|
July 1997
There have been only a few
responses to my book, The King James Only Controversy.
Aside from one privately written and published response by Dr.
Kirk DiVietro (see my response: http://www.aomin.org/DiVietro.html), and Dr. Ruckman’s wild-eyed articles
in the Bible Believer’s Bulletin (which, as I
understand it, ended up in a "book" as well), there has
been little in the way of substantive response, other than the
obligatory, "Oh yeah?" that I get often get in AOL chat
rooms. J I’ve been told that Dr. Theodore
Letis is writing a review as well, and he's been busy traveling
the country making outrageous (and untrue) statements about the
book, too. I was informed that he had recently called Grand
Canyon University, seeking my transcripts! I can only imagine
what that review is going to be like: I once attempted to engage
Letis in debate in the theonomy-l mailing list, and the result
was, well, unfortunate at best.
But the first response I received
came from Dr. Thomas Holland. He was kind enough to send me a
copy of his response just a few months after my book came out. I
looked it over, and quite honestly felt that it had very little
merit to it, and filed it away. I’ve run into Dr. Holland a
number of times in AOL since then, and just recently (April,
1997) "debated" Dr. Holland at a cult conference in
Indianapolis. Immediately before the debate Dr. Holland handed me
a copy of his response in printed form. I was somewhat amused to
note that it was published by Peter Ruckman’s organization.
Since I’m sure Ruckman will be doing all he can to promote
this work, I’ve decided to take a few moments to respond to
Dr. Holland’s comments.
A Very Nice Cover!
I mentioned to Dr.
Holland that the cover of his booklet is quite nice. I pointed
out that the cover has the very same colors as one of my Rush
Limbaugh ties. Don’t believe me? Look at the graphic of the
cover on this page, and then look for yourself: http://www.rushties.com/dcshop/rush/pg6.html ! Look at the tie
called "Ivy Blue." J
No credits are provided for the
artist, but I get the feeling that I may well have been honored
with a Ruckman original here. The artwork on the cover looks a
lot like Ruckman’s chalk drawings. If it is an original,
I’d love to ask Ruckman for the original drawing. I think
I’d frame it!
As one can see from the cover, my
book (in the form of a crate) is slowly slipping beneath the
waves, having floundered against the rock of the KJV 1611
Lighthouse. But what is even more interesting is the back cover,
which continues the painting:
Here a ship is
slipping beneath the waves, and as you can see clearly in the
above scan, the ship is the "S.S. White." The text
coming from the lighthouse is from 1 Timothy 1:18-19 (KJV, of
course), which speaks of some who have made "shipwreck"
of their faith. Since I, in the form of a ship, am slipping
beneath the waves, it is sort of hard to avoid the clear
implication that I have somehow made shipwreck of my faith by
writing my book. Surely, many KJV Only folks say so without
hesitation. But Dr. Holland claims I am a brother in Christ. When
I pointed this out to him, he indicated that he had nothing to do
with the design of the cover. The design is certainly consistent
with Ruckman's attitude and viewpoint, to be sure.
The Introductory Letter
This small (24 page)
booklet contains only about 14 small pages of text in all. It
begins with a short letter to Peter Ruckman. The only relevant
piece of information here is listed in Dr. Holland's
"reasons" for writing his review. He notes as his third
reason:
Mr. White not only
misrepresented you, but also all who hold to the Authorized
Version as God's perfect and preserved word. Of course, this
is nothing new.
It certainly seems like Dr.
Holland is speaking in pretty much the same vein as Ruckman, who
continually calls his opponents "liars" and the like.
We shall see if I did, in fact, "misrepresent" Dr. Ruckman.
Starting
Off on the Wrong Foot
Dr. Holland begins his review by
misrepresenting my intentions:
Those who believe the King
James Bible to be the preserved word of God for the English
speaking people will find no friend in the writings of James
R. White and his recent book, The King James Only
Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Bethany
House Publishers 1995). White seeks to justify the use of
modern versions such as the NIV and NASV while attacking
those who hold to the Authorized Version as the word of God.
A fair reading of my book shows that I have
no desire to "attack" those who hold to the AV as the
Word of God. In fact, I said it is the Word of God, just
as the NASB or NIV is rightly called "the Word of God."
I did not "attack" anyone. I do respond to the vitriol
and ad-hominem argumentation that characterizes much of
the body of KJV Only materials, and I review the presentations of
some folks who use personal attack in everything they write,
including Peter Ruckman, Texe Marrs, and Gail Riplinger. But as
the vast majority of my reviewers have noted, I did so without
stooping to their level. I leave the conclusions concerning the why's
of their writings to the reader. Next we read,
It would take a volume to
answer all White's objections to the King James Bible and
those who believe it. Those criticisms have all been
addressed in the writings of those White opposes.
I believe the King James Bible---I use it
when witnessing to Mormons all the time. Obviously, what Dr.
Holland should say is, "White's objections to King
James Onlyism and those who promote this viewpoint." As to
all my criticisms being addressed in the writings of "those
White opposes," this simply isn't the case. The vast
majority of my criticism of Gail Riplinger, for example, is not
at all responded to in her own writings. Holland
continues:
However, some points of
justification require further examination. The number of
contradictions, straw man arguments, and false information is
astounding.
Sometimes, such broad-brush
comments are worthwhile and proper. For example, it would be
quite proper to say, "Gail Riplinger's book, New Age
Bible Versions, is filled with so many errors per page that
it would require a multi-volume series to document them
all." But whenever you make such a comment, you need to back
it up with solid and representative
examples. And it is just this that Dr. Holland fails to do.
The real issue is never fully
addressed in White's book. In defending modern versions and
attacking the Authorized Version, White gives the same old
arguments: better texts, the difficulty in translation from
one language to another, textual problems in the Textus
Receptus (TR, the basic Greek text which underlined the
Authorized Version of 1611), errors of the King James Bible,
differing editions of the KJV, and the attitudes of those who
support it.
In reality, my book goes far beyond this,
providing a great deal of historical information on how we got
the Bible in the first place. However, I wish to focus upon the
first sentence. The "real issue" is addressed, many
times, in my work. Obviously, Dr. Holland may differ with me on
what the "real issue" is. That's fine. In fact, Dr.
