Back in March, on a Facebook public group called “KJV Onlyism Discussion Unbiased,” someone reposted a rant by Anglican Apologist and KJVO opponent Stephen Boyce.[i]
“I’m convinced that if the King James translators were alive today, translating the same exact translation we have now, many in the King James Only movement would reject their translation as a translation made by heretics because its authorization came from a monarchy, its translators believed in baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, real presence in the Eucharist, high church practices (such as bowing to a cross, priests in vestments, crossing themselves, scripted prayers, liturgy, etc..) and submitted to Bishops as leaders of the church.”
“The beauty and majesty of this 400 year translation doesn’t belong to a small group of Baptists who claim it for their own, not realizing that their separatists forefathers utterly despised the translation because it was too high church and maintained much of the terminology that the Church of England held to in their high church practices and liturgy. Enough is enough with all this insanity.”
The first paragraph is worth little beyond Boyce stating his personal opinion. It matters not what he is convinced of in an imaginary scenario. Someone else can imagine their opposing opinion, and neither can prove their point – and both will be equally satisfied they are right. Draw. Deadlock.
The second paragraph is a bare assertion that he does not undertake to prove. There is a bit of “insanity” in repeating “urban myths” about early separatists “utterly despising” the King James Bible.[ii] Can he demonstrate it? I can show some who used it rather than despising it. For example, in Ill Newes from New England, John Clarke quotes from the King James Bible.[iii] The same can be found in John Bunyan’s writings (though many falsely claim he only used the Geneva Bible).[iv] The first quotes in the 1644/1646 London Baptist Confession better match the KJV than the Geneva. Maybe someone can find some Baptists who utterly despised this translation, but the ones I have checked so far did not. Which Baptists utterly despised it? Don’t just assert – give us the goods.
In a response to me, Stephen stated, “I never said baptists rejected it. I said separatists (though they developed into baptists over time).” Of course, he did invoke the Baptists, and while all separatists are not Baptists, Baptists are separatists.[v] Then he could not definitely supply any names or faces of separatists who “utterly rejected” the King James Bible. The only person I know who I would say rose to the level of “utterly despising” the new translation was Hugh Broughton (he was cantankerous, fractious, and prickly; a Puritan of sorts, who was all over the page, but not a Separatist).[vi] (Boyce did not mention him.) John Bunyan was more of a separatist than a full-fledged Baptist (and he used the KJB). Boyce mentioned the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. There are two Bibles in the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth, a Geneva Bible that belonged to William Bradford, and a King James Bible that belonged to John Alden.[vii] (Using a Geneva Bible and “utterly despising” the KJV are not the same thing, neither necessarily even two sides of the same coin.)
Others mentioned to me were Oliver Cromwell and relational Calvinists (whatever that means).[viii] Cromwell and his supporters did not despise the KJV to the extent that they completely excluded it from the “Souldier’s Pocket Bible” (as has been purported).[ix] Hamlin and Jones in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years claimed that Cromwell came to favor it and “Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB” (p. 8; a book from Cambridge Press, not Peter Ruckman!). And, Cromwell and company were Puritans reforming the Church of England, not Separatists. Those in Geneva and other relational Calvinists surely were not Separatists in the sense of his initial claim. Is the Dutch Reformed Church included as relational Calvinists? They received delegates from the Church of England at the Synod of Dort, 1618, and had them make a report on the new Bible translation![x]
Stephen also told me that “Just because someone quotes the KJV doesn’t mean it was preferred.” Surely. However, when they quote the KJV it doesn’t mean it is despised. Even if they preferred the Geneva Bible, or when they don’t quote the KJV, it doesn’t mean it is despised! I do not fail to believe that some people despised King James Bible. I do not suppose there were none who despised it. However, to assert a claim requires demonstrating the claim. Stephen Boyce failed to give good historical evidence of specific separatists who “utterly despised” the King James Bible. Generic historical claims are unhelpful.[xi] They become Christian urban myths that keep getting repeated as fact, without supplying evidence.
