At the end of the nineteenth century, an intramural debate arose among Christians over which version of the English Bible should be used. This debate was occasioned by the discovery of numerous Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the mid-nineteenth century and the subsequent translation and publication of new versions of the English Bible after 1880. Proponents of the King James Only movement insist that the King James Version (KJV) is the only legitimate English translation of Scripture and that none others are valid. Proponents of the King James Only movement have belonged to a variety of ecclesiastical fellowships. A distinction should be made between those who believe the King James Version is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible (the King James Only movement) and those who believe that the King James is to be preferred over other English Bible translations but that it is not inherently wrong to choose other English versions. Some churches and individuals, largely for historical and stylistic reasons, believe that the King James Version remains the best English translation of the Bible while not insisting that all other English versions are wholly illegitimate.
The history of the English Bible, leading up to the translation and publication of the King James Version, is important in understanding the King James Only movement. In 1525, William Tyndale printed and published the first English edition of the New Testament. Over the subsequent decade, Tyndale would revise it and work toward completing a complete English translation of the Old Testament. In 1560, English exiles to Geneva translated the Old and New Testament into English, and they added study notes. This complete English Bible came to be known as the Geneva Bible or the Breeches Bible. It was the Bible read and preached in Protestant churches in Scotland, England, and New England in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century. In 1568, the Church of England authorized the publication of the Bishop’s Bible. This Bible underwent revision in 1572 and in 1602. The 1602 edition became the basis for the King James Version.
In 1611, King James I of England issued an edict for a new translation of the English Bible. His rationale was to replace the Bishop’s Bible with an authorized version for the Church of England and the English-speaking world. Therefore, the King James Version has also been referred to as the Authorized Version. James was also motivated to replace the Geneva Bible. James’ edict was prompted in part by the need for a better translation of the original Greek and Hebrew text into English and in part by the king’s strong aversion to the notes in the Geneva Bible on certain passages of Scripture regarding the role of government. The King James Version was printed, published, and distributed in 1611. Since English-speaking Protestant churches used the King James Version of the Bible from the early seventeenth century until the late nineteenth century, the King James Version has held the most significance place among English translations of Scripture.
The King James Version was a translation of the Textus Receptus (i.e., Received Text). The Textus Receptus finds its origin in Desiderius Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, which Erasmus produced from a handful of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that represent the Byzantine text-type (also called the Majority Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiochian Text, and Syrian Text). Erasmus’ work was supplemented and corrected over time with the use of additional Byzantine text-type manuscripts, but all of these manuscripts are relatively late copies of the original Greek New Testament. While for the most part the Textus Receptus preserves the original text written by the Apostles, there are places where other, more ancient copies of the Greek New Testament are better. The Textus Receptus was the most used text-type among Protestants from the Reformation era until the early twentieth century, serving as the basis for other translations as well. With Constantin Tischendorf’s mid-nineteenth-century discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century edition of the Bible in Greek, textual criticismadvanced significantly as a theological science, and biblical scholars began moving away from reliance on the Textus Receptus to “critical text” editions that incorporate what we have learned from older copies of the Greek New Testament.
The most significant distinction between the Textus Receptus and other critical texts is the Textus Receptus’ inclusion of Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11; and 1 John 5:7. Because older manuscript copies of the New Testament do not have these passages at all or, in the case of some of them, include them elsewhere in the Greek New Testament, most modern scholars do not believe these verses come from the Apostles but were later, well-intentioned additions by a scribe. Thus, in more recent English translations, these passages are excluded entirely or included with brackets and notes that indicate that they are likely scribal additions. Proponents of the King James Only position contend that these passages were indeed written by the Apostles and should not be excluded from modern translations, and sometimes these proponents argue that eliminating them means we are taking away from God’s Word, which is forbidden in texts such as Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18–19. It should be noted, however, that if modern scholars are right that Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11; and 1 John 5:7 were not actually written by the Apostles, removing them is not actually taking away from God’s Word but eliminating additions that never should have been there in the first place. (Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18–19 also forbid adding to God’s Word things that the Apostles and prophets did not themselves write.)
Beginning with the translation and publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible in 1881, the number of English translations of the Bible began to rapidly increase. This flurry of new translations revolutionized the way that scholars and pastors approached Bible translation preferences. Many began to promote new English translations of the Bible as preferential to the King James Version. In response, those who believe that the King James Version is superior to all other English versions have raised a series of arguments in favor of the King James Version. The two primary arguments are 1) the King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, which is preferred over the critical text for various reasons, and 2) the King James Version, though not a perfect translation, is superior to others because of its style and tradition of use in the church.
Theologians and pastors in a variety of ecclesiastical fellowships have argued that the King James Version should be preferred over other English translations. While more serious arguments in favor of preferring the King James Version have been made by textual and biblical scholars, many other arguments advanced by modern King James Only proponents lack intellectual credibility, with some proponents even implying or outright contending that the English translators of the King James Version were directly inspired by God. However, the historic Christian position has been that only the original authors of the Bible—the prophets and Apostles—enjoyed such direct inspiration. Thus, as Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8 indicates, while translations of the Bible into other languages are to be employed and studied, only the prophets and Apostles’ writings in Greek and Hebrew can settle theological controversies.
These sorts of considerations are relevant for addressing the most commonly discussed bracketed words in our Bibles: Mark 16:9–20 (known as the long ending of Mark) and John 7:53–8:11 (the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman). When we examine these two disputed passages, we have good reasons to doubt their originality. In the case of the long ending of Mark, it is missing from our earliest copies of Mark (found in codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) and from the testimony of the early church fathers (particularly Eusebius and Jerome). This indicates that most early copies of Mark lacked the longer ending. Similarly, we don’t find the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman in any of our early copies of John (papyri 66 and 75, codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), again suggesting it was a later addition.
So, while these two bracketed texts may raise concerns for the average reader—particularly given their length and popularity—they do not present the threat we might suppose. If we know they are not original, then we cannot say the text is unreliable at these points. The text would only be unreliable in these passages if we did not know what the original text was.
Of course, it needs to be acknowledged that for the average English reader, it feels like a problem to say these texts are not original. Given that these passages have been part of our English Bible tradition for generations—largely due to the influence of the King James translation—it can seem like they are being unduly kicked to the curb. And such a response is understandable. But if we step outside of our English Bible tradition for a moment and just ask what was originally in the Greek text of Mark and John, then we realize that these texts are not getting “kicked out” of the New Testament. Instead, we realize that they were likely never there to begin with.
Michael Kruger
Tabletalk magazine