Holland may take a different viewpoint than many in the KJV Only
camp. That's fine, too. However, to accuse me of misrepresentation
as he often does requires that I be misrepresenting the
particular viewpoint I am addressing at that time. He cannot
accuse me of misrepresenting him if I do not address his
viewpoint specifically. To be honest with you, I had never heard
of Dr. Holland prior to writing my book. I am unaware of his
having published anything prior to his review of my book, and
almost everything I've seen by him in the Internet has been
written since he began responding to my work. Hence, I
can hardly be faulted if I didn't address his particular
viewpoint.
Unfortunately, Dr. Holland's response is
like every one I've seen thus far: it focuses upon minor issues,
taken out of context, and utterly fails to interact with the vast
majority of the material in the book, including its central
thesis. This can be seen very early on, for we read,
For example, he makes light of
KJV only groups, stating they believe the KJV was
"delivered to us via angelic messenger"
(pp.118-119). He boldly declares in one footnote:
We have heard of small
groups that go even further, claiming that the KJV was
written in eternity, and that Abraham and Moses and the
prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New
Testament! (p.6).
White's speculations are not
scholarly, but merely ridicule and hearsay.
How is it, may I ask, that
pointing this fact out (and it is a fact---Eric Pement of
Cornerstone Magazine in Chicago is the one who mentioned this
group to me) is to be taken as making "light" of KJV
Only groups? How is it that a footnote amounts to a "bold
declaration," "ridicule and hearsay"? Does Dr.
Holland deny that anyone has ever gone this far in their views on
the KJV?
Contradictions
The next section of Dr. Holland's
review is titled "Contradictions." Here we should find
plenty of solid evidence to back up the charges already made.
Indeed, Holland starts off by saying, "Self contradiction
seems to be a theme in his book." Such allegations should be
rather easily documented. We shouldn't find Dr. Holland reaching
for obscurities here, should we? Let's look at his
"contradictions" and see how he does. Here's the first
one:
White states that time should
be spent by pastors helping the sick and not defending text
types and translations (Introduction, p. IV), but then
concludes that the Bible "requires us to study its
history and the reasons for our trust in its veracity and
accuracy" (Introduction, p. VI). Apparently, White feels
the KJV issue worthy of attention as he has just published a
286-page book on this issue, written a pamphlet entitled
"New Age Bible Versions Refuted" in response to
Gail Riplinger's book on the subject, and has debated
Rip-linger twice and author Dr. D.A. Waite on this issue.
How did Dr. Holland do? Well, not
too well. Let's look at what I really said on page IV of the
Introduction:
Most important, men of God,
pastors and elders entrusted with the care of the flock of
God, are inevitably, and often unwillingly, drawn into this
controversy. Time that should be spent in ministry to
families, the sick, the hurting, has to be invested in
explaining to zealous members of the congregation why their
salvation is not dependent upon a seventeenth-century
Anglican translation of the Bible. Energy that could be
devoted to the study of the Word and the proclamation of
God's truth from the pulpit has to be directed toward
allaying fears inspired by KJV Only publications.
So, as we can see, Holland is the
one doing the misrepresenting here, changing my obvious thrust so
as to create, out of whole clothe, a "contradiction."
It only gets worse. Context seems to be something that is utterly
irrelevant when looking desperately for
"contradictions." Here's the next one:
In a series of contradictions,
White cites several of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's books, stating
that "charges of blasphemy, heresy, and even stupidity,
fly thick from some elements of the KJV Only movement"
(Introduction, p. V). Yet, on the same page he says,
"The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among
Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and
translation of the Bible." According to White, this view
causes conservative Christians to be viewed as
"backwards" (Introduction, p. VII). Further, KJV
only groups are "an opening" through which cultic
groups often enter into the thinking of the unsuspecting
believer" (p.27). White sends a mixed message that it is
wrong to use words such as "heresy" and
"stupidity" by supporters of the KJV, but condones
the labels of "ignorance," "backwards,"
and "cultic" for advocates of the Authorized
Version.
Anyone who has read Dr. Peter
Ruckman's works knows what I mean about the language used by KJV
Only advocates. If you are reading this while on our web site,
simply note the correspondence with Ruckman, replete with scans
of his profanities scribbled on my letters and sent back to me.
Or read the articles on Texe Marrs and his describing me as a
"servant of Satan." You can read The King James
Only Controversy a thousand times and never find language
like that, for it simply isn't there. But what of Holland's
statements? First, saying that a person, or group of people, are
"ignorant" of a particular field of study is not an
insult. It happens to be a fact. The statement from page VII is
in the following context:
I am no friend to those who
would seek to undercut the very foundations of the Christian
faith. Indeed, it is a concern for the integrity of the faith
that drives this reply to the KJV Only position, for the
cause of conservative values in the Christian faith is by no
means aided by the existence of the KJV Only camp. The
willingness of many to sacrifice all semblance of logic and
rationality in the cause of defending a great, yet imperfect,
translation of the Bible as if it were inspired is used by
skeptics as evidence of how "backwards"
conservatives as a whole
truly are.
Again, it is amazing what a little context
will do! So we are hardly surprised to find that the last
statement has likewise been taken out of context and pressed into
service to create a non-existent "contradiction":
Being an informed person on the subject
of the text of the Bible would seem a basic, fundamental
aspect of being a Christian today. Yet the vast majority of
Christians have little or no knowledge at all of where the
Bible came from, how it was transmitted over time, or why
their translation differs from any other. This lack of study
not only provides the breeding ground of the KJV Only
controversy, but it is also an "opening" through
which cultic groups often enter into the thinking of the
unsuspecting believer.
The reader will notice that Dr. Holland has
badly misrepresented my words here. I am talking about
ignorance of how we got the Bible being the "opening"
through which cultic groups often enter into the thinking of the
unsuspecting believer. Holland changes my words to refer to KJV
only groups. This is a blatant error, and should be enough to
request both an apology, as well as a retraction. So far, then,
we have no contradictions after two attempts. But Dr. Holland has
some more:
Another of White's
discrepancies depicts those in the King James only movement
opposing the use of Greek and Hebrew. White states (pp.55-56):
Recently I mentioned to a
KJV Only advocate that I was teaching both Greek and
Hebrew classes. He asked me what percentage of Christians
today know Greek or Hebrew. I answered that it is a very
small number, to which he replied 'Good.' No need to
waste time with such things anyway, since you have God's
words in the AV 1611.
