A Timeline of the KJVO Movement

[John of Japan]

NOTE: Byzantine/Majority authors and developments will only be mentioned as they relate to the KJV Only movement. Non-English translation efforts will also only be mentioned as they relate to the KJV, or if they represent a previous “Only” movement.

200 BC (more or less, who knows)—The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek version of the Old Testament, is translated ostensibly by 70 Jewish scholars.

1st Century AD—A Septuagint Only movement develops. Later on, famed Christian scholar Augustine (354-430) would be one of the advocates of the idea of a perfect Septuagint, and would complain to Jerome that he should not have translated the OT from the Hebrew. Thus, the first "Onlyist" movement. develops.

 

[John of Japan]

4th Century—Jerome (c. 340-420) translates the entire Bible into Latin from the original languages. This is the Latin Vulgate Bible.

395—Jerome writes his “Letter to Pamachius on the Best Method of Translating,” defending his Bible translation method. He believed in translating the Bible from the original languages, so his method is a precursor of modern evangelical Bible translating.

5th Century on—a “Vulgate Only” movement develops. The Vulgate eventually becomes the authoritative version of the Catholic Church, which then insists that it is more authoritative than the Bible in the original languages. This is thus the second precursor of the KJVO movement. We could say the Catholic religion is still “Vulgate Only” to one degree or another.

 

[John of Japan]

1611—The translation of the KJV is finished. The translators worked from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and did not claim perfection.

1688—Francis Turretin (1623-1687), a reformed theologian, writes his Instsitutio. The second volume is The Doctrine of Scripture to teach the verbal inspiration of the Bible in the original languages, and oppose Vulgate Onlyism. His doctrine comes down to us in the 21st century as verbal-plenary inspiration, as taught by Louis Gaussen, B. B. Warfield, John R. Rice, and other evangelical theologians. This is the standard doctrine of the inspiration of Scriptures until the KJV-Only movement happens along.

1769—The main revision of the KJV takes place. This is the version used by almost all KJVO advocates, even those who advertise “1611 KJV” on their websites and church signs.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thanks, John.

Not that I am wanting to pick a fight with anyone, because I don't like that. But I like to know accurate information.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks, John.

Not that I am wanting to pick a fight with anyone, because I don't like that. But I like to know accurate information.

Happy to provide information. Hopefully, this thread will not result in a fight. It is meant to be historically informative.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Unlike SO... It seems a significant historical element has been skipped over, namely all of the previous English translations and their influence on the KJV. Here is an excerpt of an anonymous commentary on the issue that yet seems worth considering. That is, I'd like your take on it, JoJ.

Work on the KJV began in 1604, when King James I ordered that work on a new translation be undertaken. Fifty-four of the best Bible scholars in England went to work on the project. They used the Masoretic Hebrew text for the Old Testament and an edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament for the New Testament. The English version generally follows editions produced by French scholars Theodore Beza & Robert Étienne (Stephanus) after Erasmus' death. But which edition(s) of Erasmus' work the translators of the KJV used is still not totally clear

In their labors, they were guided by a set of 15 rules. The first of these rules was:

"The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called The Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

The 14th rule was more comprehensive:
"These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Rule—Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdales, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

How much did those earlier English Bibles contribute to the KJV text? It has been claimed that 4% came from Wycliffe, 18% from Tyndale, 13% from Coverdale, 19% from the Geneva Bible, 4% from the Bishops' Bible, and 3% from other earlier versions. Only 39% of the readings in the KJV are unique. Almost 90% of the New Testament of the Authorized Version of 1611 can be found, word-for-word, in the Tyndale version of 1525.

On the King James Bible Versus Other Translations Controversy​

 

[Yeshua1]

Unlike SO... It seems a significant historical element has been skipped over, namely all of the previous English translations and their influence on the KJV. Here is an excerpt of an anonymous commentary on the issue that yet seems worth considering. That is, I'd like your take on it, JoJ.

Work on the KJV began in 1604, when King James I ordered that work on a new translation be undertaken. Fifty-four of the best Bible scholars in England went to work on the project. They used the Masoretic Hebrew text for the Old Testament and an edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament for the New Testament. The English version generally follows editions produced by French scholars Theodore Beza & Robert Étienne (Stephanus) after Erasmus' death. But which edition(s) of Erasmus' work the translators of the KJV used is still not totally clear

In their labors, they were guided by a set of 15 rules. The first of these rules was:

"The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called The Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

The 14th rule was more comprehensive:
"These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Rule—Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdales, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

How much did those earlier English Bibles contribute to the KJV text? It has been claimed that 4% came from Wycliffe, 18% from Tyndale, 13% from Coverdale, 19% from the Geneva Bible, 4% from the Bishops' Bible, and 3% from other earlier versions. Only 39% of the readings in the KJV are unique. Almost 90% of the New Testament of the Authorized Version of 1611 can be found, word-for-word, in the Tyndale version of 1525.

