April 28, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - Many charges have been made against today's defenders of the Authorized Version, but the most despicable I have seen appeared in a paper presented to The Evangelical Theological Society Southern Region by Dr. James Price, March 22, 1986. The paper was entitled Textual Emendations in the Authorized Version. Dr. Price teaches Hebrew at Tennessee Temple Bible Seminary in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He is also the General Editor of Thomas Nelson's New King James Version Old Testament. Dr. Price sought to debunk "King James Onlyism" by claiming that the AV contains numerous unjustified emendations from the Greek and Hebrew Received Text. He lists more than 140 of these and claims these are only a representation. Apparently he thinks there are hundreds of errors in the AV. (He contends that the New King James Bible has properly corrected many of these alleged mistakes in the Authorized Version.) Consider an excerpt from Dr. Price's paper:

"The historic doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture ascribes final authority to the original autographs. Thus the validity and authority of any translation of the Scripture is measured by its conformity to the Greek and Hebrew texts. At times in the past, some have departed from this historic doctrine. ... The Roman Catholic Church declared the Latin Vulgate of Jerome to be more authoritative than the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible. A modern departure from this historic doctrine places final authority in the English Authorized Version otherwise known as the King James Version" (Price, Textual Emendations, p. 1).

While there are certain vague, non-consequential similarities between the position of Rome toward the Latin Vulgate and the modern defense of the AV, in reality, the two could not be more different. I have an extensive library of authorities on Romanism--both ancient and contemporary, written by Catholic, Protestant, and Baptist authors. The history of Rome's attitude toward the Bible is plain.

CONSIDER FOUR KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TODAY'S AV DEFENSE AND ROME'S DEFENSE OF THE LATIN VULGATE:

FIRST, ROME DID NOT MERELY BELIEVE ITS LATIN VULGATE WAS A SOUND TRANSLATION; IT WANTED TO REPLACE THE GREEK AND HEBREW TEXT WITH ITS LATIN. J.A. Wylie, an authority on Romanism in the Reformation era, dedicated two chapters of his book The Papacy; Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects (London: Hamilton Adams, 1888) to Rome's attitude toward the Bible. Wylie states: "The Latin Vulgate is the authorized standard in the Church of Rome, and that to the disparagement of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. These are omitted in the decree [by the Council of Trent], and a translation is substituted. All Protestant translations, such as our authorized English version, Luther's translation, &c. are prohibited" (Wylie, p. 181). In describing this era in Catholic history, Albert Gilmore notes, "The languages of the early Bibles, Hebrew and Greek, were no longer of interest. So marked did this lack of interest become that when, after the Renaissance, Cardinal Ximenes published his Polyglot edition with the Latin Vulgate between the Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, he stated in his preface that it was 'like Jesus between two thieves'" (Gilmore, The Bible: Beacon Light of History, Boston: Associated Authors, 1935, p. 170).

This is not the position held by most AV defenders today. I believe I can speak with some authority on this issue. I have done extensive firsthand research into the defense of the King James Bible today. I have communicated with hundreds of men from around the world, interviewed many key spokesmen, and read most of the materials on the subject. I have written the only extensive history on this subject in print. I realize that my enemies will claim that I am puffing myself here, but the Lord, my Judge, knows that is not the case. I say all of this for only one reason: I know more about so-called "King James Onlyism" than its detractors. And I say that that James Price is grossly misrepresenting defenders of the Authorized Version by lumping them in with 16th century Papists.

SECOND, ROME WANTED TO KEEP THE WORD OF GOD FROM THE PEOPLE BY LOCKING IT INTO A DEAD LANGUAGE AND MAKING THE PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON ITS PRIESTHOOD. I don't believe I have to prove that for most of my readers. The history is plain for anyone who wants to look into it. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary." Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue." Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Defenders of the Authorized Version, on the other hand, do not want to keep the Word of God from anyone. They are often at the forefront of carrying the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Our desire is not to lock up the Word of God, but to keep it pure. To identify King James Bible defense today with medieval Rome is a treacherous slander.

THIRD, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, IN AUTHORIZING THE LATIN BIBLE, EXALTED ITS OWN TRADITIONS AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS TO THE PLACE OF EQUAL AUTHORITY. The Council of Trent, which authorized the Latin Vulgate, also canonized the apocryphal books and announced curses upon any man who refuses to accept its extra-biblical traditions.

Today's defenders of the Authorized Version have added nothing to the canon of Scripture. In fact, they are most often at the forefront of the battle against Romanism and every other claim of extra-biblical authority in this present hour.

FOURTH, IT IS A GROSS ERROR TO COMPARE THE AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION WITH ROME'S LATIN VULGATE. Let me offer three important distinctions. Many others could be mentioned. One, the Latin Vulgate was not in a settled state until long after Rome had pronounced it authentic. In spite of the pontifications of the Council of Trent, it was not until more than forty years later that an authentic edition of the Latin Vulgate appeared. A papal commission worked for more than 40 years after Trent, but failed to produce an authentic edition. Frustrated by the slow progress of this commission, Pope Sixtus V took matters into his own hands and produced his own revision, which appeared in May 1590. He died three months later. There was a small problem. The Sixtus Latin Vulgate was full of errors, "some two thousand of them introduced by the Pope himself" (Janus, The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1870). In September 1590 the College of Cardinals stopped all sales and bought up and destroyed as many copies as possible! Another edition finally appeared in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, p. 120). The Authorized Version, on the other hand, has been in a mature, settled state for more than three centuries. Two, the Latin Vulgate was the product of an apostate ecclesiastical system. It was founded upon the translation of heretic Jerome and was authorized by the blasphemous Council of Trent, which hurled hundreds of curses upon Bible-believing Christians. In his masterly history of Roman Catholicism, James Heron, Professor of Ecclesiastical History at General Assembly's College, Belfast, notes that Jerome engaged in violent controversies, popularized unscriptural monasticism, venerated bones and relics, invested departed saints with omnipresence, taught that Mary was instrumental in redemption, and justified putting "heretics" to death (Heron, The Evolution of Latin Christianity, London: James Clarke, 1919). The Authorized Version and its Received Text, on the other hand, is the product of a Bible-believing stream of Christianity. The Editors of the Received Text were men who hazarded their lives in many cases for the sake of the Truth. The AV is founded to a large degree upon Tyndale's version, and Tyndale was a separated, Bible-believing, New Testament Christian who was martyred by Roman Catholic authorities for his faith. The AV's immediate predecessor, the Geneva Bible, was produced by men who had been forced to flee England because of their biblical faith. Three, Rome's Latin Vulgate was not considered an excellent version by anyone other than the Papists. One large portion of the Latin Vulgate, the Psalms, was translated from a Greek translation of the Hebrew rather than directly from Hebrew itself. The Authorized Version, on the other hand, has been considered an excellent version throughout by thousands of scholarly men of God.

I repeat, it is slanderous to compare Romanism and its Latin Vulgate with today's defense of the Authorized Version. Fellow King James Bible defenders, I believe Dr. James Price owes us a public apology.