Later he admits the Greek
Textus Receptus is "...used today by nearly all KJV Only
advocates..." (p.63). How can KJV only advocates hate
New Testament Greek and use the Greek TR at the same time?
Every Bible college that believes the King James Bible to be
the preserved word of God teaches New Testament Greek.
Again, context is utterly ignored. I
plainly differentiated between those KJV Only advocates who view
the English text as superior to the Greek and Hebrew texts, and
those who do not. Holland ignores my own definitions. What is
worse, he again changes the context, misrepresenting my
statement. The material that appears right before his citation
reads thusly:
It is very common to find the KJV Only
advocate dismissing any appeal to the Greek or Hebrew
manuscripts. "So you have to know Greek to know what God
says" is the comment that has been made to me many
times. "You are limiting God's Word to scholars. What
about those of us who do not know Greek or Hebrew? Can't we
know what God has revealed?"
Would Dr. Holland like to suggest that KJV
Only advocates, especially the followers of Peter Ruckman, to
whom he entrusted the publication of this "review," do not
say such things? If he would like, I have files
filled with letters from such folks. So, another
"contradiction" that is nothing more than a creation of
Dr. Holland's imagination. Three down, and three left to go:
Chapter Two gives a discourse
of "New and Improved," noting this phrase comes
from advertisers who are "not the most honest people in
the world" (p.9). While the beginning almost reads like
a KJV only book against new versions, the chapter quickly
changes to criticism of the KJV only movement as die hard
traditionalism.
We are not told how this is supposed to be
a contradiction. The chapter documents the fact that the impetus
behind the KJV Only movement is nothing new. No contradiction
here.
Were homosexuals on the NIV
translation committee? White emphatically denies this inquiry
(p.245) but then points out that Virginia Mollenkott was used
as a consultant on matters of English style because "she
had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian
with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage.
Nothing was known of her lesbian views" (pp. 245-246).
Again, Dr. Holland completely
misses the point. Anyone who reads the two pages cited knows
this. Mollenkott was not on the translation committee. A
committee position is not the same thing as a stylist position. Surely Dr. Holland should know the
difference. Five out of five alleged contradictions have failed.
Dr. Holland has one last shot:
White claims he is a
"biblical conservative" (Introduction, p. VII) and
believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Yet he
states, "To err is human" (p.36). His point that
the translators of the KJV were human and subject to error is
the same argument the liberal scholar uses about the issue of
Biblical inerrancy.
I am a biblical conservative who does
believe in inerrancy. And, I believe that scribes making
manuscripts erred. The two issues are, obviously, separate, as
Dr. Holland well knows. This is nothing but a bogus argument that
relies upon switching categories, and is beneath Dr. Holland.
So we have seen six attempts by Dr. Holland
to provide examples of contradictions in The King James Only
Controversy, and all six have been shown to fail. Not only
this, but in most of these, it is Dr. Holland who is plainly
guilty of creating straw men and using misrepresentation, the
charge he makes against me in his review (a common
tactic, I might note). This takes us to the half-way point of the
entire published piece, and so far, we haven't found a single
substantive criticism! Such should speak volumes.
Straw Man
Arguments
Dr. Holland begins his next section by
demonstrating that he would like me to have only reviewed his own
beliefs, not the beliefs of the loudest of the KJV Only movement:
In the same vein, White builds
a series of straw man arguments in order to prove his
point. He uses the equation (p.3), "The King James
Bible Alone = the Word of God Alone," to state the
view of the KJV only movement. This equation is given without
any quotation to support it, and assumes that only the King
James Bible is the word of God. The logical implication is
that those who hold to this view do not believe any other
country has the word of God unless they speak English, or
that until 1611 the word of God was lost. Most KJV advocates
believe the King James Bible to be God's preserved words for
the English speaking people not the whole world as
White suggests (p.3). King James supporters also recognize
the history of the scriptures throughout the church age and
show different times in history where the word of God existed
before 1611.
There are many KJV Only advocates
who take the very views Holland notes here. For example, anyone
who has viewed the John Ankerberg series on the KJV issue knows
that in the very first program Dr. Ankerberg asked Dr. Sam Gipp
(a graduate of Peter Ruckman's school---and remember, Dr.
Holland's "review" is published by Ruckman!) about this
very topic. He asked Gipp if a person in Russia needs to learn
English to have God's infallible Word, and Gipp answered
"yes." One need only read Gipp's The Answer Book
to find statement after statement defending this view. The other
two KJV Only advocates did not disagree (though I know that Dr.
Strousse would have, if given the chance). Hence, Dr. Holland
commits a basic fallacy here: he faults me for addressing someone
else's view, not his own. If he takes a less strident view, more
power to him. But he cannot even begin to deny that there are
individuals who take the views I presented. He has to admit that
I differentiated between the various groups, and if he focuses
upon the passages where I am dealing with something other than
his own position, he is the one using the straw man argument.
Again, White states of the
TR:
Anyone who believes the TR
to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other
men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and
Beza), were somehow 'inspired,' or at the
very least 'providentially guided' in their work. Yet,
none of these men ever claimed such inspiration (p.58).
First of all, who believes
these men were inspired by God in the same sense the Old and
New Testament writers were inspired? White assumes the KJV
advocate believes this, and then expresses that men like
Erasmus "never claimed to be inspired." Secondly,
White quotes Dr. Edwin Palmer of the NIV translation
committee as saying, "John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy
Spirit.. declare(s) that Jesus is God" (p.103). Because
the KJV has a different rendering here, Dr. Palmer calls the
KJV and its Greek texts "inferior" and his Greek
text "inspired." If a KJV advocate had used such
wording concerning the TR, White would have objected.
