Pre-Wilkinson KJVO -1817

[rlvaughn]

A previous post on translational disagreement among 19th century Baptists:

When did statements on Bible versions first begin to appear in 'Statements of Faith'?

Thanks for this.

I quickly scanned through the pages of the thread, and (though I may have missed it) did not find any comments that actually addressed when statements on Bible versions first began to appear in church or associational statements of faith.

I ran across one reference where Doug Stauffer claims it for Barren River Association of Baptists in 1830. I'm a little concerned that he could have misunderstood the reference and that it was added later. For that reason I would like to check it out further. Years ago I started to buy Cawthorn's and Warnell's book but didn't have that much money to spend on it at the time. Regrets now.

“While on a trip with the Baptist History Preservation Society, I traveled to Barren County, Kentucky. There I read the Articles of Faith of the Barren River Association adopted in 1830. There were twelve articles listed.
“The Articles of Faith of the Barren River Association, adopted at her constitution at the Mount Pleasant Meeting House, Barren County, Ky., Sept. 15, 1830.

“1st We believe that 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 true rule of faith and practice.”

From Pioneer Church Records of South Central Kentucky and the Upper Cumberland of Tennessee 1799-1899, C. P. Cawthorn & N. L. Warnell, Dayton, OH: Church History Research & Archives, p. 23 (as mentioned in Chapter 17 — “Bible Roots” in One Book Stands Alone by Douglas D. Stauffer)

 

[rsr]

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

I have no problem with that. I have no idea which is the larger group by number, but the "textual" KJVOs produce the most noise by far and, if I may so say, do it most uncharitably. Those who prefer the Byzantine text, as opposed to "textual" KJVOs, are not likely to insist that their opponents are under the curse of God and are suitable subjects for hellfire. IMO.

To be fair, some proponents of versions based on the critical text are also uncharitable in two ways:

First, they consider the traditionalists to be antiques stuck in the past and totally ignorant of the wonders of modern learning. If only the traditionalists knew the truth, they would rush out to buy NIVs. It's the equivalent of Obama's "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

Second, they discount the possibility that some Byzantine readings may be correct, after all. They think that textual criticism has reached such a level that it is possible to determine with absolute certainty which reading is correct. On this, as on many other things, my tagline is my motto.

 

[rlvaughn]

The ones of whom I am thinking -- for the most part -- wouldn't have a preference for any Greek text. They just think the KJ Bible is the right one, the one to use, can be considered the word of God, and -- again, for the most part -- won't make much noise about it at all as long as nobody messes with them. I think it is also true, in some sense, that the textual critics helped create the textual KJVOs by continually poking the bear. (But men like Peter Ruckman didn't need poking!)

 

[rsr]

Thanks for this.

I quickly scanned through the pages of the thread, and (though I may have missed it) did not find any comments that actually addressed when statements on Bible versions first began to appear in church or associational statements of faith.

You didn't miss anything. I did some research and couldn't find any good references for early defense of the KJV in church statements of faith. My suspicion is that it came fairly late (after the ERV) because the KJV was so dominant as to make the matter moot. It was simply assumed that the KJV was the English Bible. (John Gill, who did not hesitate to point our mistranslations and even some textual problems, referred to the KJV as our English Bible.)

Finding no good evidence of early statements of faith, I offered a compilation of material about 19th century American Baptist attempts to revise the KJV.

As a side note, when we were compiling information on the centennial of our business, I found an early copy of the ERV — owned by the first publisher, apparently — in a storage room downstairs. I can't recall the details of the edition, but I think it was very early (and not the ASV). I wish I had asked the current publisher if I could have it. I don't think it had much sentimental value for him and I would have treasured it as he probably didn't.

 

[rlvaughn]

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

I have no problem with that. I have no idea which is the larger group by number, but the "textual" KJVOs produce the most noise by far

I think we probably also need to recognize a sort of middle category that is "mightily mixed" -- they are in/were from the traditional camp, but because of the easy availability of information in our day have come in contact with the writings of men such as Fuller, Waite, and so on, and have been influenced by that.

 

[rlvaughn]

You didn't miss anything. I did some research and couldn't find any good references for early defense of the KJV in church statements of faith. My suspicion is that it came fairly late (after the ERV) because the KJV was so dominant as to make the matter moot. It was simply assumed that the KJV was the English Bible.

