Featured Pre-Wilkinson KJVO -1817

It is a common assertion of the KJV Detractors that King James Onlyism originated with 7th-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson in his book Our Authorized Bible: Vindicated in 1930. For example, in “The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism,” Doug Kutilek writes, “Every KJVO advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller and Ruckman…”

Now, I reckon there is an element of truth in that – when we view KJVO as a movement within Fundamentalism. Ray and Fuller definitely show dependence on Wilkinson in their writings, and later fundamentalists show dependence on Ray and Fuller. Nevertheless, as someone who spends a lot of time in dusty Baptist records, I could intuit that acceptance of the King James Version as THE BIBLE had a much longer history among Baptists – even if the idea might not be sophisticated and been little supported by a writing culture. If nothing else, the variety of primitivistic Baptist groups who use only the KJV – who probably never heard of Ray and Fuller, at least before the rise of the internet – should give the historian pause when making too dogmatic of assertions. The somewhat isolated Christian Unity Baptist Association adopted the sentence “We believe in using only the King James version of the Bible” at their organizational session in September 27-28, 1935 – before any writing by Edward F. Hills or J. J. Ray. And if I were a betting man, I’d be willing to bet they never heard of Benjamin Wilkins or Our Authorized Bible (but I have been wrong before. Once).

In The Menace of Modernism William Bell Riley briefly referenced an “old” view of belief that the King James Bible was inerrant, even though he figured “that such fogies in Biblical knowledge are few, and their funerals are nigh at hand.” Lo and behold, I found some of the “old fogies” 100 years before Riley wrote his book – 1817!!

In the history of the Original Tennessee Association of Primitive Baptists recorded at the New Providence Primitive Baptist Church website it is recorded that at the 1817 meeting the Tennessee Association of Baptists this body “established the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible as its standard.” The minutes reveal how it happened. [From pages 2 and 3 of the minutes of the Tennessee Association of Baptists (org. 1802), when meeting at Hickory Creek Meeting House, Knox County, Tennessee, October 4ff, 1817. Those who wish to see for themselves may download it from HERE.]

Troubled by the assertions of “a Mr. John Hutchison, a Methodist circuit rider…that a translation by Mr. John Wesley had been received by the Baptists as sacred more than twenty years ago,” the association answered, “from the best authority we have received from England, Wales, Germany, and the United States, such a thing has never come to our knowledge, but we are certainly informed that the Old and New Testament translated by order of King James the 1st, has been always the standard for the Baptists.” Another query followed as to how the churches should “behave ourselves towards preachers, and people that have altered the New Testament and those that adhere and propagate the same?”

“Answer: We believe that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them; and for the authority of our belief we refer to the following scriptures, viz: Deuteronomy 4th Chapter and 2 verse, Chapter 12 and 32 Chapter 28 and verse 14, Joshua 1 and 7, Proverbs 30 and 6, Rev. 22 and 18, 19, 2 John 10 verse.”

One may object to the accuracy of their history or their reasoning, but it is hard not to see that this body of Baptists adhered to the King James only 113 years before Benjamin Wilkinson wrote any book, and 55 years before he was even born. They went so far as “to mark such and have no fellowship with them.”

 

Not Baptist history (Talmage was Presbyterian, I think) but sort of related to the OP:
Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths: DeWitt Talmage and King James-Onlyism

 

I understand what you are saying, when we look at modern KJV-Onlyism as a movement within fundamentalism -- especially independent fundamentalist Baptists. But even then -- despite Ray apparently finding a writing from a Seventh-Day Adventist that must have said what he wanted to say -- the real point of origin of KJVO as a modern movement should probably be understood as fueled by the RSV and reaction against it.

If we define KJVO in the way you do above, we clearly have problems finding its antecedents before 1952 and/or 1930. But that is a very narrow way of looking at it. A preacher in an Old Regular or Primitive Baptist in the Appalachias who believes his King James is a perfectly inspired and inerrant Bible -- and has never heard of Peter Ruckman, David Otis Fuller or D. A. Waite -- is no less legitimately KJVO for that "defect" even if a very different kind of KJVO.

