Just like any other textbook, The King James Only Controversy uses the first several chapters to build the foundation and bring the student up to speed concerning its particular subject. Many of the definitions and stories from Church history may be overheard at Bible college any time the subject of Bibliology arises. As a result, several of the ideas and histories given in this first section were not surprising to me, but I do take comfort in knowing more exact details and having bibliographic information to consult concerning these histories. What James White has done for me in the first several chapters is to complete my foundational understanding of where our Bible today came from, and more specifically how it has been preserved. What I have gleaned relating to this topic I will present in this summary.
It was helpful to me to observe that there are several degrees of patronage to the King James Bible, the most prominent and pertinent being the fourth group, which holds that the King James Bible is an inspired work to the same degree that the original autographs were. Proponents of this view would claim that the King James Bible is inerrant and is the only true Word of God in the English language. They are also likely to claim this inspiration for the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated.
The reason that it is such a struggle to deprogram King James Only advocates is the fact that the issue is one of doctrine to them and not simply preference. They perceive variations from their Bible as heretical and as an attack upon the Word of God itself. Such a strong belief deserves our observation and reflection that we would rightly understand the issues at stake and the care that we ought to take when addressing it.
All believers stand to gain wisdom from the experiences of those who have gone before us throughout Church history. The histories of the Septuagint and the Vulgate are indicative of what can happen over centuries of time; people begin to favor what they have become accustomed to and become unwilling to change. History seems to have a habit of repeating itself for emphasis; the misplaced devotion to the King James Bible now present has appeared perhaps many times over, though unrecorded, down through history as the Bible was translated and retranslated into each vernacular.
Two of the quotes from Erasmus supplied near the end of the second chapter seem very appropriate concerning specifically the translation of the King James Bible and generally the preservation of the Scriptures. The first refers to the rushed nature of his work on his first edition of a Greek New Testament. The second is his own admission of errors resulting from the process by which the New Testament was copied. He summarizes what everyone ought to understand when they think about the Bible: there are distinctions to be made between the Scripture itself, its translation, and its transmission.
I had not thought to take into consideration translational differences as opposed to textual differences. The first is a matter of definition, but the second deals with the content of the Greek texts. It was also helpful to be reminded that translation involves having a grasp on the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of both languages-this includes idioms. Finally, translation involves formal (literal) and dynamic (idiomatic) equivalencies when crossing from two distinctly different languages.
The last note to be made from this first section pertains to the opportunities for scribal error. Poor lighting, weariness, and pressure to finish quickly by reading aloud are all familiar to me, but harmonization had not occurred to me. Often I myself think that I am remembering a phrase from somewhere in the Bible (especially Proverbs) but cannot seem to find it upon examination. Harmonizing would seem to be most tempting when copying the Gospels.
White, James R. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.
