Every Christian who believes that the Bible is God's Word should read the first part of this book, whether they agree with the author's stance or not, or whether they are interested in the controversy or not, since it covers quite a bit of background information relating to the history and nature of New Testament translation, including its history, major translations, translators, and other key figures, information about the nature of the greek manuscripts, and so on.Most of what I would comment about on this book has already been said, so I won't push the point much further.However, I would like to add another point which James White seems to have overlooked in his book, I assume because of his lack of international/missionary experience:I come from Singapore where not everyone is fluent in English, or even knows English, much less read English. For the ethnic Chinese who only reads and understands the Chinese language, the only Bible they can read would obviously be on that is translated to Chinese. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), none of the Chinese Bibles, as far as I know, are translated from the TR, and you cannot find a Chinese Bible translated from the King James version. Now that's just the Bible in Chinese, where there are a few versions/translations. How about those other Bibles in languages where there's only ONE translation (mostly translated by UBS, and not translated from TR/KJV)?Those who insist on KJV Only should perhaps remember that there's a whole world out there that does not and cannot understand English, much less KJV English. I supposed they are doomed, unless they learn English, KJV English.That said, my opinion is that this is probably the best book on the subject. Read it, unless your mind is already made up (see those 1 star reviews). King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?
This book is as thorough as could be possible in presenting its case. Since some have overtly slandered the author (James White), let me tell you what this book does NOT do. It does not tell people that the King James Version (KJV) is evil or that it should not be used. There are numerous places where Mr. White recommends using various translations (including KJV) to ascertain the exact meaning of a particular Biblical passage. The purpose of this book is to refute those people who would claim that the KJV is the only true word of God. Let me say Mr. White goes above and beyond in proving his case. Unfortunately, most of those who disagree will not read this book with an open heart and mind. White covers basic manuscript and textual issues. He then gives some excellent background info regarding the making of the KJV. He also covers the numerous passages that "KJV only" advocates use in their arguments. After reading this book, I can not fathom how anyone could believe that the KJV is the only valid Bible translation.
Book Summary Report: The King James Controversy
Theologian and apologist, James R. White, tackles the King James Only controversy with clarity and sobriety in his book The King James Controversy. With the heart of a pastor he addresses what has become a highly emotional issue for many people. As such, his tone and purpose are immediately evident. He strives for peace in the church. He tactfully dispels ignorance, and he responds to the often bombastic and vitriolic statements common to KJV Only advocates. James White is concerned to show that his readers can trust many of the modern translations, and while the KJV is a good translation it is far from being a perfect translation. Moreover, he seeks to demonstrate that charges of grand conspiracy on the part of modern translators are misguided and quite false. All of these points are developed with an eye on the novice. Therefore, the flow of his book is structured in such a way as to introduce the reader to some history and to textual concepts before moving into more detailed and theme specific areas of the KJV Only debate.
There is a logical construction to the book. Chapters one through three are more preparatory in character, in that they establish some rudimentary concepts before delving into the specifics of the debate. Chapters four through ten then dig into the details of the debate. The nature of these initiatory chapters will now be explored.
Chapter one delineates five basic KJV perspectives. The spectrum ranges from those who simply prefer the KJV as a translation to those who actually believe the KJV is a new revelation from God. White notes that most KJV Only advocates fall into group 4, which teaches that the KJV, as an English translation, is inspired.
Chapter two delves into history. The author intends to show that the KJV Only perspective, or mentality, isn't new to history. The great fifth century scholar, Jerome, provided a new translation of the Old Testament in Latin. The esteemed translation of that day was the Septuagint; it was the standard, the norm. When the people were confronted with the Vulgate they were very suspicious and many considered the new translation a threat. As time went on the Vulgate, ironically, became the accepted norm. Centuries later, when Erasmus sought to improve upon the Vulgate by consulting the original languages, a similar reluctance, and even disdain, erupted from the people. White draws parallels to the current debate. Like the Vulgate and the TR, people today murmur at new translations that seek to be more faithful to the original languages and more accurate in their textual choices. White stresses that the resistance from KJV Only adherents is not a historical novelty.
Chapter three educates the reader in foundational textual concepts. Subjects such as "manuscripts," "text-types," and "textual variants" are explored and defined by the author. White provides the reader with a broad sense of how we have come to possess the New Testament as we have it today. He wants the reader to understand that differences in Bible versions stem from translational differences, text-type differences (and therefore, different sources to be translated), and/or textual variants. He also introduces the reader to the different text-type families, with an emphasis upon the validity of the Alexandrian text.