Right. There was generally no reason for any church or association to make a statement on the matter. I think the Tennessee Association is evidence of this. There was a specific incident that brought a question to the association, or they would have never addressed it.

We see the same kind of thing throughout church history. Things are addressed "when they come up." We have a "Position Statements" in our church that address abortion and homosexual marriage. 50 or 60 years ago probably no church could have conceived of needing to address the issue in this way.

 

[rsr]

I think we probably also need to recognize a sort of middle category that is "mightily mixed" -- they are in/were from the traditional camp, but because of the easy availability of information in our day have come in contact with the writings of men such as Fuller, Waite, and so on, and have been influenced by that.

I am sure you are correct, but if they pass into the Ruckman-Riplinger camp they are no longer traditionalists and, for practical purposes, are just "textual critics" even if they've been led astray and have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[rlvaughn]

Certainly if they pass over into the Ruckman-Riplinger (of which even many "textual KJVOs" are not a part, imo) they are no longer in the middle. I'm thinking more along the lines that you can't unlearn what you learn. If you learn that Paul did not write in King James English, that there are multiple competing texts and manuscripts, or whatever you never knew about the Bible -- even if you learn to minister to folks in another language whose Bible you realize is slightly different -- you can never go back to the pristine condition in which you existed before, even if you don't pass into the other camp. Surely there must be some stuck in this middle position?

 

[rlvaughn]

You didn't miss anything. I did some research and couldn't find any good references for early defense of the KJV in church statements of faith. My suspicion is that it came fairly late (after the ERV) because the KJV was so dominant as to make the matter moot.

Right. There was generally no reason for any church or association to make a statement on the matter.

I found this one on Elder Jeff Weaver's New River website, which is, I think, the earliest I've seen in association articles of faith (other than the Barren River reference). The date of the change is 1896 and comes from E. J. Sutherland's history of the Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association. This is a secondary source and not the minutes, but Sutherland had access to the minutes, he says, 1811-1951.

In Chapter Two he writes, "The 1867 Abstracts are reprinted in this Chapter, along with the Abstracts published in the 1951 minutes, wherein differences appear."

Abstract of Principles, Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association

Article 2. We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice. (Sutherland says, "The change in the wording of this article was made in 1896." Before it was "We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice.")

 

[rlvaughn]

Perhaps the Primitive Baptists were the leaders among Baptists in casting in for the King James Version of the Bible. Seems most Independent Baptists showed up about 50 years later! In addition to the Washington District Association in 1896, the Yellow Creek Primitive Baptist Association had it in their minutes at least by 1909.

Articles of Faith, Yellow Creek Primitive Baptist Association

"1. We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (the translation made in the reign of King James) are the words of God, and the only rule of faith and practice."

From the General History of Macon County, Missouri (Edgar White, editor, Chicago, IL: Henry Taylor & Co., 1910, p. 157) This statement was in the Yellow Creek minutes at least by 1909: this General History was published in 1910, and it speaks of the September 1910 meeting of the association as yet in the future.

 

[rlvaughn]

Here one from the other end of the spectrum from the Primitive Baptists, the Free Will Baptists, and not quite as early -- not pre-Wilkinson, but before Ray, Hills, Ruckman, etc.

Literature Committee report, Liberty Association of Free Will Baptists [Alabama] Proceedings of the 10th Annual Session, September 24-25, 1943, p. 11

"We urge our people to be more careful of the kind of literature they read and sanction in their homes; placing the King James Bible first, then all wholesome literature based upon its teachings."

The fact that they mention "King James Bible" rather than just "Bible" illustrates awareness of other competing Bibles -- which they don't recommend. I think Liberty Association is stating a "traditional" position, but not just one by default of only knowing the KJV.

 

[rlvaughn]

In 1905, the Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists (Pike County, Kentucky) included the following "KJVO" statement in their Abstract of Principles:
"X. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost; and that the New Testament is the standard of faith, and the only authorized rule of practice to the church of God under the gospel dispensation. We therefore consider ourselves solemnly bound by our allegiance to the King of Zion to reject, disclaim and disfellowship all modern and ancient religious institutions or societies of which we have neither precept nor example in the New Testament." (Minutes of the Fifty-Third Annual Session of the Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists, September 1-3, 1905, , p. 8 in pdf; original page numbers missing)

A few notes:
1. This was a local association of 14 churches, in correspondence with five other local associations. It is likely the corresponding associations also held the primacy of the King James Version.
2. Though the association name is "Old Regular Baptist" they appear to be what we currently know as "Primitive Baptist" rather than what we currently know as "Old Regular Baptist".
3. A few earlier minutes posted on the web site do not include the Abstract of Principles (not just this statement, the entire abstract is not included). Without them, it's hard to know when this was added and why.