The reader will note that such
arguments are very difficult to follow, as Dr. Holland seems to
be trying to miss the points I am raising in an effort to find
fault with the book as a whole. He ignores the fact that there is
an endnote attached to the word "guided" in my quote
which provides a citation of Dr. Edward F. Hills, from whom I
took my phraseology, in which Hills says the same thing! The
context of my statement has to do with the collation of
manuscripts, not the writing of manuscripts, so again
Holland misrepresents my point. I am speaking to the choices
made by Erasmus and others as to textual variants, not to
the writing of the Scriptures themselves. Hence, the first
objection is groundless. The second objection, likewise, is
utterly groundless, as Dr. Palmer did not refer to
"his" Greek text as "inspired" over against
the TR. This is a blatant misuse of Palmer's citation, and is,
quite honestly, a very poor stretch at best. If my book is so
full of contradictions and straw men, why does Dr. Holland have
to work so hard to create his examples? Next, Holland is found
defending Ruckman, but in the process, missing the point yet
again. He cites my statement concerning Peter Ruckman's view of
the superiority of the KJV to the Greek and Hebrew texts, though
he forgets to note that I did so by citing Ruckman directly! He
goes on to say:
This is another example of Mr.
White not doing his homework. It is common to refer to the
Greek texts of modern versions as "the original."
Since Dr. Ruckman sees these texts as corrupt, he often makes
light of them by stating the KJV should be used to correct
them. He is not claiming the KJV should be used to correct
the authors of the Old and New Testaments, but that the KJV
should be used to correct the writings of modern textual
critics. As to the superiority of the KJV to the true
originals, Ruckman only points out that the originals would
serve little purpose to the common English reader since he
could not read them but could read his English KJV Even
modern scholars recognize this. Luther A. Weigle quotes Sir
Frederic Kenyon, who stated in 1936, "It is the simple
truth that, as literature, the English Authorized Version is
superior to the original Greek" (The New Oxford
Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha [Revised Standard
Version], Oxford University Press 1977, p.1553). Neither
Kenyon, Weigle, nor the committee for the Oxford study Bible
could be called followers of Dr. Ruckman or part of the KJV
only group, although they did recognize how the KJV
was superior to the original Greek. Perhaps White will target
these men in his next book on the subject.
First, Dr. Holland says "this
is another example of Mr. White not doing his homework."
Yet, we haven't found a single example in the entirety of his
review to this point. Next, he tries to downplay Ruckman's
caustic comments about the "originals," but fails to
even begin to interact with the citation I provided from Ruckman
himself. Without such interaction, his defense carries no weight.
But even the rather irrelevant citation of Kenyon fails him, for
Kenyon is not speaking in any context even remotely
similar to Ruckman. Kenyon is stating that the KJV translators used
a higher form of English than would directly match the
grammatical level of the koine Greek used in the NT. This is
not the point Ruckman is making at all. Hence,
on both points, Holland's arguments fall flat. This makes his
comment, "Perhaps White will target these men in his next
book on the subject" somewhat embarrassing.
We then come to the issue of dynamic
equivalence, where again, the straw men abound in Dr. Holland's
review. It seems that if I explain the theory behind
dynamic equivalence, I automatically become a proponent
of it as the final word in translation. Anyone who reads my work
objectively will know that I presented the case for both formal
and dynamic equivalence, and pointed out that every translation
is a mixture of both principles. Holland misrepresents
this section by stating that I argued that modern translations
are "better" than the KJV due to their use of dynamic
equivalence. Such is, again, a simple misrepresentation.
Next Dr. Holland accuses me of
"speaking for the dead." He writes:
"I can say with
confidence that if Desiderius Erasmus were alive today he
would not be an advocate of the AV 1611" (p.60).
How does White know this? Has he been speaking with Erasmus
lately?
No, but I sure have been reading
him, and I said what I did on the basis of what Erasmus
wrote. Holland conveniently ignores the preceding six pages
of information, replete with twenty-two endnotes almost
all of which are from Erasmus' own writings in making
this statement. This isn't reviewing a book, this is massacring a
book.
"Dr. Hills' [sic] honesty
is a breath of fresh air. If he had not begun with the
assumption of the superiority of the TR, he would undoubtedly
have been led to a conclusion in favor, at the very least, of
the 'Majority Text' rather than the modern critical
texts" (p.93). Really? Then why did he not do so?
This comes from a discussion of
the view of Edward F. Hills (making "Hills'" the proper
form of the possessive), and any review of the passage provides
abundant answer to the question. Given Hills' use of the data, if
he had not begun with the
assumption of the superiority of the TR, he would have come to a
different conclusion. It is not difficult to understand. Dr.
Holland moves on to another "example":
The following is perhaps the
best. In reference to 2 Cor. 2:17, the KJV translates the
Greek word "kapeleunontes" [sic] as
"corrupt" instead of "peddle" as the New
King James Version does. "Surely if the KJV translators
were alive today," states White, "they would gladly
admit that 'peddle' is a better translation than 'corrupt,'
and would adopt it themselves" (p. 114). This is
foolishness. There were peddlers in 1611, but they chose
"corrupt" because they felt it was the better
translation. No amount of speaking for the dead will change
that fact.
Again, context, context, context.
Here is what I said:
When we look more closely, it
appears that the NKJV simply translates the Greek text
differently than the KJV, which has "corrupt the word of
God." Is the NKJV (and NASB and NIV and RSV and NRSV)
teaching that it is acceptable to corrupt the Word of God?
The Greek term used here (there are no textual variants
regarding the word) is "kapeleuontes,"
which literally refers to a peddler, a merchant, one who
sells things, often with a negative connotation to the term.
One source defines it, "to engage in retail business,
with the implication of deceptiveness and greedy
motives—to ‘peddle for profit, to huckster.’
" Therefore we see that, in reality, the KJV rendering
is inferior to all the modern translations, which more
faithfully bring out what Paul is referring to. He is talking
about those who seek to make a profit by preaching, and he
contrasts this motivation with his own, that of
"sincerity."
It is obvious, therefore, that
the NKJV translators are not seeking to give anyone an excuse
to "corrupt" the Word of God, but are instead doing
just as the KJV translators before them: seeking to
faithfully translate the Word of God into English. Surely if
the KJV translators were alive today they would gladly admit
that "peddle" is a better translation than
"corrupt," and would adopt it themselves. The
foolishness of the argument put forward can be seen simply by
reversing it: is the KJV trying to say it is OK to peddle the
Word of God, as long as you do not corrupt it? Of course not.
