# The King James Only Controversy (James White)



## RamistThomist

If you love the Textus Receptus for what it is, you should not have a problem with this book. James White acknowledges the value of the Textus Receptus and even the King James Version at times. What is problematic is the cult-like character of some King James Only advocates.

White begins with a survey of textual history and transmission. It’s one thing to say “God providentially preserved my favorite ms tradition.” It’s quite another to work through the transmission process. He explains the discovery of Sinaiticus and other texts. Even if you are a Ruckmanite, you will nonetheless appreciate the discussions on minuscule vs uncial texts, etc.

Copyists of manuscripts are going to make errors. Try it one day. Copy a page from a dictionary and see if you made any mistakes? Repeat a few thousand times. These minor errors are called textual variants (misspelled words, skipped lines, etc.). They are easily recognizable. White writes,

“Another kind of “scribal error” has to do with harmonization. Let’s say you were used to the way a particular phrase sounds in a particular passage of Scripture because your pastor uses that verse all the time in church. But let’s say that a similar phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture—similar, but not exactly the same. As you are copying that other passage of Scripture it would be very easy to inadvertently make that passage sound like the one you are accustomed to. You might not even know you had changed anything” (White 37).

_Text Types _(43)

“(1) The Alexandrian text-type, found in most papyri, and in the great uncial codices K and B.

(2) The Western text-type, found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages, especially Latin.

(3) The Byzantine text-type, found in the vast majority of later uncial and minuscule manuscripts.

(4) The Caesarean text-type, disputed by some, found in and “Family 1” (abbreviated f 1).”

One of White’s stronger arguments is that Erasmus used the same method of textual analysis that is condemned by KJV Only advocates today.

This book actually increased my appreciate of the NKJV. It’s a decent translation, but it also provides variant readings in the margin. This isn’t to “sow doubt,” but to alert the reader to the textual issues.

_Responding to Byzantine-Text Arguments_

White: “The question we must ask the proponents of the Byzantine text-type is this: upon what basis should we believe that the Byzantine text, simply because it ended up being the majority text later in history; was in fact the best representative of the original writings during that vital period of the first few centuries” (152)?

The text, on the contrary, would have resembled the Alexandrian-type.

One often hears from KJV Only types that the modern translations delete passages proving the deity of Christ. While White explains how basic textual transmission works and how that accounts for these passages, he reverses the method and lowers the boom by showing passages where the modern translations are _clearer _on the deity of Christ than the KJV (Jude 4, Col. 2:9, 1 Peter 3:14-15, Acts 16:7). Does this mean the KJV translators were in conspiracy to deny the deity of Christ? Of course, such a position is idiocy.

_Problems with the KJV_

Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him _by _hanging him on a tree (225)?

1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Pileser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.

Acts 9:7/22:9. On the KJV’s reading, the others heard the voice and didn’t hear the voice, a clear contradiction. The modern translations have a better reading.

_The Changing English Language_

“Fetched a compass” (Joshua 15:3, 2 Kgs 3:9) actually means travel or turn around. Quoting Edwin Palmer White notes,

what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8— it is not a horse), “cielcd” (Hag. 1:4), , “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35— it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28),, “hoiscd” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “wot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “surctiship” (Prov. 11:15), “saekbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “roller” (Lzck. 30:21— i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadinc” (Jer. 46:4), “amercc” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Lxod 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), (White 236).

Some more:

And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exod. 1^:18).

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing I Ps. 5:6).

“For example, while one finds the KJV translating the Greek phrase Ttmuia rr/iov at Luke 11:13 as “Holy Spirit,” the very same phrase is translated “Holy Ghost” at Luke 2:25. It is interesting to note as well that the KJV always capitalizes Holy Ghost, but does not always capitalize Holy Spirit, i.e., Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:8, where each time the KJV has “holy Spirit” (239 n.10).

In the appendix there is a fine discussion of the Granville Sharp rule, something which wasn’t clear in the 17th century.

Granville Sharp’s rule, according to Granville Sharp, is:

When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article o, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 6


----------



## Taylor

I'm just curious: Which translation do you personally prefer? I, too, have really enjoyed the NKJV, and my respect for it has grown in recent weeks as I have utilized it in my own reading. I find the translation to be very accurate, and the English is also very pleasant, I think.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Did you find anything to critique in White’s work?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## JimmyH

White's book, and D.A. Carson's 'The King James Debate, A Plea For Realism', are the two best I've read on the topic. I have, many times, typed text from a book onto posts in this board, and proofreading found I had skipped a line, a word. 

I mentioned in another post that I'm using the NKJV for my M'Cheyne 1 year plan this year, and finding the variants at the bottom of the page has shown me, so far, that the TR/KJV is by and large not radically different from the CT. 