Additionally, in this second paragraph Boyce refers to “a small group of Baptists who claim it for their own.” Here he means “King James Only” Baptists. This is contrary to the facts. “King James Only” Baptists do not ”claim it for their own” to the exclusion of others. Most (if probably not all) of these types of Baptists think that all English-speaking Christians should use the AV (King James Bible).[xii]
A quick look at the 1644/1646 London Baptist Confession (compiled by persecuted separatist folks falsely called Anabaptists)
LBC: But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie so worship I the God of my Fathers, beleeving all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets, and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead both of the just and unjust. - Acts xxiv. 14, 15.
- AKJV: 14 But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
- GNV: 14 But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way (which they call heresie) so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets, 15 And have hope towards God, that the resurrection of the dead, which they themselves looke for also, shallbe both of just and unjust.
LBC: For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard. - Acts iv. 20
- AKJV: For wee cannot but speake the things which we have seene and heard.
- GNV: For we cannot but speake the things which we have seene and heard.
LBC: If I have spoken evill, bear witnesse of the evill; but if well, why smitest thou me? - John xviii. 23.
- AKJV: 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evill, bear witnesse of the evill: but if well, why smitest thou me?
- GNV: 23 Jesus answered him, If I have evill spoken, bear witnesse of the evill: but if I have well spoken, why smitest thou me?
LBC: Blessed are yee when men revile you, and say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake. Rejoice, etc. - Matth. v.11, 12. & xix. 29.
- AKJV: 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shal say all manner of evill against you falsly for my sake. 12 Rejoyce...
- GNV: 11 Blessed shall ye be when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evill against you for my sake, falsly. 12 Rejoyce...
The “Bible Versions Debate” will not be settled by history. It should not be settled by history. However, we should be careful in our use of history in the debate. Let it be accurate and straightforward. Some people did not like the new Bible. Some people did. Let those who did and did not be placed accurately.
[ii] It is mind-numbing and mind-boggling how easily these “Christian urban myths” slip out, and how broadly they have been accepted – without evidence – even by (maybe especially by) scholars and institutions of higher education.
[iii] John Clarke’s Bible.
[iv] John Bunyan – Geneva Bible Only?
[v] Excluding the modern ecumenical type, of course, but that is not what Boyce was talking about.
[vi] Who is the mean guy denouncing my Bible translation?
[vii] Bibles at the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth.
[viii] I did not find anything about “relational Calvinists” via internet search. Google’s AI generated this answer (which just means Calvinists): “Relational Calvinists are people who believe that God has selected a limited number of souls for salvation at the beginning of time, and that nothing a person can do during their life can change their eternal fate. They also believe that the Bible is the authority and sufficiency for knowing God and one’s duties to God and one’s neighbor.”
[ix] The Cromwell Souldiers Bible.
[xi] John Milton was not “Geneva Bible Only”. Also notice things I have written HERE and HERE.
[xii] Reasons To Use the King James Bible over Other Translations. As far as I can tell, King James Onlyists from the least to the greatest believe that the King James Bible should be everyone’s Bible. Else they probably would not be King James Onlyists.
3 comments:
nice post
a major problem with the first paragraph, which builds the foundation for the second in my opinion, is that it is shoddily constructed on presentism. in the days that the King James Bible was translated their were not a lot of alternatives like there are today - i mean how many flavors of Baptists do we have today? and other denominations - you cannot even begin to accurately assume what someone over 400 years ago would despise from a translation. As well, this is also pre-plethora-critical GNT era and the tainted staining scar left there.
The arguments happening in KJVO groups that blocked Boyce are not arguing over the points he attempts to drive to the surface, it is the filthy dregs of the modern post enlightenment thinking - the base texts of attempts to displace "The beauty and majesty of this 400 year translation".
FYI - i meant the first paragraph or Boyce's rant. apologies.
No problem; that’s the way I understood your comment. Good thoughts on presentism, too.
While there may be at times reasons to perform a “if X were alive today” thought exercise, most of the time such scenarios are just polemic pablum. Whoever, if they were alive today, would be on my side, not your side. (Unless it is someone vile & disrespected. So I know, “If Hitler were alive today, he would agree with modern text critics.”) The scenarios I invent and imagine will always turn out in my favor, not yours! Funny how that works.
Ultimately, everybody in the past lived and thought in their own unique influences and circumstances of their time – and they cannot be very accurately represented outside of that time.
Post a Comment