 

Your objections raise several questions. Should all those who accept the King James Bible as inspired be under the umbrella of King James Onlyism, or should there be a category distinction of those who favor King James on “traditional grounds”? And what are traditional grounds – just that they don’t know anything different, have always used the KJV, etc.? Surely T. DeWitt Talmage knew something more than “tradition” re his use and promotion of the King James Bible. (But I suspect that if I can find more detail on Talmage, his view will look much more “Hill-ish” than “Ruckmanite”.) Does the challenge to other translations have to be “intellectual” to be KJVO? Is a “KJVO” reaction to specific circumstances (e.g., to a Methodist emendation in 1817) insufficient evidence if it occurred prior to the RV or RSV?

It seems that the categories of those deign create them (e.g. HERE and HERE) would be hard put to exclude “traditional” KJV-Onlyists (a rough combination of categories 1 & 4, possibly?). I believe I read in your objection a desire to not paint the traditional supporters of the KJV with any brush tainted with Ruckmanite paint. Would that be a fair assessment? In that I can agree. But ultimately it seems to me that anyone who is KJVO, whether traditional or modern, eventually gets painted by a “Kutilek brush” tainted with Wilkinson paint. “From Wilkinson in the first generation, through Ray in the second, and Fuller and Ruckman in the third, the entire KJV-Only movement has arisen, and every present-day KJV-Onlyite is, in varying ways, a direct spiritual descendant of these ill-informed men.” (You or I may be able to read that as a “modern” movement, but I am not sure most will.) And that is particularly what I am objecting to, from the historical standpoint.

The Christian Unity Baptist Association was formed in 1935 in Ashe County, North Carolina. I suspect they fit into the “traditional” KJVO-type. Historically tied to the Regular Baptists of the region, the Christian Unity Baptist Association varied from its predecessors, becoming a somewhat primitivistic Arminian body. They continued the rite of feet washing, taught falling from grace, allowed women ministers, and practiced open communion. The Articles of Faith that include the King James Bible were adopted at their first meeting in 1935 (according to this web site). It would be interesting to know the reason for this inclusion by this association in 1935, but I suspect they were quite unaware of a book about the King James Bible by any Seventh-Day Adventist (but stranger things have happened).
“2. We believe the Bible, the Old and New Testaments, is the scriptural word of God given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. John 5:39, Rom. 16:25-26, II Tim. 3:15-17, Acts 28:23-28, II Pet. 1:20-21. We believe in using only the King James version of the Bible.”

 

That discussion is more properly addressed in the Bible Versions and Translations forum -- and there is plenty of it to be had there. It is immaterial here, the history forum, and this is rather a discussion of whether there were any historical forms of the idea prior to Benjamin Wilkinson.

 

I think there are probably many many Baptists who would fit your description as KJV being the only Bible they grew up on. That does not show -- one way on the other -- how they would react to other versions. Historical evidence could be found that some Baptists who were aware of the Revised Version in the 1880s thought it was good and some did not think so. The particular evidence I presented in the OP is of Baptists who reacted negatively toward another Bible version (of the NT particularly) .

Their (Tennessee Association) statement was that the King James was the standard for the Baptists and "that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them."

 

I see no reason to speculate about that if it is not mentioned, when considering the issue from the historical angle.

 

With the knowledge of the production of and people changing to other Bibles, several of the Appalachian Baptist associations have enshrined the tradition or preference for the King James Version in their articles of faith. Several of the groups on my list that I link below are Baptists in the Appalachian region -- Central, Christian Unity, Old Regular, Primitive, Regular, Separate, United.
Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths: Various KJVO Statements by Baptists

Sardis Old Regular

I think I would describe the background of my church ancestry as both traditional and dogmatic.

 

Whichever one they had in their possession, which is not a question to which I know the answer. They were clearly partisan for whichever one they had. Is that not plain?

 

I will agree, if we stipulate that the "modern KJVOs" only represent a portion of contemporary (modern) Baptists who are KJVO.