There is no evidence that King James Onlyism as popularized by Peter Ruckman was a main view among the Baptists. I am trying to find a quote somewhere that would indicate they might have even been mild KJV Onlyists, but I cannot find it. I have looked in Baptist history books and other Baptist material. I made a post on Facebook and while there were 77 comments, I got no answer to the contrary. Assumptions were made against me, but I am looking for evidence. Nobody can show me where King James Onlyism is a historic Baptist Distinctive.
Below is a sampling of what I find as I browse the pages of Baptist history, from the British to the American writings, names everyone on this thread will be familiar with, names most of our Baptist churches and pastors have affirmed as being sound men worth reading after and quoting from…and while they can be accused of a lot of things, they cannot be accused of being KJVO. I hope they will be of some help and encouragement to my readers.
Notice:
JOHN GILL (1697-1771) –
Acts 15:34 – This verse is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Syriac and Arabic versions; the Ethiopic version reads, and Paul proposed, or determined to abide, as he did some little time longer, as appears from the following verse: the Vulgate Latin version here adds, and Judas went alone to Jerusalem; and so it is read in one of Beza’s copies, and in one of Stephens’s.
Gill, J. (1809). An Exposition of the New Testament (Vol. 2, p. 289). Mathews and Leigh.
JL DAGG (1794-1884) –
The extensive lists of various readings made out by critics of the New Testament, show the great pains taken, and the abundant means possessed, for determining the genuine text. No other work has been subjected to such scrutiny. Yet, though the various readings discovered are many, the cases are few in which any reasonable doubt remains, on the question which reading preserves the genuine text; and the cases are still fewer in which any important doctrine is affected by a doubtful reading. No man who honestly desires to know what Christianity is, can be in any danger of being misled, even by the least approved of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which have been subjected to criticism.
God has by a careful providence guarded his word sufficiently for all practical purposes, if men are willing to study it with the helps which he gives them: but he has not chosen to work a perpetual miracle, in order to preserve copies of it free from all possible errors of transcribers and printers, merely to satisfy the demands of an unreasonable incredulity.
Dagg, J. L. (1869). The Evidences of Christianity (pp. 210–211). J. W. Burke & Co.; Claxton, Remsen & Haffelfinger.
CHARLES SPURGEON, (1834-1892) –
“And We Are: A Jewel From The Revised Version” was a sermon the Prince of Preachers preached on December 19, 1886. Here is a quote from it:
A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading: but as an assistant to the student it deserves honourable mention, despite its faults. It exhibits here and there special beauties, and has, no doubt, in certain places brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out: we have a notable instance in my present text. Turn to the First Epistle of John, the third chapter, at the first verse:—
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.”
So far we keep to our Authorized Version. Now read the Revised Version, and note the words added—
“Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are.”
Spurgeon, C. H. (1886). “And We Are”: A Jewel from the Revised Version. In The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons (Vol. 32, p. 673). Passmore & Alabaster.
JR GRAVES (1820-1893) –
“On this Rock will I establish (Gr.) my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
Top of chapter X in “Old Landmarkism: What Is It?”
ALVAH HOVEY, (1820-1903) –
As an aid to the accomplishment of this purpose it has been thought desirable to print the Revised Version (1881) side by side with the Common Version (1611) at the top of the page. For, to say nothing of improvements in translation, the Greek text adopted by the Revisers must be regarded as one of great excellence, approaching more nearly perhaps than any one yet prepared to that which existed in the autographs of the sacred writers. We shall not go too far, therefore, if we assert that the Revised Version must hold a position co-ordinate with that of the Common Version—first, because it represents in perspicuous English a remarkably pure text of the original; and secondly, because it is likely to be in the hands of a vast majority of those who read the New Testament at all.
Hovey, A. (1886). General Introduction: To the New Testament. In Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (p. xlii). American Baptist Publication Society.
JOHN BROADUS, (1827-1895) –
The Revised Version seems often to be presented as a mere alternative rendering; while I am fully persuaded that it is almost uniformly superior to the Common Version, and often greatly superior. . Wherever its renderings seem of questionable propriety, the fact is distinctly brought out in the commentary. The marginal renderings of the Common and the Revised Version are usually noticed. The early English translations are mentioned, when likely to profit the general reader, omitting points of merely philological or literary interest. These versions have been quoted from Bagster’s English Hexapla, and where “early English versions” in general are referred to, only those given in that collection are meant unless the contrary is stated. Certain recent English translations are also frequently cited, particularly those of the American Bible Union, Noyes, Darby, and Davidson.
Broadus, J. A. (1886). Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (pp. xlix – l). American Baptist Publication Society.
BH CARROLL, (1843-1914) –
“The only textbook absolutely requisite is the English Bible. The Common, or King James Version, can be made to serve, but the Canterbury Revision, or the American Standard Version, is much preferred. On the first book of the Bible Conant’s translation of Genesis, with its critical notes, is very helpful.”
Introduction to An Interpretation of the English Bible
AW PINK, (1886-1952) –
“The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (verse 11). The word for “giveth” is usually translated “layeth down.” “For the sheep” signifies, on their behalf. The good Shepherd gave His life freely and voluntarily, in the room and stead of His people, as a ransom for them, that they might be delivered from death and have eternal life. The Ethiopic Version reads, “The good Shepherd gives His life for the redemption of the sheep.”
Pink, A. W. Exposition of the Gospel of John (p. 530). Bible Truth Depot.
TP SIMMONS (1898-1969) –
The Revised Version rightly translates this passage to read, “Make disciples of all nations,” instead of “Teach all nations”; for the word translated “teaching” in the next verse is different from the word in the nineteenth verse that is translated “teach” in the common version. That disciples are not to be made by baptism is evident from John 4:1, which indicates that both John and Jesus “made and baptized disciples.”
Simmons, T. P. (1955). A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine: A Logical Arrangement and a Diligent Treatment of the Teachings of God’s Holy Word, Systematic, Calvinistic, Baptistic, Premillennial (Third English Edition, p. 372). The Baptist Examiner.