Is “King James Only” pejorative?

On Facebook’s Textus Receptus Academy, two “contestants” discussed and debated whether “King James Only” is pejorative terminology. I thought I would investigate that a bit further here on my blog. I don’t think it is so simple that it “always is” or “always isn’t” pejorative. Context.

First, pejorative means having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force. Does “King James Only” have a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force? Yes. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t. It is not like “racist.” I have a hard time thinking that is not usually or always used pejoratively. “King James” in itself is not inherently derogatory, neither is “Only.” Sometimes you wind up in the subjective weeds of how was it meant, or how was it taken.

Here is a quote from Trevin Wax, in “The King James Only Controversy,” at The Gospel Coalition: “The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda...Like with anyone who expounds a conspiracy theory, it is usually fruitless to try to reason with the KJV Only crowd.” Does he mean it pejoratively? Sounds like it. Will folks take it pejoratively? Yes, I think so.

And Luke Wayne in “What is King James Onlyism,” at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) writes: “‘King James Onlyism’ refers to any ideology that demands that all Christians (or at least all English-speaking Christians) must use the King James Version of the Bible exclusively.” As for belittling, Wayne labels this post in the “Minor Groups & Issues” category. The critical text guys certainly spend a lot of time on a “minor group”!

An interesting part of the history of “King James Only” terminology are the varying takes on how it originated, and with whom. Some supporters of the King James Bible assert that opponents originated the term. Lloyd L. Streeter says that the term arose “as a term of derision.”  David Cloud writes, “The term ‘King James Only’ was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.”  Phil Stringer states, “Actually, I don’t like the term ‘King James Only.’ It is a name given to us by our critics.”

The late Robert L. Sumner, editor of The Biblical Evangelist, makes a claim on originating the term (which would have been circa 1979). “Some time ago a couple of the brethren set out to determine who invented the term ‘King James Only’ and eventually came to the conclusion that this editor did. I told them then that they could claim the credit for themselves or give it to someone else, and that is the last I heard. But now that push has come to shove, I’d better acknowledge it. And I do so now only to say that no one knows better than I what I meant by the term.”

On the other hand, King James supporter Herb Evans claims he invented it: “As far as I know, I was the first one ever to use the term King James Only in a positive way, so I can repudiate those who have picked up on it and used it in a negative way, as well as those, like David Cloud, who use the term in a limited and safeguarded capacity to play it safe.” It appears Evans insists that he used it in a positive way before others used it in a negative way. However, I do not know what time frame he insists this happened.

The first uses of the term could shed some light on the evolution of the term into what it stands for today. I found some newspapers have fundamentalist churches advertising in words such as, “we preach the King James Bible only” in the 1960s and 70s. As early as 1958, the Chester Baptist Temple of Chester, Pennsylvania and founder & pastor Merle F. Winters publicized the King James Version of the Holy Bible as “our only textbook.” Those kinds of ads are pretty close to originating the term “King James Only.”

In common use, “King James Only” might be either descriptive or derogatory terminology. It is not inherently derogatory, but certainly can be so. Some supporters of the King James Bible translation proudly wear “King James Only” as a badge of honor, while others decry its attachment to their bibliology. Some detractors of the King James Bible translation throw it around as the final arbiter proving the “lunacy” of embracing such a position, while others seem to use it to label what they think are the sincere beliefs of those they describe. “King James Only” can be either a descriptive or a derogatory term, and I do not think we will every solve that problem.