1. Introduction:
Title: The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?
Author: James R. White
Topic: An alleged critique of the King James Only (KJVO) movement, aimed at questioning the validity of limiting one’s scriptural authority to the King James Version (KJV). White’s book seeks to contrast the KJVO position with the use of modern translations, proposing that the latter are reliable while using the former is misguided.
The purpose of this review is to assess White’s contributions from the standpoint of Confessional Bibliology, which affirms the providential preservation of the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text as the authentic, preserved Word of God. This review examines whether White’s treatment of the KJVO position and modern translations aligns with the confessional doctrine of scriptural preservation.
2. Summary of Content:
White structures his book into two major sections. In the first, he outlines what he terms the five groups within the KJV Only movement: (1) those who prefer the KJV, (2) those who prioritize the textual argument in favor of the KJV’s underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, (3) those who hold to the Received Text (Textus Receptus) as inspired, (4) those who view the KJV as an inspired translation, and (5) those who regard the KJV as new divine revelation. White’s analysis categorizes KJV adherents into these five camps to illustrate the spectrum of belief, but his aim is to counter each group’s core assertions by addressing historical and textual developments. However, White includes everyone from the Reformers, Joel Beeke, and Peter Ruckman all under the same term: King James Version Onlyist.
In the second section, White explores specific translation differences and textual variants that have fueled the KJV Only debate. He engages with passages like John 1:18, 1 John 5:7, and Mark 16:9-20, challenging those who use the KJV on textual grounds and advocating for modern critical approaches.
3. Analysis and Evaluation:
White’s five-part definition of KJVO is arbitrary and inherently self-contradictory. Rather than recognizing the nuanced differences within the movement as legitimate positions reflecting historical Reformed doctrines of preservation, White categorizes these beliefs into isolated groups, implying an internal inconsistency that he fails to demonstrate convincingly. By doing so, White creates a straw-man argument that does not accurately capture the theological commitments of traditional advocates for the Received Text.
For example, White’s portrayal of those who uphold the Textus Receptus as merely “Received Text Only” proponents neglects the confessional underpinnings of their stance. Historically, adherence to the Textus Receptus is rooted in the providential preservation of the authentic Greek text, as affirmed by Reformed confessions like the Westminster Confession of Faith. White’s classification diminishes this historical continuity by equating it with more extreme positions, such as the belief that the KJV itself is a re-inspired text or new revelation. This is commonly called Ruckmanism.
Moreover, White’s critique of the KJV Only position often conflates textual criticism with doctrinal authority. In arguing against the KJVO stance, he prioritizes eclectic textual criticism, which undermines the traditional confessional position on the preservation of Scripture. This reliance on modern critical methods reflects an epistemological shift away from the historical view of preservation as God’s providential work through the received texts. White’s dismissal of the Textus Receptus as merely one among many textual traditions illustrates this departure.
A further weakness in White’s argumentation lies in his inconsistency in critiquing the KJVO position while defending modern translations. White portrays modern translations as objective products of scholarly consensus while framing the KJV as subjective and divisive. This approach neglects to address the theological implications of the text-critical decisions underlying modern versions, many of which introduce doctrinal ambiguities and diminish the confessional doctrine of providential preservation.
4. Contribution to the Field:
White’s book is aimed primarily at debunking myths propagated by extreme KJVO advocates. For readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of textual criticism, his work serves as a basic introduction to the transmission and translation of Scripture. However, for those committed to a Biblical understanding of scriptural preservation, White’s book falls short of providing a balanced critique. His reliance on an arbitrary categorization of KJVO proponents and his dismissal of the Received Text undermine the Biblical principles central to historic Reformed theology.
This book is most relevant for individuals questioning extreme views within the KJVO movement. However, it fails to engage with the deeper confessional commitments held by those who defend the Textus Receptus on doctrinal grounds.
5. Conclusion:
The King James Only Controversy by James R. White offers a critique of the KJVO movement that is, at best, simplistic and at worst, dismissive of traditional Reformed views on preservation. His five-part categorization of KJVO adherents is arbitrary and misleading, conflating genuine theological positions with fringe beliefs. White’s emphasis on modern critical approaches reflects a departure from the confessional doctrine of providential preservation and undermines the authority of the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts as preserved by God.
While the book succeeds in challenging some extreme KJVO assertions, it fails to adequately address the confessional foundations of the Textus Receptus position. As a result, White’s critique remains incomplete and insufficiently grounded in the historic doctrines of Reformed theology.