Some Comments on White’s “The King James Only Controversy”

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Revised Edition). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2009. ISBN 9780764206054. 368 pages.

The author of this work, James R. White, is a Reformed Baptist, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a well-known “internet apologist” and debater. He is the author of over twenty religious books, including What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an. He states that the purpose of this work is “a corrective to the ongoing (if dwindling) KJVO movement” and “an introduction to the history and background of the biblical text” (p. 19).

White first wrote The King James Only Controversy in 1995, and produced a second edition 2009. So why am I reviewing it a dozen years later? The immediate incentive was hearing White’s “quick response” to Jeff Riddle’s Review of the Wretched TV Interview with James White. White complained about Riddle picking on a clip from a TV interview rather than interacting with his written work. Secondarily, though this might reflect on my search skills, I have found online mostly reviews that tout the greatness of the book. All that said, I’m just going to hit some high points that interest me. For a full review, better look elsewhere.

Pro-White reviews exalt his lack of bias in this work, but coming from a different bias, I do not see that. In his “Introduction” White begins with the following anecdote (p. 13):

The sales clerk never saw it coming. He had just finished unpacking the new shipment of study Bibles and setting up the new display. He had been working at the Christian bookstore only a week. All seemed well. And then it happened.

She seemed like any other lady looking for a Bible for her grandson. More than glad to help, he pulled a nice NIV down from the shelf and opened the box...

“I would like a real Bible,” the woman said.

“A real Bible?” the salesclerk asked.

“Yes,” she replied, “A real Bible, the Bible God honors, the King James, the A.V. [Authorized Version] 1611.”

Scenes like this are repeated almost daily across the English-speaking world.[i]

 And so it starts. So says the author who writes “out of a desire for peace in the church of Jesus Christ” (p. 16). Repeatedly, daily, across the English world, mean old women who are KJVO accost innocent Christian bookstore salespersons. I do not doubt that has happened. From the other side however, my wife and I in over 40 years of experience have found many bookstore clerks who aggressively steer one away from buying a King James Bible, even though that is what the person is looking for.

“Peace in the church” says the one who writes, “Responsibility must be laid at the door of the KJV Only camp for the destruction of many Christian churches” (p. 16). Nada one of any modern version proponents or anti-KJV folks would cause any problems over the Bible. Got it. Right. No bias.

In his “Introduction” White hints what will be his modus operandi. He will caricature support for the King James Version by primarily attacking the extreme edge. Just pick up “Peter Ruckman’s Bible Believers Bulletin…Barry Burton’s Let’s Weigh the Evidence, Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions, or William Grady’s Final Authority” (p. 15). He does not yet reveal that he will lump all King James supporters (and even some who are not supporters!) into his overarching King James Only categories, but it is coming.

In Part One, Chapter One, James White moves immediately to defining King James Only. I confess that in the past I have used his categories to try to make sense of the various version views. In 2008, I wrote, “I provide this [White’s categories] for what it’s worth in helping the reader understand there is a wide variety of supposed ‘KJV Only’ people.” Just four years ago, I wrote, “There may be categorizations of King James Only by others, but I have not seen them. These two are developed by men who do not hold any ‘King James Only’ position, but I think they give a fair representation of the views.”[ii] I repent in sackcloth and ashes. I was wrong and unwise to recommend this taxonomy (and should have known better). More recently I have written about Recategorizing “KJV Only” and the need for New categories for the Bible Versions Debates.[iii] I thought White’s categories were acceptable—and they primarily were what was readily available—but I have concluded that they actually contribute to the confusion we have surrounding the issue. These categories serve more for polemic purposes than educational ones.[iv] They cause readers to understand the KJVO controversy incorrectly.

White’s “Groups” or categories of KJVO are found on pages 23-28. James White’s list:

• Group #1: “I Like the KJV Best”
• Group #2: “The Textual Argument”
• Group #3: “Received Text Only”
• Group #4: “The Inspired KJV Group”
• Group #5: “The KJV as New Revelation”

Groups 1-3 have compelling legitimate reasons to complain of being called King James Version Only. Groups 4-5 fail to include some who are legitimately KJV Only.[v] Ultimately, all five categories are somewhat garbled. However, “Group # 2” perhaps best illustrates the distortion found in White’s categories. In it, he dumps Majority Text advocates (pp. 24-25) who have compiled Greek texts in distinction to the Textus Receptus, and made English translations in distinction to the King James Version! He basically admits they are not KJV Only, but nevertheless places them within the “range of beliefs within the broad category of KJV Only” (p. 23). Outrageous.[vi]

Well, I have spent a lot of time on the early pages, and will hasten on to mention a couple of random things. The time would fail me to speak of White’s view that whatever translation we use is a matter of Christian freedom (pp. 28-29), his errors concerning Erasmus (pp. 38, 90-104), the failure to engage scholarly views of the traditional texts (which he claims as a category of KJV Only), and more.

In Chapter 9, White lists “Problems in the KJV.” I got a bit of a chuckle from the following.

