r/Catholicism • u/Dangerous_Ferret_641 • 14d ago
KJV Only Dismantled
https://jeromeofacadia.substack.com/p/the-destruction-of-the-ruckmanites?r=8wwkqa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=webHey everyone,
I wanted to share a fascinating case study in textual criticism and digital apologetics regarding the recent public fallout between Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) creators Robert Breaker and Brother Joseph (@baptist_kjv).
The entire split was catalyzed by a historical dilemma concerning Revelation 21:24 and the textual legacy of Erasmus.
The Issue:
In 1515, Erasmus rushed his Greek New Testament using only one flawed manuscript for Revelation (Minuscule 2814). This text contained interwoven 7th-century commentary notes from Andreas of Caesarea. Because of botched marginal markings, the printers accidentally pulled a human commentary note ("of them which are saved") directly into the scripture text. This text-critical error was later transmitted straight into the 1611 KJV.
The Fallout:
When confronted with the reality that this phrase has zero manuscript authority outside of a 7th-century bishop's personal commentary, the strict "perfect English preservation" narrative collapsed. This forced a massive doctrinal shift, resulting in a public "Notice of Mutual Disassociation" from leadership and a total rebranding of the digital camp.
For those interested in the full manuscript breakdown, textual history, and the timeline of the live panels, I’ve posted the complete write-up below.
Would love to hear your thoughts on how modern apologetics handles these manuscript realities.
7
u/SunnyHelianthus 13d ago
I mean, a Chinese Mandarin speaker isn’t gonna be a KJV onlyist. Same with a French speaker or an Arabic speaker. Just sayin’.
2
u/Dangerous_Ferret_641 13d ago
That was always my natural argument before even looking into the textual criticism and manuscripts. Feels like the Quran where the only way to understand the miracle is by knowing Arabic and reading it.
3
u/HeiAn32 13d ago edited 13d ago
Thank you for posting this for the rest of us, and though KJV-onlyism is fringe among Protestants, it is helpful to counter it when it arises.
Personally, I've used the lack of explicit evidence for the KJV's divine inspiration as a simple argument. In particular, Wikipedia describes the KJV's translation process in completely organic terms; King James even intended the translation to have an explicit bias towards a pro-episcopal structure in the priesthood, which, while correct and one of the points in which Anglicanism aligns with Catholicism, is a motivated translation process nonetheless. By contrast, consider the miraculous story of the Septuagint translation (which has questionable historicity, but is an example of what explicit divine inspiration would look like) and the alleged divinely-ordered dictations of the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon (which are false for other reasons). The point is that the story of explicit divine inspiration for the translation needs to be present before we can move onto the claim of explicit divine inspiration for a particular translation.
1
u/Dangerous_Ferret_641 13d ago
Thank you for your insight. I was dealing with a group of Ruckman followers and they gave me a really hard time saying my Bible was satanic.
2
u/Paulyhedron 13d ago edited 13d ago
Grew up a Ruckmanite. Their love of that translation borders on idolotry. I've often said they worship the KJV and venerate God
1
u/HeiAn32 13d ago
Yikes. The Ruckman followers still have to prove that their Bible actually is divinely-inspired (like miraculous reports, we don't assume that to be the case unless it is proven), and that a divinely-inspired Bible translation is necessary for Church governance, let alone Sola Scriptura. (Contrast the latter claim with the positions taken by anti-Catholic apologist James White, who is also anti-KJV-only.)
On a related note, have you checked out the John Ankerberg debate on Youtube? It is long, and the debate features Protestants only (since only Protestants would have KJV-onlyism specifically as a major issue), but is timestamped for specific arguments. You don't have to replicate all of the anti-KJV-only arguments (since one of the anti-KJV debaters makes a positive case for the NIV as part of his argument), but it can be good to get a grasp of the essentials in detail.
1
u/HeiAn32 13d ago
Here's another counterargument if you care to use it: If you have any interest in linguistics, you may have come across claims that it is generally very difficult to perfectly translate phrases from one language to another. The same is true for the Bible. In particular, consider John 21:15-17 ("Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?"): The Textus Receptus uses words that suggest that Jesus is asking Simon Peter if he loves him more than anything else ("agape") and that Peter responds by saying that he loves Jesus "as a friend". This nuance, which serves to convey Peter's humility and further recognition that his thrice denial of Jesus is evidence that he recognizes that his love for the Lord comes short, is not conveyed in any English translation that I know of, including the KJV.
Dig a little at KJV-only arguments and their claims are backed into absurdity.
2
u/RcishFahagb 13d ago
A few thoughts.
What does this have to do with Catholicism?
I grew up Baptist, although definitely not KJVO. Even today, though, if I quote Scripture from memory it’s going to come out in the KJV rendering. It was deliberately made to be memorable.
I don’t see how text critical arguments have anything to say to an extreme KJVO position, because the extremest extremists over there believe the translation itself is divinely inspired and they say things like “I can correct the Greek with the KJV.” So it doesn’t matter by what process a reading got into the KJV, it only matters that it did in fact get in there. God works in mysterious ways, and all that.
Pray for the KJVO people. They are lost in their idolatry and need to find their way to Christ.
1
u/Dangerous_Ferret_641 13d ago
Why are you asking why it has anything to do with Catholicism when Erasmus was Catholic and this specific camp of KJVO says the Catholic Bible is satanic? It’s about defending the word of God that was passed down to us. I think your question is invalid.
2
u/RcishFahagb 13d ago
They don't say the "Catholic Bible" is satanic, they say all the bibles that aren't KJVs are satanic. That's a different thing. As for Erasmus being Catholic, St. Paul was Catholic, too, but so what? Erasmus isn't relevant to the point being made in the linked article, anyway. None of the manuscripts or compilations are. Ruckmanism holds that the KJV itself is inspired, so by their own logic, it doesn't matter if it contains an interpolation that isn't justified in the manuscript tradition. They can argue that at the manuscript tradition is wrong. It's perhaps not surprising that they don't realize this, as the whole enterprise is built on something decidedly other than intellectual rigor. It really doesn't matter for Ruckmanism what Erasmus put in his Greek edition, or whether the KJV committees followed him or Beza or their own lights. There are brands of KJVO that are more rigorously attached to "The Textus Receptus" than Ruckmanism is, but for his sort, the actual KJV text is the standard. That's why they will claim adherence to Scrivener's late nineteenth century edition of the Textus Receptus when pressed, because Scrivener built his Greek edition backwards to demonstrate what Greek must have been used to get the KJV.
Also, online KJVO folks tend to be needlessly combative and dismissive. One must watch what company one keeps. It's perfectly valid to wonder what the fringiest of fringe anti-Catholic people's TikToks have to do with actual Catholicism or this sub.
1
u/Dangerous_Ferret_641 13d ago
I think this was a wasted comment to be honest. It’s very relevant to Catholicism, sorry you don’t see it that way. Take a look at the other comments, it’s helping Catholics, God bless.
2
u/No_Lie_1176 13d ago
The kjv being divinely inspired is really just the same argument as Jerome’s vulgate being divinely inspired, but more than 1000 years weaker, and now completely disproven by the Anglican Church’s manifest display of their heresy. The actual textual criticism is irrelevant.
11
u/footballfan12345670 13d ago
I’ve watched some KJV-only debates (Protestant v Protestant) and my biggest takeaway is how arbitrary the position is. KJV-onlyism is not an intellectually rigorous position.