The second reading of The King James Only Controversy consists mainly of two parts: the history of the King James Bible and textual arguments that bring into question the authority that some are ascribing to it. Author James White brings up many of the difficulties at the foundational level that advocates of a KJV Only position must wrestle with. He especially attacks the stance that holds the King James Bible to be inspired and inerrant, all the while attempting to preserve the idea that KJV is valid and valuable English translation.
With regard to the history of the King James Bible, I will only snatch out a few details that I find to be particularly pointed or significant instead of summarizing the history. First, it is interesting to my scholastic mind that the Textus Receptus shares many characteristics with later copies of the Greek New Testament, classified as Byzantine manuscripts. White justifies the assertion that these are "later" manuscripts by the facts that they include the longest versions of the texts due to additions and that they are the most numerous text-type existing today, forming the "Majority Text."
Second, White raises two assumptions concerning the preservation of the New Testament which serve to restrict both the claims and accusations sometimes made by KJV Only advocates. The original autographs of the New Testament, along with their first copies, were dispersed so widely that they could never have come under the control of one man or group that would attempt to alter the entire New Testament to conform it to a false doctrine. Also, no deletions have apparently been made to the New Testament through all of its transcriptions. This is based on the pattern of marginal notes being included in the text so as not to leave anything out it that might have belonged in it. It must follow logically that if this were not true, then scholars would have no means by which to judge accurately what material has been added and what has been deleted in every place. If it is true, then we may assume that we can hold the whole Bible, with a few additions and variations.
Third, the history repeatedly confirms a humanistic development of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. Erasmus worked just as modern textual critics do, yet with far fewer resources, to produce his Greek New Testament. He made decisions concerning variant readings, sometimes against even the best evidence he had. Three standing passages in the KJV demonstrating inaccurate decisions are Romans 10:17, Matthew 20:22, and 1 John 5:7. Following Erasmus' original publication came four revisions by Erasmus, four by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), and five by Theodore Beza. White emphasizes that all of these editions are at variance with each other and with the "Textus Receptus" as it is used today!
It is noteworthy to me that John Calvin took issue with the Textus Receptus in as much as it had developed by his time in eighteen places beyond those about which he agreed with Erasmus' Annotations.
Now concerning an evaluation of the King James Bible itself. Though the translators of the King James Bible relied primarily on the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, they also consulted other English translations existing at the time. Like Erasmus' Greek New Testament, the first edition of the KJV experienced five revisions within 30 years from its debut in 1611. Most significant is the variation between modern publications of the KJV such as in Jeremiah 34:16.
One final note is in order. The translators themselves deny any special inspiration of the King James Bible. They used the same methods of textual criticism that modern scholars use, and they supported the idea of including as many textual variants as were available in the margins. They openly admitted the humanness of their work and even had to defend it!
White, James R. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.