Of course that conclusion does not include the ending of Mark, the Comma, the women taken in adultery, or the women at the well. Those are significant disagreements.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> I'm just curious: Which translation do you personally prefer? I, too, have really enjoyed the NKJV, and my respect for it has grown in recent weeks as I have utilized it in my own reading. I find the translation to be very accurate, and the English is also very pleasant, I think.



I do most of my readings from Greek and Hebrew right now. 

I usually default to the ESV. The Holman Christian Standard is outstanding on the historical books. I haven't touched an NIV in probably 15 years.

The RSV on the Psalms is outstanding.

The NRSV on Genesis is occasionally interesting, but it's mostly a miserable PC translation.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> Did you find anything to critique in White’s work?



He spends most of his time on the more cultic aspects of KJV Only, like Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. That's necessary, I suppose, but I would have liked some extended treatment of Burgon and those guys, since they are Christian scholars and represent a stronger case.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> He spends most of his time on the more cultic aspects of KJV Only, like Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. That's necessary, I suppose, but I would have liked some extended treatment of Burgon and those guys, since they are Christian scholars and represent a stronger case.



I would agree. I think he spends too much time on the low hanging fruit and not enough time engaging the more serious and sober TR/Majority text proponents. Of course, as you mentioned, he was likely writing in direct response to the Riplingers and Ruckmans of the world. Still, I would love to see Dr. White debate someone like Dr. Maurice Robinson.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

For what's worth, his book is called "The King James _Only_ Controversy", so his point really was to take it to the worst of the KJV*O* folk, not the standard "TR/MT Supremacy" folk.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## JimmyH

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> For what's worth, his book is called "The King James _Only_ Controversy", so his point really was to take it to the worst of the KJV*O* folk, not the standard "TR/MT Supremacy" folk.


Excellent point. Also, on youtube there are many videos of debates between James White and defenders of the KJV. Some scholarly, others ... not so much. Point being, it is not only 'low hanging fruit' that is contended with.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Sort of related, my wife and I just watched the documentary, Fragments of Truth on Faithlife Connect. I am not as well versed as many on here about the transmission of manuscripts. I thought it was well done.

I see great value in using multiple translations. My study setup usually consists of interlinears, the CSB (which has started to replace the ESV for me), NKJV, and the JPS Tanakh. Recently in Logos, I have been utilizing the Lexham English Septuagint as well.

The CSB and NKJV have become my two favorite translations. Although, I am trying to become more familiar with the KJV as the church my wife and I are transferring to uses it.
As always, I appreciate your book reviews. They are always well laid out. This book has been on my list. Do you have any other favorites on the history of manuscripts?


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Do you have any other favorites on the history of manuscripts?



I cut my teeth on Metzger's _Text of the New Testament_.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover

JimmyH said:


> I mentioned in another post that I'm using the NKJV for my M'Cheyne 1 year plan this year, and finding the variants at the bottom of the page has shown me, so far, that the TR/KJV is by and large not radically different from the CT.



Which makes sense because, in the 25,000 or so manuscripts and fragments that we now have, the differences among them, if listed (1) would not fill up one side of a standard-sized sheet of paper and (2) affect no major doctrines of the faith.

Personally, I'm a CT guy, if only because we have many more manuscripts and fragments available to us than the King James translators did.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Bill The Baptist said:


> Still, I would love to see Dr. White debate someone like Dr. Maurice Robinson.


I second that!


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

I'm partial to the KJV/Majority Text/Received Text position mostly due to the presuppositions that most current textual criticism uses. I stopped using the ESV due to the ESS controversy, so it's mostly KJV/NASB for me. 

In the book Dr. White marks out the people he is addressing. He's not addressing the MT position but the KJVO position of Ruckmanites, and Steven Anderson types. In fact a footnote can be found that details as such in the first chapter If I recall correctly. 

in my opinion I think the longer ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery, etc. are authentic texts and should be included.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I stopped using the ESV due to the ESS controversy...



I know this is not the topic of this thread, so please forgive me, but this isn't the first time I've heard this remark about the ESV. What do you mean? Are you bothered that someone like Grudem was on the translation committee, or is the text actually influenced in some places by ESS?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> I know this is not the topic of this thread, so please forgive me, but this isn't the first time I've heard this remark about the ESV. What do you mean? Are you bothered that someone like Grudem was on the translation committee, or is the text actually influenced in some places by ESS?



I think later editings of the ESV mildly reflect it. I don't have one of those with me, so I don't know where it would be.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Taylor Sexton said:


> I know this is not the topic of this thread, so please forgive me, but this isn't the first time I've heard this remark about the ESV. What do you mean? Are you bothered that someone like Grudem was on the translation committee, or is the text actually influenced in some places by ESS?


For example:
https://www.theaquilareport.com/eternal-subordination-son-esv-translation/

https://www.theaquilareport.com/eternal-subordination-of-the-son-and-the-esv-study-bible-notes/

New thread would be prudent if further discussion needed.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Taylor

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> New thread would be prudent if further discussion needed.



