Some opponents of “King James Onlyism” – such as Gary Hudson and Doug Kutilek – tell a sort of Wilkinson-Origin-Only (WOO) story of its historical origin. Yet, historical examples demonstrate types of “King James Onlyism” before Benjamin Wilkinson’s birth, much less his writing a book. For example, when the Barren River Association of Baptists organized in 1830, they included as their first Article of Faith: “We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God, and is the only rule of faith and practice.”
Ascribing the origin of “King James Onlyism” to Benjamin Wilkinson assumes (1) that bodies such as the Barren River Association had neither heirs nor influence, and (2) that individual Christians and gathered congregations cannot on their own, without the documents and directions of others, come to believe that the Bible they hold in their hands is the inspired word of God. Neither assumption is correct.
The facts exhibit “multiple origins” for “King James Onlyism” – that is, the variety of beliefs that might be considered “King James Onlyism” cannot be traced to one source. Since the 1611 publication of the new translation authorized by King James, the belief that it alone is the word of God has traveled down various tracks through history. Initially, my idea is to use a diagram chart to try to illustrate relationships. The chart below is an initial attempt. What you see is a couple of times on the left (Tennessee & Kentucky Baptist Associations) where a King James Only view was asserted in response to local issues. Further to the right you see the wider and more inclusive support of the King James translation triggered in reaction to the English and American Revised Versions. What that tries to illustrate is both independent and interconnected responses. (For example, as far as I know, the views of Aberhart, Mauro, and Wilkinson rose independently of one another, but all show they are familiar with Burgon.)
This is limited by size (lot of history left out), my inability to manipulate Excel to make it look like I want, and some other factors. I am afraid the point is not obvious and needs too much explaining. Perhaps others have ways and means to improve the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment