are saying that the
original manuscripts are lost. That is, the manuscripts actually written by the hand of the apostles or prophets.
Most “Onlyists” trust only the sources known to have been used by the translators of the KJV, as I noted earlier. Usually they mistrust appeals to the “original Greek” or “original Hebrew” partly because they don’t know which sources are being cited; and, equally, because neither they nor you probably understand the original sources well enough to apprehend whatever nuances the original word or phrase contained.
They are extremely suspicious of translations based in whole or in part on sources such as the
Hort-Wescott or
Nestle/Aland texts. They often point to the fruits of the ‘new versions’–the Revised Version and the RSV became the standard translations of mainstream Protestant denominations and none of those denominations has remained true to their own denominational traditions in the last fifty years.
The ‘Onlyists’ concede that the KJV is not a ‘sufficient’ prerequisite for orthodox theology–the Christian Scientists and the Mormons use the KJV almost exclusively for example–but they consider it a ‘necessary’ prerequisite for any Protestant denomination to stay within the pale of orthodox teaching. It should be noted that KJV-Onlyists insist that the Bible is the absolute, exclusive authority for Christians, so the fact that Mormons, Christian Scientists, and most similar deviant sects have some authority outside of Scripture points to why they are so heterodox.
Accepting authority outside of Scripture, to the Onlyists, is the Original Sin of Roman Catholicism and is the way all heresies get their beginning. The ‘new translations’ are participating in that same error because instead of accepting the “Received Text” of the millenia, they substitute a revised text built up of the authority of scholars.
The ‘Onlyists’ ARE aware, for the most part, that the original KJV contained the
Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals), btw. They argue that it became a true force for God AFTER the
Apocrypha were expunged–an example of how mingling Scripture with what Protestants insist is NOT Scripture can cause God to withhold His blessings from a work. They also acknowledge that the KJV experienced revisions–mostly, they would say, to bring the KJV up to modern conventions in spelling, nothing substantive or significant. (My father-in-law, a retired Baptist minister, is an ardent KJV-Onlyist–to be precise, he calls himself a ‘Textus Receptus Man’. The T-R is the actual manuscript basis behind the KJV).
My father-in-law would not object to a new, ultra-conservative translation based exclusively on the Byzantine text/Textus Receptus. He doubts it will ever be accomplished. The one serious attempt at such was the New King James Version, which is laden down with footnotes referencing modern redactions of the Greek text, and which abandoned the use of ‘pious pronouns’ when Deity is addressed. (Many Evangelicals, however, were critical of such usage, which is NOT justified by the original Greek text and which they felt made God seem too remote and distant for modern readers). So, you see that the whole debate is laden with minefields of internal wrangling and disagreements.
There’s a real problem going on here: while
an orthodoxy which is made optional will eventually become prohibited (Neuhaus’ Law of Orthodoxy), yet
an orthodoxy consumed more with itself than with Christ will eventually consume itself. There may not literally be 30,000 Protestant sects as some Catholics like to count them–but there are far far too many debating such issues as whether to wash one foot, both feet, or none; whether to have one cup and one loaf or multiple cups and multiple loaves for holy communion; or whether or not to have instrumental music during worship services.
