Title: KJV Only Control
ritique of The King James Only Controversy by James White
Theology I
Dr. pettegrew
Box 28
I. Summary of the Book
This book is not meant to refute the validity of KJV as a legitimate
translation. The purpose of the book is to refute those who argue that KJV is
the inspired Word of God alone and to show that modern translations such as
NIV and NASB are just as accurate as the KJV and even better in various
passages. The KJV Only advocates believe that the KJV is the only Word of
God, which is the starting point of this controversy (3) and also the final
verdict. To them, this is simply a traditional fact that cannot be compromised.
Because the KJV is the only Word of God, KJV is the standard in which all
other versions are to be tested.
The advocates of KJV Onlyism, such as Gail Riplinger and Peter
Ruckman, never hesitate to make false accusations and unreasonable attacks to
anyone who says anything against the KJV (96, 112). It is a common practice
for them to misrepresent or report out-of-context citations and edited quotations
(97). They do not even check the beliefs of those they call heretics (215).
Moreover, one of their favorite practices is name-calling. such phrases as
deceived fool, poor, miserable liar, megalomaniacs, Stu baby, and
ecumenical rat, are rampant in their books (110-112). They are confrontational
(109), unreasonable (114), circular in their arguments (127), inconsistent (202),
and their whole Christian experience is centered around the KJV (112). The
problem is not that they lack information. The problem is that the position is
by nature, anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, and anti-freedom (151).
Contrary to the claims of KJV Only advocates that modern versions
have deleted or corrupted many passages, the differences are due to textual
disputes (disagreements in what the prophets and apostles wrote) and translational
disputes (disagreements in how to translate what was originally written).
Textual disputes rise because the KJV is based on a different textual
tradition. Desiderius Erasmus hastily produced a printed Greek Text in 1516
from five Greek manuscripts (15-16). Then, Robert Estienne (better known as
Stephanus) published his editions based on this (62). And later, Theodore Beza
developed the final form of the Textus Receptus (63), which was the Greek text
utilized by the KJV translators (62). Inferiority of the TR should be noted. In a
number of passages, the TR follows either a very tiny number of very late
manuscripts, or imports passages from other sources such as the Vulgate. Errors
are found in Revelation 17:4, 8; 5:14; 15:3; 22:19 and the final six verses in
Revelation, Acts 8 and 9 were translated from the Vulgate (64-66).
The translators of KJV were divided into 6 groups of Anglicans and
they relied on previous translations, Anglican ecclesiology, and early Fathers in
their translations. They also included marginal notes and recognized obscure
passages and sought help from specialists (71-72). The KJV translators faced the
same opposition that the translators of NIV and NASB faced (73). Moreover,
they also recognized the benefit of using variety of translations (76) and the
possibility of a better translation (74). There were multiples of revisions of KJV
printed in 1611, 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1650s, 1769. So for those who
claim inerrancy of KJV, which one is the inerrant one? (78-79).
Other reasons for textual differences in the TR include its reliance on
the Byzantine text, parallel influence, harmonization, (163), and expansions of
piety (165). There is no conspiracy behind the NIV or the NASB.
The KJV is based on the TR and the TR follows the Byzantine
text-type, which arose in the 4th century (152), while modern translations follow
the Alexandrian (2nd century), Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine text-types,
seeking to produce a text that accurately represents the original text (63-64).
Alexandrian texts are more accurate because they are earlier manuscripts, which
the early translations of the NT were based on (153). For example, KJV
includes the phrase, take up the cross in Mark 10:21 but NIV doesnt. This is
not because there is some conspiracy on the part of modern translators but
because the Greek texts they used do not have the phrase. If the NIV translators
meant to take out the call to take up the cross, they would have deleted the
phrase in other passages as well. However, there are three occurrences of the
same phrase, for example in Mark 8:34 (160).
Several practices of the KJV explain its inferiority compared to other
modern versions in some areas. These includeignoring verb tense to keep
orthodoxy (134), translating two different Greek words with the same English
word (137), following the Vulgate (138), adding a definite article (139), using a
secondary meaning (140-141), literal translation of words that should be
transliterated (227), use of multiple forms of the same name (231), and
ambiguous terms (236).
Also, the differences between KJV and other versions are due to
translational disputes. Sometimes the KJV uses dynamic (translating the meaning)
translation whereas other versions use literal (translating word-for-word)
translation and vice versa at other times (133, 143).
Some KJV Only proponents attack the practice of textual criticism and
claim that KJV is inspired. However, Erasmus used the very same methods of
textual criticism that modern scholars use and never claimed to be inspired
(57-58). Also, there are multiples of editions of Textus Receptus (63) and KJV,
just as there are many editions of English Bibles today. Other highly criticized
versions were developed similar to the KJV and there is no hidden conspiracy
involved in these translations. Therefore, we can trust these translations to be
accurate representation of Gods infallible and inerrant Word.
II. Critique of the book
James White successfully demonstrates the validity of modern translations
such as NIV and NASB and refuted inspiration of KJV. The book is filled with
detailed explanations that show why differences exist between translations. The
author has thoroughly researched topics that pertain to the topic while quoting
the opponents materials as well and is well balanced in terms of its scholarship.
It is scholarly yet easy to understand. Its mannerism is courteous and its logic
reasonable. The book is very informative and all are valuable in understanding
the issue.
Though the high value of the book cannot be overstated, a few possible
areas of improvement may be suggested. In some places, explanations are wordy
and repetitive. Unnecessary words are employed and the same point is made
over and over backed by the same defense. Also, there are a few places where
a proper citation is missing. For example, no reference is made on the reporting
of the hasty version of Erasmus Novum Instrumentum (15). Lastly, the overall
outline of the book can be improved to help the rea God,s lesser gloryders
understanding. Rather than separating information that pertain to different
text-types, it would be better to give all the explanations in one section and
move on to the next.