One might suggest at this point that if you
have arrived at the seventeenth page of a 24 page review, and
have yet to find a single meaningful or accurate
objection, that "enough is enough." But, with only
seven pages to go, why not provide a full response? Dr. Holland
goes on to address briefly the issue of freedom. I mentioned that
many KJV Only churches do not allow the use of other translations
in their churches. Dr. Holland points out this is due to their
conviction that it is a perfect translation, which I fully
understand. This is hardly an objection to my work.
Next Holland notes a single statement I
made concerning the motivations of the KJV translators. I pointed
out that some might have had less than perfect motives, just as
some modern translators might. I noted William Barlow held views
of the monarchy that could have impacted his translation (as I
had elsewhere noted the King's influence upon the translation
itself, p. 71). Holland questions this, but upon what basis? Is
he prepared to assert that all the KJV translators had perfect
motivations?
More simply irrelevant points are raised,
including my noting (as an example of the inconsistency of KJV
Only advocates) that the KJV translators were Anglicans and
Puritans, and hence believed in infant baptism. Holland ignores
the context in which I made this observation.
Holland asserts that the citations of the
KJV translators provided on pages 72 through 77 "prove
nothing" or "are taken out of context." Yet, he
fails to substantiate his allegation, which, given his track
record thus far, says a great deal. When your batting average is
0.000, you can't ask that someone just take you at your word. He
again fabricates a context, saying, "White seems to think
the translators of the KJV favored the need for additional
translations and therefore would welcome modern versions (p.
76)." Yet, this is what I had written:
One of the issues that arises in the
Preface that is very relevant to the KJV Only controversy is
the inclusion of alternative translations or marginal
readings in the KJV. The translators defended their inclusion
of these items, and in so doing demonstrated that those who
would make their translation an inerrant and inspired work do
so against their own statements.
I have to ask: why does Dr. Holland have to
consistently misrepresent a text that is widely
available? Such is very hard to understand. Holland speaks
"for the dead" (to use his phrase) when he says,
The translators would not
accept the readings of modern versions. They had English
translations based on the same type of textual readings of
modern versions in the Catholic (Douay) Bible. The
translators wrote, "...and all is sound for substance in
one or the other of our editions, and the worst of ours (that
is before 1611) is better than their authentic vulgar."
Given that I provided a number of citations
from the translators (passed over in silence by Holland) that say
that they used the same kind of methodology modern
textual critics use, such a statement collapses under its own
weight. Besides, does Dr. Holland wish to say that Douay matches modern
texts? Or will he not admit that in many places it is quite
Byzantine, and reliant upon the Vulgate, just as the KJV?
Amazingly enough, even the KJV translators are not immune to Dr.
Holland's misrepresentations! He writes,
The translators plainly state
that their work was equal to David bringing the Ark into
Jerusalem and Solomon building the temple. Their conclusion
was, as even cited by White, that the KJV "containeth
the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (p.75).
The way Holland presents this (and he did
the same thing in a brief "debate" we had in
Indianapolis in early 1997) is that the translators are saying
the KJV specifically is "the word of God." But
here is what they actually said:
Now to the latter we answer;
that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very
meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men
of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the
whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the
word of God.
To what are they referring? To the
KJV? No, to "the very meanest translation of the Bible in
English." Even the "meanest" translation
"containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
Such is exactly opposite the view of most KJV Only advocates.
Will Dr. Holland call my NASB the Word of God? The KJV
translators would. Holland concludes by saying, "The
translators believed they translated the very word of God and
that their work was beyond themselves." That is quite true,
but it has nothing to do with any of my citations of their words,
nor the topic at hand. Again, while Holland asserted
that my citations either proved nothing, or were out of context,
he failed to interact with the majority of them, and the few he
did, he failed to deal with adequately, or, sadly, even honestly.
We are getting close to the end.
Entire sections of long explanation of textual issues are
reviewed in single paragraphs. In discussing the differences
between the later Byzantine texts and the earlier Alexandrian
manuscripts, I discussed, rather fully, the concept of the
"expansion of piety." Holland ignores the large number
of examples I provided on this topic elsewhere in the book, and
focuses upon only one example I gave of how this can happen in
every day life. I mentioned a lady who called in on a radio
program and who instructed me that I needed to say "the Lord
Jesus Christ" rather than anything shorter, like "the
Lord" or "Jesus." Having ignored the majority of
my presentation he glibly concludes, "Does modern
scholarship now consist of proof by radio?" He then points
out that the TR does have expanded titles of the Lord Jesus (as
my book says), but then ignores my full discussion of the
reasons, concluding, "Since the scriptures teach us 'that in
all things He might have the preeminence' (Col. 1:18), it makes
sense to use a Bible with the 'expansion of piety' than to have
one where Christ is not as prevalent." This ignores my
repeated assertion that the issue is "what did the apostles
and prophets write under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit," not what a pious scribe thought a thousand years
later. By ignoring the points raised in my own book, Holland
unwittingly provides a glowing example of how accurately my book
focuses upon the real errors in KJV Onlyism---errors their
leading advocates simply cannot respond to.
False Information
The final section before the
conclusion of this "review" is titled "False
Information." Of course, to this point, we have failed to
find a single accurate criticism of an entire 286 page book.
Twenty pages of a twenty-four page review have passed in utter
failure, so we have every right to wonder about such a title.
Holland begins:
The real issue is not the
inspiration of the KJV, but the preservation of the word of
God as stated in scripture (Ps. 12:6-7; Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet.
1:23). White seems to overlook the issue, touching on it
briefly at the end of chapter three where he discusses the
relationship between preservation according to the
canonization of scripture and the keeping of the Bible as a
whole. Again, is this not the same argument the liberal
theologian uses to deny Biblical inerrancy? All liberal
scholars believe in Biblical preservation in the same form
touched on in the King James Only Controversy. But
where is the scriptural support for such a view? Sadly for
White and his cohorts, there is none.
Actually, Dr. Holland errs again.
There is a lot of discussion of this issue in the book beyond the
few places he cites. Why does he ignore those sections? When he
asks if this is not the same argument liberals use, the answer,
of course, is "No, Dr. Holland, it isn't." It is simply
untrue to state that "liberal scholars believe in Biblical
preservation in the same form touched on" in my book. Either
Dr. Holland knows nothing about liberal theology, or he has again
misrepresented my book, one of the two.
As to Scriptural support, and Dr.
Holland's own presentations, I provide the following brief
comments. I have read through all of the material on Dr.
Holland's web site, http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/index.html, and have found a consistent pattern of
error, both in exegesis, and argumentation. He relies completely
upon a misinterpretation of Psalm 12:6-7, and even brings this up
at this point in his review. The following information was
written in preparation for my debate against Dr. Holland:
There is no argument, this evening,
that both Dr. Holland and myself believe in the preservation
of God’s Holy Word, the Scriptures. I fully affirm the
inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of the Bible. I have
engaged Roman Catholic apologists all across the nation in
public debate in defense of the great truth of sola
scriptura, and will be doing so again in only a few weeks
on Long Island. We both believe in the authority of the
Bible, and we both believe in the preservation of the
Scriptures.
The issue between us is very basic, and
while it can at times seem complex, it really isn’t. We
don’t have to discuss variant readings and text types
and the like to address the fundamental issue between us. For
quite honestly, the reason we would differ in our discussion
of all other issues regarding textual criticism is due to the
starting points we both have regarding the subject itself.
Dr. Holland has already explained his
position to you. In his written materials, available on the
Internet, Dr. Holland uses the same passages repeatedly to
assert that there is a "biblical" or
"Bible-believing" method of textual criticism,
which is what he embraces. Opposed to this biblical method is
that embraced by myself and the vast majority of conservative
Christian scholars today. I quote from Dr. Holland:
The King James Version
View:
This view draws most
of its textual support form the Traditional Text,
since the Greek Text which underlined the King James
Version came from the Traditional Text.
The view covers
preservation, final authority, and the Sovereignty of
God. The view states that the Authorized Version is
the preserved word of God for the English-speaking
people. It stands as the final authority for all
matters of faith and practice without any proven
error.
This view begins with
a basis of Scriptural promises. Namely, that God
would keep and preserve His words. (Psalm 12:6-7;
Matt. 4:4; 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23). Preservation
would mean more than a general term. It would mean
that God kept all of His words without error, and
that these words are preserved in a book which can be
read and tested. Throughout church history God has
kept His words, and since 1611 for English-speaking
people, it is found in the Authorized Version.
All other issues we can, and may,
discuss, will be determined, I believe, by Dr. Holland's
tenacious holding to this belief. Now, I would point out in
passing that the position as defined has insuperable
difficulties: it assumes the existence of one
"Traditional Text," when in fact, the
"Traditional Text," whether we speak of the
Byzantine family or the Majority Text, demonstrates internal
variations and differences. Indeed, the exact text of the NT
as found in the KJV cannot be found, word-for-word, in any
Greek manuscript anywhere on the planet prior to 1611. Hence,
the position itself requires the use of a view of textual
criticism at its start that it then disallows when
finished, making the position internally inconsistent.
Remember, Dr. Holland says ALL God’s words---plural,
which speaks to a particular word-for-word text---has been
"preserved" as a body from the beginning.
Why do the vast majority of
conservative Christian scholars reject this view? Because it
does not accord either with a fair reading of any one of the
biblical passages cited, as we shall see in a moment, nor
with history itself. We find no compelling biblical reason to
assume that God has promised to preserve a particular
text-type, family, or manuscript, as the "final
authority," nor that there is any promise that
particular language groups will be granted a particular
translation that, by some means, is made to be
"better" than all others. Instead, we find that God
has indeed preserved His Word, only in a very different way
than the one proposed by Dr. Holland.
While our debate today is specifically
on Dr. Holland’s position, I feel compelled to briefly
state my own, as it represents the view of most of those
conservative Bible believing scholars working in the field.
God’s work of preservation has taken place not through
the use of a particular group, a particular geographical
area, or a particular text type. God has preserved His Word
in the entire mass of New Testament manuscripts, including
those of every text type. Christians, as a people, believed
that everyone should have access to the Scriptures.
So, they were quite willing to have copies of their
Scriptures made by anyone who wished. As a result, copies of
New Testament books were quickly distributed all over the
known world, from the British Isles to the sands of Egypt,
from Germany to Palestine. Some of the greatest treasures we
have discovered over the past century have been the papyri
manuscripts that have laid in the sands of Egypt for nearly
1800 years.
The genius of the Lord’s means of
preserving His Word is striking, and beautiful. And since we
are here in an apologetics and counter-cult conference, we
should note that it provides us with a solid basis upon which
to defend God’s Word. You see, God sent out His Word to
all the world, so that there was never a time in all of the
past two millennia when any one man, group of men, church, or
council, had "control" over the text of the Bible.
All the time we hear people saying that at such and such a
time in history this doctrine was removed from the Bible, or
this book was taken away, so on and so forth. Yet such is
simply not the truth. Since there were primitive copies of
the NT books buried in the sands of Egypt by as early as a
century after the originals were written, we have a
providential and fool-proof system of maintaining the
Scriptures against the desires of anyone who would wish to
change or alter them. You see, no one could ever track down
all the copies of the Bible and make wholesale changes in
them. Such would be an impossible task. And if someone does
try to change the text in one area, the corrupted copies
stand out like a sore thumb against the mass of manuscripts
from other areas. Hence, God has preserved His message in a
most wonderful way.
The result of allowing the Scriptures
to be hand-copied and distributed widely is the phenomena
known as textual variation. People make mistakes when copying
manuscripts by hand. Indeed, we still make mistakes when
using computers and optical scanners! As a result, every
single manuscript in the world, including those used by the
KJV translators, differs from all others in some way. The
vast majority of the differences are in matter of
minutiae, such as how to spell a word, or a missing
"and" here or there. Given the number of
manuscripts we have (around 5,400 in Greek alone), we are
easily able to resolve the vast majority of these variations
without undue effort. But in some instances, we have to work
hard at examining the two or three possible readings to
determine the original. But I must ask you to consider: would
you rather have to deal with textual variations as the
inevitable result of the process of copying over time, or
have to face the situation of the Mormons, with one
"inspired" text controlled by a church hierarchy,
susceptible to changes on the whims of the leaders?
Let us also remember an important
lesson from history: there have been movements in the past
that have attempted to enshrine a particular translation
of Scripture as the final authority in the Church. In the
early years, some tried to make the Greek Septuagint the
"standard" for the Church, resulting in a near riot
in Carthage when Jerome’s Vulgate was read in public for
the first time. Then, eleven hundred years later, it was the
Vulgate that had become the standard, so that when Erasmus
published his own Latin translation, he was accused of heresy
for daring to question the "standard" that God had
so obviously preserved. And today, there are those who
make Erasmus’ Greek text, as translated into English in
the KJV, the standard for English speaking people. I would
assert all along that in every instance, the absolute and
final standard must be the words of the apostles and prophets
themselves, not any later rendering of those words.
Now, the main question before us this
evening is just this: does the Bible teach a particular type
or method of textual criticism, and specifically, does this
force us to believe that there is a standard translation in
English, and that this standard translation is the King James
Version? I answer unambiguously that it does not. I begin my
rebuttal of Dr. Holland’s position by directing your
attention to Psalm 12:3-7.
3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips, The tongue
that speaks great things;
4 Who have said,
"With our tongue we will prevail; Our lips are our
own; who is lord over us?"
5 "Because of the
devastation of the afflicted, because of the groaning of
the needy, Now I will arise," says the LORD; "I will set him in the safety for
which he longs."
6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a
furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7 You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from
this generation forever.
8 The wicked strut about
on every side When vileness is exalted among the sons of
men.
Psalm 12 is, I would assert, the
central passage for Dr. Holland’s position, as defined
in his written materials on the Internet. If this passage
doesn’t teach what Dr. Holland says it does, his
position becomes untenable. Dr. Holland has written:
Concerning the words of the Lord, the
inspired writer reminds us that,
Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.(Psalm
12:7).
Man can not be trusted with this job.
He will think the can do a better job than God and add to
them. Or else, he will think that a passage would read better
if he takes something away. Man does so because he is a liar.
This ends the notes I wrote on the
way to Indianapolis for our debate. However, briefly, I point out
that when I attempted to get Dr. Holland to interact with Psalm
12 in our debate, he consistently ignored my questions. Many in the audience noted this as well. I asked
him about the context, about the fact that the KJV does not
literally translate the Hebrew text, and so on. Dr. Holland
refused to even deem such questions worthy of a reply. I leave it
to the reader to determine why. Quite simply, the passage will
not bear the burden placed upon it by Dr. Holland. Allow me to
explain.
A quick review of just some of the
translations of the passage reveals the problem:
(KJV) Thou shalt keep them, O
LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
(NASB) You, O LORD,
will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.
(NIV) O LORD, you will
keep us safe and protect us
from such people forever.
(Hebrew) `~l'A[l. Wz
rADh;-!mi WNr,C.Ti ~rem.v.Ti
hw"hy>-hT'a; (uses
BWHEBB.ttf font)
The difference in translation is central
to the entirety of Dr. Holland's position. His entire
system is based upon a particular interpretation of
"preservation" taken from this passage. If, however,
the passage is not talking about God preserving His words,
Dr. Holland's position collapses (and, I might add, even if the
passage is referring to the preservation of
"words," what that means must be addressed as
well). Dr. Holland has chosen a passage, however, that itself
contains a textual variation. The Hebrew text used by the KJV
translators, the 1525 edition of Bomberg, reads literally just as
the NASB, "will keep them...will preserve him."
A few other Hebrew manuscripts "fix" this problem and
follow the Greek Septuagint in reading like the NIV, "keep us...protect us." Jerome, likewise, reads "us."
But aside from the textual issue, we point
out that "them" is not the reading of either the Greek
or Hebrew manuscripts. It is possible that the KJV translators
took the third person masculine singular suffix,
literally translated as "him" (NASB), as a
"collective," and rendered it "them." Or, it
is possible the translator(s) simply erred and followed the third
person masculine plural of the preceding verb, ~rem.v.Ti. If they did, this is not a literal translation,
something Dr. Holland would have to explain. But most
importantly, the
suffix attached to the word "preserve" is a masculine
singular (WNr,C.T),
while the term "words" in "words of the LORD"
in verse 6 is a feminine plural. Hence, whatever is "preserved"
in verse 7 is not the "words" of verse 6, as
you cannot match a masculine singular to a feminine plural. Yet,
Dr. Holland's entire interpretation demands that this
passage say that it is the words of the LORD that are
preserved in verse 7, yet the grammar of the passage does not
allow this interpretation.
What, then, is the passage saying?
Taking into consideration the grammar and text, as well as the
entire context, the passage is quite clear. The "words of
the LORD" referred to in verse 6 are given in verse 5:
"Now I will arise, I will set him in the safety for which he
longs." The "he" is the "afflicted"
found previously in verse 5. Verse 6 says that God's promise to
deliver the afflicted is as good as gold or refined silver. God
will "keep" His promise (v. 7), and will preserve the
afflicted one from this wicked and evil generation. This
understanding fits with the grammar and context of the passage.
Dr. Holland's interpretation does
not take these issues into consideration. It demands that a
masculine singular be matched with a feminine plural when
there is no logical reason to do so. Two other issues should
be noted quickly: first, even if one were to take the object of
"preserve" as the "words" as Dr. Holland
does, (ignoring the fact that there is a limited application of
the term in the immediate context, that being the promise the
Lord just gave of delivering the afflicted man), the passage does
not in any way prescribe a method of
"preservation." Such has to be filled in from some
other source. Second, some suggest that the final phrase of v. 7
should be translated "O Eternal One" rather than
"forever," making a balance with the vocative use of
Yahweh at the beginning of the verse. This, too, must be
considered in examining the validity of Dr. Holland's
interpretation.