Absolutely. As I said, I was hesitant to ask. Thanks for the links! These will suffice, for now. (You specifically have been in my prayers, as well, dear brother.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> and Steven Anderson types.



Speaking of whom
http://drmsh.com/another-great-moment-in-pulpit-paleobabble/

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Speaking of whom
> http://drmsh.com/another-great-moment-in-pulpit-paleobabble/




This is why I'm glad for Presbyterian polity. Anderson is an example of how literally any wacko can up and get ordained in an IFB church with close to no accountability to any higher court.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> Speaking of whom
> http://drmsh.com/another-great-moment-in-pulpit-paleobabble/



You sir obviously do not urinate standing up

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

BayouHuguenot said:


> Speaking of whom
> http://drmsh.com/another-great-moment-in-pulpit-paleobabble/


I always wondered how I should interpret "666". Now I know that the HS was speaking of the the numerical verse structure of the NIV.

P.S. The "newish" Reformation Worship book by Gibson and Earngey cut it close at 667 pages.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Grant Jones said:


> I always wondered how I should interpret "666". Now I know that the HS was speaking of the the numerical verse structure of the NIV.
> 
> P.S. They "newish" Reformation Worship book cut it close at 667.




My favorite NIV/New Version conspiracy theory is that Luciferian Theistic Satanists are corrupting new versions so the antichrist can come and unite all world religions together and use the new versions to persuade Christians to join him.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> This is why I'm glad for Presbyterian polity. Anderson is an example of how literally any wacko can up and get ordained in an IFB church with close to no accountability to any higher court.



This not a matter of one polity vs. another. But since you broke that seal:

When a whacko like Anderson is put in charge of a church, that ruins exactly one congregation. As a counterpoint, I give you the entire PC(USA), in which you don't even have to be a Christian, or even a Theist, to become an ordained minister.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Bill The Baptist

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This not a matter of one polity vs. another. But since you broke that seal:
> 
> When a whacko like Anderson is put on charge of a church, that ruins exactly one congregation. As a counterpoint, I give you the entire PC(USA), in which you don't even have to be a Christian, or even a Theist, to become an ordained minister.



Shots fired

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Strictly speaking, Wilson calls himself a Presbyterian (don't laugh) and his whole career is one abuse scandal after another.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Bill The Baptist said:


> Shots fired



Ha! Yes, I suppose so. I guess I am still a sinner saved by grace, with my own "triggers".

I'll try to behave.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Ah


SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Ha! Yes, I suppose so. I guess I am still a sinner saved by grace, with my own "triggers".
> 
> I'll try to behave.




Uh oh looks like I kicked the hornets nest...


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Ah
> 
> 
> 
> Uh oh looks like I kicked the hornets nest...



Eh, it's all "in the family", I guess. It's just weird to me that (it seems) that advocates of Presbyterian polity (seem to) assume that with Presbyterian Polity you always get the OPC, when the PC(USA) and RCA are standing right there.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Eh, it's all "in the family", I guess. It's just weird to me that (it seems) that advocates of Presbyterian polity (seem to) assume that with Presbyterian Polity you always get the OPC, when the PC(USA) and RCA are standing right there.



The fact is that we have seen and still do see great perversity in congregational, presbyterian, and prelatic contexts. To be honest, I tire of the arguments for a particular polity that go, "Well, in _*X*_ form of church government, this would never happen." Our concern with regard to polity should not be what is practical, but what is biblical.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor Sexton said:


> The fact is that we have seen and still do see great perversity in congregational, presbyterian, and prelatic contexts. To be honest, I tire of the arguments for a particular polity that go, "Well, in _*X*_ form of church government, this would never happen." Our concern with regard to polity should not be what is practical, but what is biblical.



In a perfectly pragmatic world, every system of govt works ideally.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This not a matter of one polity vs. another. But since you broke that seal:
> 
> When a whacko like Anderson is put in charge of a church, that ruins exactly one congregation. As a counterpoint, I give you the entire PC(USA), in which you don't even have to be a Christian, or even a Theist, to become an ordained minister.



Frederick Douglass once said that when the best bodies die, they give off the worse odours. Presbyterianism is the best system of church government, but when it goes wrong it stinks badly.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Taylor Sexton said:


> Our concern with regard to polity should not be what is practical, but what is biblical.



I completely agree with you that Prebyterianism is the way to go.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Tom Hart said:


> I completely agree with you that Prebyterianism is the way to go


And you believe that with all your 'hart'?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Stephen L Smith said:


> And you believe that with all your 'hart'?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK

This thread has strayed far from the original OP. However, it did not end in fisticuffs like most KJV threads. Good job, people!

Reactions: Like 2


----------