 

[rlvaughn]

Douglas D. Stauffer said:
“While on a trip with the Baptist History Preservation Society, I traveled to Barren County, Kentucky. There I read the Articles of Faith of the Barren River Association adopted in 1830. There were twelve articles listed.
“The Articles of Faith of the Barren River Association, adopted at her constitution at the Mount Pleasant Meeting House, Barren County, Ky., Sept. 15, 1830.

“1st We believe that 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 true rule of faith and practice.”

From Pioneer Church Records of South Central Kentucky and the Upper Cumberland of Tennessee 1799-1899, C. P. Cawthorn & N. L. Warnell, Dayton, OH: Church History Research & Archives, p. 23 (as mentioned in Chapter 17 — “Bible Roots” in One Book Stands Alone by Douglas D. Stauffer)

I ran across one reference where Doug Stauffer claims it for Barren River Association of Baptists in 1830. I'm a little concerned that he could have misunderstood the reference and that it was added later. For that reason I would like to check it out further. Years ago I started to buy Cawthorn's and Warnell's book but didn't have that much money to spend on it at the time. Regrets now.

I haven't found a specific reference to this re Barren River in 1830 yet, but have found an historical occasion that fits time-wise. Alexander Campbell’s “The Living Oracles” New Testament came out in this time frame, and Baptist opposition to Campbell included opposition to his New Testament and support for the King James Bible. The North District Association of Separate Baptists in Kentucky trial of Raccoon John Smith included his preference of the Campbell New Testament over the King James Bible.

“But the records reveal other difficulties which tried the souls of the church members. Even though six full pages of the minutes for the period from October, 1829, to April, 1831, inclusive, were cut from the record book and apparently destroyed, there remains enough in the minutes and in other sources to indicate that the teachings of Alexander Campbell and other kindred spirits disturbed Old Cane Springs. As early as July, 1827, the North District Association had convened in the church there with Elder David Chenault presiding as moderator. The renowned Elder John Smith, often called ‘Raccoon John,’ was present and was arraigned by the brethren for preferring the Holy Spirit to the Holy Ghost in the baptismal ritual, for preferring actually to break the bread when taking the sacrament, and for preferring a more recent translation of the Bible to the King James version. Chenault and a big majority were strongly against him and such innovations.” [The trial of Raccoon John Smith is also related in Raccoon John Smith: Frontier Kentucky’s Most Famous Preacher, John Sparks, pages 235-260]

 

[Yeshua1]

You didn't miss anything. I did some research and couldn't find any good references for early defense of the KJV in church statements of faith. My suspicion is that it came fairly late (after the ERV) because the KJV was so dominant as to make the matter moot. It was simply assumed that the KJV was the English Bible. (John Gill, who did not hesitate to point our mistranslations and even some textual problems, referred to the KJV as our English Bible.)

Finding no good evidence of early statements of faith, I offered a compilation of material about 19th century American Baptist attempts to revise the KJV.

As a side note, when we were compiling information on the centennial of our business, I found an early copy of the ERV — owned by the first publisher, apparently — in a storage room downstairs. I can't recall the details of the edition, but I think it was very early (and not the ASV). I wish I had asked the current publisher if I could have it. I don't think it had much sentimental value for him and I would have treasured it as he probably didn't.

They would have only knew of the 1881 revised version though, in addition to the Kjv, correct?
And were they 1611/1769 or what Kjv?

 

[rlvaughn]

I ran across one reference where Doug Stauffer claims it for Barren River Association of Baptists in 1830. I'm a little concerned that he could have misunderstood the reference and that it was added later. For that reason I would like to check it out further. Years ago I started to buy Cawthorn's and Warnell's book but didn't have that much money to spend on it at the time. Regrets now.

I haven't found a specific reference to this re Barren River in 1830 yet, but have found an historical occasion that fits time-wise.

I have found what seems like a reliable confirmation, from the Barren River Missionary Baptist Association Minutes of the One Hundred Sixty-Ninth Annual Session, held August 26, 1999. On page 15 they list the Articles of Faith the Association Set Up in 1830. The first is this:

“1st. 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..”