On the King James Bible Versus Other Translations Controversy​

If the Kjv was really inspired though by the Holy Spirit, would it not be 100 % its own unique version off the Original language texts?

 

[Yeshua1]

1611—The translation of the KJV is finished. The translators worked from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and did not claim perfection.

1688—Francis Turretin (1623-1687), a reformed theologian, writes his Instsitutio. The second volume is The Doctrine of Scripture to teach the verbal inspiration of the Bible in the original languages, and oppose Vulgate Onlyism. His doctrine comes down to us in the 21st century as verbal-plenary inspiration, as taught by Louis Gaussen, B. B. Warfield, John R. Rice, and other evangelical theologians. This is the standard doctrine of the inspiration of Scriptures until the KJV-Only movement happens along.

1769—The main revision of the KJV takes place. This is the version used by almost all KJVO advocates, even those who advertise “1611 KJV” on their websites and church signs.

The "standard" and correct view is that inspiration applied only to the Originals, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

Unlike SO... It seems a significant historical element has been skipped over, namely all of the previous English translations and their influence on the KJV. Here is an excerpt of an anonymous commentary on the issue that yet seems worth considering. That is, I'd like your take on it, JoJ.

Work on the KJV began in 1604, when King James I ordered that work on a new translation be undertaken. Fifty-four of the best Bible scholars in England went to work on the project. They used the Masoretic Hebrew text for the Old Testament and an edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament for the New Testament. The English version generally follows editions produced by French scholars Theodore Beza & Robert Étienne (Stephanus) after Erasmus' death. But which edition(s) of Erasmus' work the translators of the KJV used is still not totally clear

In their labors, they were guided by a set of 15 rules. The first of these rules was:

"The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called The Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

The 14th rule was more comprehensive:
"These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Rule—Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdales, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

How much did those earlier English Bibles contribute to the KJV text? It has been claimed that 4% came from Wycliffe, 18% from Tyndale, 13% from Coverdale, 19% from the Geneva Bible, 4% from the Bishops' Bible, and 3% from other earlier versions. Only 39% of the readings in the KJV are unique. Almost 90% of the New Testament of the Authorized Version of 1611 can be found, word-for-word, in the Tyndale version of 1525.

On the King James Bible Versus Other Translations Controversy​

Good post. Thinking it over, I see how this is relevant.

 

[John of Japan]

If the Kjv was really inspired though by the Holy Spirit, would it not be 100 % its own unique version off the Original language texts?

If you don't mind, this is about history, not doctrine per se. Thanks.

 

[John of Japan]

The "standard" and correct view is that inspiration applied only to the Originals, correct?

That is correct. Here are relevant quotes from Turretin, mentioned above, speaking in 1688 of the Catholic "canon" that the Vulgate was authoritative. The idea that the translation can correct the originals is originally a Catholic doctrine.

"Some, like Bellarmine, Serarius, Salmenron, Mariana, and others, hold that it [the Vulgate] does not contrast this version with sources, but only with the other Latin translations in circulation, and they believe that it can be emended and corrected from the sources. Others say that it has been ruled absolutely authentic, so that it cannot be improved and is to be preferred to all other editions, and even the original manuscripts can be corrected from it, as if they were corrupted; such is the teaching of Cano, Valentia, Gordon, Gretserus, Suarez, and others. Anyone who studies the language of the canon will readily understand that the canon inclines toward the latter opinion."
Francis Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture, ed. and trans. by John W. Beardslee III (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 162.

"But the question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it."
Ibid., 113-114.

 

[John of Japan]

1769—The main revision of the KJV takes place. This is the version used by almost all KJVO advocates, even those who advertise “1611 KJV” on their websites and church signs.

1819—Henry John Todd writes Vindication of our Authorized Translation and Translators, contra John Bellamy and James Burges, who had called for a new translation. However, this book can hardly be said to take a KJVO position, though some KJVO advocates claim Todd as their own. The book does not launch a movement.