“Some AV defenders insist that all one needs is a good dictionary at hand and all will be well when encountering such terms. But why should we always need a dictionary at hand when reading the Bible?” (p. 295).

This from the kind of folks who call the King James Version a foreign language, while advising the other folks to learn three foreign languages. And, of course, a dictionary is never necessary for anyone reading a modern translation.

In Chapter 10, White answers “common questions” about Bible versions issues. In the following question, it strikes me that he may have let the NIV people pull the wool over his eyes, at least slightly.

“Q. I’ve heard there were homosexuals on the NIV translation committee. Is this true?” (p. 299).

In answering this White quotes an unsourced response from Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Center. The NIV Bible has a similar but briefer response on their website:

Virginia Mollencott, a Lesbian sympathizer, was involved with the NIV development at one point.  It is important to note that she was not a translator, and never had anything to do with the translation itself. For a few months Virginia served in the capacity of working on the literary (stylistic) committee of the NIV. When her sexual views were known she was immediately asked to resign. Her work never impacted the translation of the NIV at any point. To anybody reading the NIV it is very clear that homosexuality is a sin.

NIV opponents overplay their hand on this objection. It is a false claim that Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (1932-2020) was a translator of the New International Version. However, in my opinion, the NIV Bible people seem to shave the truth on this (and even misspell her last name). Mollenkott, though she evidently had not publicly “come out” when she was initially hired to work on the project,[vii] nevertheless cannot be looked back on as just a “lesbian sympathizer,” but one who engaged in full-blown homosexual behavior, even marrying her partner once that option was legal in the United States. The NIV Bible folks write that she worked “for a few months” on the literary or stylistic committee. Though I suspect the NIV will not allow anyone to prove otherwise by their records, Mollenkott’s biography says she “served as a stylistic consultant for the New International Version of the Bible (1970-1978).”[viii] White probably took Barker’s word for it, without checking further. In addition, White uses this to set up a counter-argument, pointing out that some scholars claim that King James VI/I was a homosexual (pp. 300-301). Some scholars claiming King James was a homosexual,[ix] and Virigina Mollenkott herself stating she is homosexual and living so publicly isn’t quite apples to apples. Is it, James?

So many pages, so little time. I’ll will stop for now.

Not recommended for beginners. White intends this work as an introduction to and explanation of the “King James Only Movement.” At some point, those who are studying the “versions” issue should read this book. However, it will confuse the beginnning student, setting them up to wrongly understand what constitutes “King James Onlyism” and what does not. It is more of a polemic than a textbook. Problems need to be addressed in the generally accepted categorizations that White has foisted on the reading public. Along that line, I would renew my call to those who are capable and interested to work to create categorizations of the various views about Bible versions in a way that is accurate, clear, concise, consistent, complete, and equitable.

---

[i] Interesting that White claims this is repeated daily across the English-speaking world while on the other hand he claims that KJVO-ism is a dying breed.
[ii] I think the other person, Bob Griffin, was simply repeating and restating White’s categories.
[iii] See also Exploring some ideas for the Bible Versions Debates, New categories: backing up, to go forward, and Mark Ward’s KJV and KJVO model.
[iv] And, of course, White is a polemicist.
[v] That is, those who reject both re-inspiration and new revelation, but believe the King James Bible is the only translation that should be used by English-speaking Christians.
[vi] Perhaps we could mollify this judgment a bit by considering that White may be the first to try to create such categories, if such be the case. On the other hand, he had a fine opportunity to refine the categories when he published his second edition in 2009 (and did not). If Burgon, Hoskier, and Scrivener are not KJV Only advocates (p. 130) – and they are not – then Farstad, Hodges, Pierpoint, and Robinson (p. 25) probably are not either!
[vii] On the other hand, a New York Times article about her death records, “At Bob Jones University, a professor told her to ‘cure’ herself of her homosexuality by marrying a man.” At least one professor at Bob Jones University knew about it in the early 1950’s.
[viii] See, for example, About Virginia Ramey Mollenkott and The NIV Committee on Bible Translation. It is hard to judge the truth without compiling more primary source information. Both sides could have reasons be less than forthcoming. The NIV leadership desires to protect their product. Virginia Mollenkott, at least while she was living, could have desired to pad her resume. These are suggestions that need investigation to either demonstrate or discredit. It is usually Virginia Mollenkott’s name that comes up in the NIV discussion. However, though secret at least to the onlooking world at the time, it is now commonly known that Marten H. Woudstra, who served as a translator and chair of the Old Testament committee, was a homosexual. Though I have not located the source, an anti-KJV site posted the following quote from Woudstra: “There is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today.” If this came unsourced from a KJVO site, I would probably just dismiss it. The fellow who quoted it was defending the NIV and would have no reason to reference this and try to explain if Woudstra had not said or written it. Ralph Blair (also unsourced) quotes Woudstra favorably on the “‘Welcoming’ Cumberland Presbyterians” website. James White, on the other hand, is silent about Woudstra.
[ix] Robert Bucholz and Newton Key say that claim about King James “is murky.” (Early Modern England 1485–1714: A Narrative History. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 208).