After discussing the preservation issue,
Holland briefly addressed the Comma Johanneum. While I
spent many pages on the topic in my book, Holland offers his
"rebuttal" in one paragraph, claiming Cyprian
"quoted" the passage (he didn't---it is, at best, an
allusion, not a quote) and the like. He does not even attempt to
deal with my presentation of the data on the manuscript evidence
relevant to 1 John 5:7 in the KJV.
Likewise, he mentions my discussion of
problem translations in the KJV, again pleading that it would
"take a volume" to respond to what I wrote. If Dr.
Holland had, up to this point, established a track record of
accuracy and consistency, such a claim might be accepted. But
since we have yet to find a single meaningful objection
or accurate documentation of an error on my part, we can hardly
take his word for it. He insists that the great scholars could
not possibly have mistranslated something since they were in
committee, yet, why not deal with the examples given? Even
committees make mistakes, and it should be remembered that the
work of the committees sometimes clashed, and the final editing
left a lot to be desired. And if having a committee means you
can't mistranslate something, why doesn't the fact that the NASB
is translated by a committee mean the same thing?
In
Conclusion
Dr. Holland's conclusion carries no more
substantive weight than the rest of his review:
White argues that those who
can answer the above question by producing a Bible which can
be seen, read, and tested have become cultists looking for
"absolute certainty." In fact, he compares them to
Roman Catholics looking for absolute certainty in the
infallibility of the Pope. He compares them to the Mormons
who look for absolute certainty in the authority of the
Apostles in Salt Lake City and to Jehovah's Witnesses who
look for absolute certainty in the Governing Body of the
Watchtower (p.94). Strangely, all these groups would agree
with White that the KJV is full of errors and they have
something better. They are free to believe as they wish but
truth dictates the assurance that God has kept and preserved
His words. On this issue we can be absolute and certain.
I would like to challenge Dr. Holland to
produce the words "cultists" in The King James Only
Controversy regarding KJV Only advocates. Surely I think
some go that far in losing all sight of the central doctrines of
the faith, but you will note that there is no page citation here,
since I did not even address the issue in the book. This is an
appeal to emotionalism, little more. Likewise, he misses the
importance of the topic I was addressing about absolute
certainty. This is what I said:
The desire for absolute
certainty in all matters plainly lies behind statements
such as this, and the much less polished (and much more
emotional) versions of the same argument that are encountered
in less scholarly KJV Only materials. It is argued that
unless we embrace the KJV as our "final authority,"
we have no final authority at all, and hence all is
subjectivity and uncertainty. People do not want
subjectivity, but desire certainty and clarity, and so we
must hold to the "traditional" text.
This argument is extremely
powerful and should not be under-estimated. Many people
fulfill their longing for "certainty" in religious
matters by swearing allegiance to a particular leader or
system. For example, many Roman Catholics find the idea of an
infallible pope very "comforting," for when things
get confusing they always have a source of certainty and
absolute authority to turn to. In a similar way many Mormons
look to the Prophet and the Apostles in Salt Lake City, and
Jehovah’s Witnesses look to the Governing Body in
Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. Others find a
TV preacher or evangelist and, without stating it in so many
words, invest him or her with some level of infallible
religious authority. The fact that groups that offer this
kind of "trust us and we will give you absolute
certainty in all religious matters" mentality continue
to attract followers should tell us that the lure of
"absolute certainty" is a strong one indeed.
Protestants, however, should
be quick to question any such notion of absolute
religious certainty. The concept of the individual’s
responsibility before God is deeply ingrained in Protestant
theology. We cannot hand off our responsibility in religious
matters to someone else. We cannot say "the pope told me
to do that" or "the prophet instructed me to
believe that doctrine." God holds us individually
responsible for our beliefs and our actions. This was one of
the great scandals of the Reformation: the idea of the
plowman and the merchant carrying and reading the
Bible was unthinkable to the medieval Catholic theologian.
How could the layman understand religious things without
asking the priest? The Reformers preached a radical concept:
a man is responsible to learn God’s Word as best he can,
and to follow what he learns. We are called to be students,
responsible men and women who make learning, and studying,
God’s Word a high priority in our lives. We cannot blame
anyone else for our ignorance, or our errors.
As imperfect human beings we
will make mistakes. As Paul said, we see in a glass darkly in
this life. There are things that are unclear, things that are
simply not as plain as they someday will be. The KJV
translators themselves said in their Preface, quoted earlier,
"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those
things that are evident: so to determine of such things as
the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the
judicious) questionable, can be no less than
presumption." Those who offer us certainty beyond all
questions, the translators would rightly say, are being
presumptuous with God’s truth. Those who offer absolute
certainty do so at a cost: individual responsibility.
If we say that we can have no
certainty regarding the biblical text unless we embrace the
KJV (or the TR), we are simply moving the question one step
back and hoping no one notices. How can we be certain of the
textual choices of Desiderius Erasmus, or Stephanus, or
Theodore Beza? How can we be certain that the Anglican
churchmen who chose amongst the variant readings of those
three men were themselves inspired? Are we not, in reality,
saying, "Well, I must have certainty, therefore,
without any factual or logical or even scriptural
reason for doing so, I will invest the KJV translators with
ultimate authority." This is, truly, what KJV Only
advocates are doing when they close their eyes to the
historical realities regarding the biblical text.
As we have seen throughout this review, Dr.
Holland avoids the real issue. By isolating a little phrase from
its context, he joins Peter Ruckman, Texe Marrs, and Gail
Riplinger, all of whom are masters of misrepresentation.
This is disturbing, since Dr. Holland strikes one as a kind, fair
man in personal conversation. Yet, an impartial review of what he
has allowed to go into print under his own name shows not a bit
of impartiality or the requisite fairness that marks Christian
scholarship.
The only people who will be convinced by
Dr. Holland's arguments regarding The King James Only
Controversy are those who have not fairly read the book.
Those who have will find yet another example of the desperation
of the KJV Only movement to provide any kind of response
to the work. I call upon Dr. Holland to explain the many, many
errors documented in this file, and to withdraw from circulation
a work that does nothing whatsoever to add to the dialogue on the
most important topic of Bible translation.
|