1831—The Trinitarian Bible Society is formed in England, originally in protest against the liberalism being seen in the British and Foreign Bible Society. Eventually the TBS will be an important defender of the traditional texts of Scripture, though not a KJVO organization per se. They might be called “Textus Receptus (TR) Only.” They become the publishers of the Greek NT edited by Scrivener in 1894 to represent the Greek text used by the KJV translators, and it becomes the standard Greek text for KJVO advocates and translators. (The TBS people are good folk, and I have a good friend with them, and have met one of the British leaders. I do not oppose them. They are doing good, IMO.)

 

[rlvaughn]

John, perhaps one helpful element would be for you to define what you mean the “King James Only Movement.” I mention this because some people with whom I have discussed this (origin/timeline) limit KJVO to a particular or unique type belief about the Bible and do not recognize some antecedents who held “KJVO” as being “KJVO”. You may already have plans of noting this as you proceed. Thanks.

 

[John of Japan]

John, perhaps one helpful element would be for you to define what you mean the “King James Only Movement.” I mention this because some people with whom I have discussed this (origin/timeline) limit KJVO to a particular or unique type belief about the Bible and do not recognize some antecedents who held “KJVO” as being “KJVO”. You may already have plans of noting this as you proceed. Thanks.

Good point.

For the purpose of this thread, I would define "KJV Only movement" as an organized effort that believes the KJV is the only preserved Word of God in the English language. Therefore, I'm not including as a "movement" such events as J. J. Ray writing his book in 1955, God Only Wrote One Bible. Though that book had influence, which I will note, it did not launch a movement.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is correct. Here are relevant quotes from Turretin, mentioned above, speaking in 1688 of the Catholic "canon" that the Vulgate was authoritative. The idea that the translation can correct the originals is originally a Catholic doctrine.

"Some, like Bellarmine, Serarius, Salmenron, Mariana, and others, hold that it [the Vulgate] does not contrast this version with sources, but only with the other Latin translations in circulation, and they believe that it can be emended and corrected from the sources. Others say that it has been ruled absolutely authentic, so that it cannot be improved and is to be preferred to all other editions, and even the original manuscripts can be corrected from it, as if they were corrupted; such is the teaching of Cano, Valentia, Gordon, Gretserus, Suarez, and others. Anyone who studies the language of the canon will readily understand that the canon inclines toward the latter opinion."
Francis Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture, ed. and trans. by John W. Beardslee III (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 162.

"But the question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it."
Ibid., 113-114.

The Catholic viewpoint expressed here seems to be same as held by some KJVO

 

[Yeshua1]

1769—The main revision of the KJV takes place. This is the version used by almost all KJVO advocates, even those who advertise “1611 KJV” on their websites and church signs.

1819—Henry John Todd writes Vindication of our Authorized Translation and Translators, contra John Bellamy and James Burges, who had called for a new translation. However, this book can hardly be said to take a KJVO position, though some KJVO advocates claim Todd as their own. The book does not launch a movement.

1831—The Trinitarian Bible Society is formed in England, originally in protest against the liberalism being seen in the British and Foreign Bible Society. Eventually the TBS will be an important defender of the traditional texts of Scripture, though not a KJVO organization per se. They might be called “Textus Receptus (TR) Only.” They become the publishers of the Greek NT edited by Scrivener in 1894 to represent the Greek text used by the KJV translators, and it becomes the standard Greek text for KJVO advocates and translators. (The TBS people are good folk, and I have a good friend with them, and have met one of the British leaders. I do not oppose them. They are doing good, IMO.)

They do though express that only the Kjv is to be considered and seen as being the only legit translation for today, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Good point.

For the purpose of this thread, I would define "KJV Only movement" as an organized effort that believes the KJV is the only preserved Word of God in the English language. Therefore, I'm not including as a "movement" such events as J. J. Ray writing his book in 1955, God Only Wrote One Bible. Though that book had influence, which I will note, it did not launch a movement.

was it "launched" by the Sda pastor then when he wrote the book about the Kjv?

 

[John of Japan]

The Catholic viewpoint expressed here seems to be same as held by some KJVO

Similar.

 

[John of Japan]

They do though express that only the Kjv is to be considered and seen as being the only legit translation for today, correct?

I'm not sure. You'd have to source that for me.

 

[John of Japan]

was it "launched" by the Sda pastor then when he wrote the book about the Kjv?

Nope. Baptists had not heard of the guy back then.