Featured Origin of the TERM King James Only

I have seen a couple claims that KJV-only authors make about the origin of the term, but they do not seem to have done sound research concerning its origin.

David Cloud claimed: “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” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 7; Answering the Myths, p. 5). Lloyd Streeter maintained that the term KJV-only “arose later [after 1967] as a term of derision” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 18). Phil Stringer asserted: “I don’t like the term ‘King James Only.’ It is a name given to us by our critics” and yet he himself chose to “use the term so that it is clear who I am talking about” (Unbroken Bible, p. 9).

Neither David Cloud nor Phil Stringer provided any sound, documented evidence to prove their claims about who invented the term to be true.

According to your observation, it may have been KJV-only advocates themselves that in effect used the term to describe their own position.

Herb Evans referred to “the King James only position” in 1980 (Flaming Torch, June, 1980, p. 3). Herb Evans' articles were usually printed earlier in Peter Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin.

The more important matter would not be who first used the term, but whether the term is as an accurate one for describing overall a certain view or position. This term has value or worth in its ability to communicate meaning concerning a certain view so that even KJV-only author Phil Stringer choose to use it to be clear in regard to which group or groups that he was referring. Phil Stringer would use this term to identify those whom he described as “fundamentalist, King James Only Baptists” (Unbroken Bible, p. 57).

 

I'm not sure of its origin either.

The first time I ever heard or read of the term was sometime in the late 1990's, and it was from the opposing position.

I suspect you may be on to something, but I've never really looked into it deeply.

But I do recognize that most who use it ( especially nowadays ), do so in a derogatory manner.

 

We do not use the term to put down, its just that the term is now associated with pretty much what those holding to the KJVO advocate!

 

Interesting read!
The Origin of King James Onlyism

 

I think there's a lot of confusion with the term,
and I've seen many on just this forum that appear to lump everyone who advocates the TR and KJV over the CT and the newer English translations as all being in the same mindset and using the same rhetoric...

I assure you sir, that my attitude towards those that oppose my position is one of respectful disagreement and not one of superiority;
But I've seen far too many on both sides that can't ( or won't ) "put the brakes on" with respect to their conduct.



@rlvaughn :

I suspect that if I were to go digging for answers,
I'd probably find that the term originated in a much similar fashion as the terms "Arminianism" and "Calvinism"...
in that, some use it to denigrate their opponents and as an epithet or almost a curse-word, while others find it to be a convenient "catch-all" term to describe someone's beliefs without getting into too many details.

I wish you success in your search.

 

What did you think of the 1611 web site view on the KJVO link?

 

I do not think that is any confusion with the term when it is clearly defined and explained.

I find some KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite and David Cloud seem to try to create confusion about the term because they do not seem to want their view accurately and clearly defined as being a form of KJV-only view. Some seem to try to be KJV-only and not KJV-only at the same time as they deny being KJV-only, but yet they make exclusive only claims for only one English translation.

I have not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor English translations made from it. My 2003 book was written on the basis of the Textus Receptus, the pre-1611 English Bibles, and the KJV, and yet it is clear that I am not part of the KJV-only mindset. Because I accept the truth that the NKJV belong in the same stream or line of Bible translations with the Geneva Bible and the KJV, KJV-only advocates still try to lump me with those who advocate the Critical Text.

Which specific people who do not hold a form of KJV-only view have been lumped together with KJV-only?

 

I remember hearing the term in about 1974-5? Maybe a little sooner?

He actually defended KJVO

Made some kind if crazy analogy like Authorized Version meant KJVO then giggled. He did not understand what he was talking about IMO

 

In his 2001 book, Lloyd L. Streeter does not explain why he chose the date of 1967. He claimed that "in 1967 no one used the term 'King James Only'", but he does not say why he picked that date.

Perhaps he did indicate why he chose that date since he indicated a preacher in California turned him on to a book that he read that year. Lloyd Streeter evidently read some KJV-only book in 1967.

Lloyd Streeter claimed that "the alternative to being 'King James only' is to be 'Critical Text only'" (p. 19). Since those are not the only two choices, he seems to use the fallacy of false dilemma in making that assertion.

 

I do not think that the term KJV-only breeds confusion anymore than the term Baptist breeds confusion.

There are differences in doctrine in different groups of Baptists, and yet the term Baptist is correctly and accurately used for those different groups of Baptists with some different in doctrine. The same is true with the different groups or camps of KJV-only. Because they may use different arguments for their KJV-only claims does not mean that one group is KJV-only and the other group is not KJV-only. Varying groups that make exclusive only claims for the KJV are still correctly identified as being KJV-only regardless of any differences between those groups just as groups of Baptists with some differences in doctrine are still correctly identified as being Baptist. Because there may be different KJV-only camps does not mean that the term KJV-only has a range of meaning since it could still be accurately used to identify those who make exclusive only claims for only one English Bible translation..

 

That may be true today or in the 1900's, but it may not have been the terminology for it in the 1600's or 1700's.

I have read some historical sources that suggest that the KJV was called "King James' translation" or a similar name before it was called the authorized version.

A 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible had the caption--"Authorized and appointed to be read in churches," but the 1611 KJV did not have the word "authorized" on its title page. KJV-only author Peter Ruckman claimed: “For the term ‘authorized’ does not appear on the original edition of the 1611 Bible, and the term was never connected with King James” (Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 26).

Randall Davidson asserted: “The words ‘Appointed to be read in churches’ are absent from at least eight of the editions of the King James Version of the first few years, showing that the printer sometimes, but by no means invariably, added the words to the title-page of this version” (Protestant Episcopal Review, Vol. 6, p. 179). There are more than eight editions that omit those words. Some title pages of KJV editions printed by the king’s printers in London that do not have the words “Appointed to be read in churches” include ones in 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1625, 1626, and 1627. T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule maintained that “the words Appointed . . . are regularly omitted from both titles in the early octavo editions, down to 1630” (Historical Catalogue, p. 137). Darlow and Moule noted that “the line Appointed . . . is omitted from both titles” in the first small folio edition in 1616 (p. 148).

If the king’s printer had been authorized and directly instructed by the bishop of London, the archbishop, the Privy Council, or the King to include these words on the title page in 1611, it would be very unlikely that he would have dared to omit them in any of the editions that he printed. The fact that those words were omitted in several early editions indicates that the printer himself likely added those words without any specific authorization, perhaps taking or borrowing them from the title page of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible, since he knew that the KJV was intended to replace the Bishops‘. If the printer received any special authorization or order from the Privy Council or the King, why did he deliberately omit the word “authorized” found on that 1602 title page of the Bishops‘ Bible? Alfred Pollard asserted: “There is indeed negative evidence that there was no such order, for the word ‘Appointed,‘ is considerably weaker than the “Authorized and Appointed’ which it replaced” (Records, p. 60). In addition, since these words had been put on the title page of the Bishops’ Bible without any known royal authority, it should be obvious that the same could be true concerning the 1611 title page.

 

King James Onlyism: A New Sect, hy James D. Price. The earlist he hear of it was the early 1970's.