Having laid some foundational groundwork in translational and textual issues, White begins to dismantle the KJV Only position in the remaining chapters of the book. The thrust of his polemic revolves roughly around five major thoughts. They are as follows:
(1) Erasmus and the original AV translators adhered, in substance, to the same translational and textual methodologies as practiced by modern translators.
(2) The charge of "grand conspiracy" leveled against modern translations, whether it is the "covering up of sins," undermining the deity of Christ Jesus, etc., is not only untrue, but hypocritically asserted by KJV Only advocates.
(3) The KJV Only position engages in slander, mischaracterization, and presents misleading data regarding alleged Scriptural deletions.
(4) The KJV doesn't always translate the Greek satisfactorily.
(5) The TR text harbors some poor textual choices.
In the case of the first point, the author surveys Erasmus' methodology noting that he recognized copyist errors, found examples of harmonization, perceived instances of transferred material in the Gospels, was extremely hesitant to include the Comma Johanneum, and other such points that agree with the approach of modern translators. The same is true of the KJV committee. They didn't conceive of themselves as being infallible. This point is made manifestly evident by White's citing excerpts from The Translators to the Reader. The translators explicitly state that they are attempting to improve upon older translations by examining textual data and pondering afresh the original languages. White challenges KJV Only adherents to be consistent in their assessment of Erasmus. Indeed, he calls them to reject Erasmus' work on the same grounds that they reject the modern translations.
Regarding the second point, White deals with the KJV Only allegation that the modern translations, and their "corrupted texts," deny the deity of Jesus Christ and undermine His Person by arguing several key points. He argues that the Byzantine text is "fuller" due the expansion of piety principle and that earlier manuscripts are simply more compact in their titles surrounding Jesus. He also compares passages on the deity of Christ in the NIV and NASB with the KJV and proves that the modern translations are in no way inferior in their affirmation of Christ's deity; if anything, they are clearer.
Point three is the focus of chapter five. In this chapter the author examines the writings of leading KJV Only advocates, Dr. Peter Ruchman, Dr. Edward Hills, and Gail Riplinger. White points out Riplinger's poor handling of the data (one might dare say deceitful). In the case of Dr. Hills, White sheds light on his fundamentally circular argumentation, but praises his honesty and irenic tone. Dr. Ruchman is shown to be a man of bombastic and caustic irritancy who, while exhibiting the sarcasm of a Luther, should prove to be more logical and scholarly in his handling of the data. After debunking Dr. Ruchman's "Creed of the Alexandrian Cult," White says that the term "misrepresentation" seems, at times, simply too mild for Dr. Ruchman's writings. KJV Only advocates can charge the modern translations with Scriptural deletion, but the facts will not substantiate these claims.
When James White turns to translational differences he catalogs a series of examples whereby the NIV and NASB are shown to be more accurate, or at least valid and clearer in their choice of translation. The same type of "example and respond" argumentation is utilized in his discussion on textual differences. But he begins the discussion by first outlining the means by which modern Christians go about studying and gathering and analyzing ancient manuscripts. He points out that one cannot simply count the number of extant manuscripts in a given text-type; rather, we must weigh them. For although the Majority Text greatly outnumbers Alexandrian manuscripts it must be carefully observed that Alexandrian manuscripts are the earliest and outnumber Byzantine manuscripts up until the eighth century. Upon examining the evidence White presents a compelling case that there are a significant number of displacements, examples of parallel influence, expansions of piety, and balancing within the Byzantine family. All of this is done in the context of specific passages that serve as concrete examples. And all of this done to demonstrate that the NIV and NASB are justified in their textual choices, and that the accusations of KJV Only advocates are unwarranted. Such discussions are written in a semi-detailed manner, with Part II serving as a detailed and scholarly defense of key textual choices within modern translations.
In conclusion, the book is written as a plea for understanding. He wants to help people understand why our English Bibles read the way they do. He seeks to demonstrate that KJV Only arguments are viciously circular and blatantly use double standards as they attack modern translations. Moreover, he seeks to show us that the movement is a human tradition without a basis in history. I think he has succeeded, and he has done so with tact and tough love. I would heartily recommend the book to anyone interested in the topic. - Textual Criticism - Bible Translation - Bibliophile - Bible'
Detail Products
Detail Reviews
Click here for more information
