My Amazon
Review of The King James Only
Controversy
|
|
|
This
is my review of White's book, as
found at Amazon.com. I’ve noticed that Amazon tends to drop
reviewer identifications after a period of time has passed (hence the
attribution to simply "A reader,"
which is perhaps not surprising since this was posted over five years ago).
Also, because this also appears buried among many other reviews on
Amazon's site, it is made accessible here for the reader's
convenience, with the addition of some italics and a few helpful links to
other areas on my site. I
still stand by the substance of what is said here. The one detail of wording
that I would change (if I had not determined to give the text without change
here) is in point #2, where I would change “readings found in the ‘Jehovah’s
Witness New World Translation’” to “a reading found in the ‘Jehovah’s
Witness New World Translation’”—since only one such reading is mentioned by
White. I suppose it is only natural to have second thoughts about how
something is phrased more than five years after writing a piece—although as I
mentioned in my Introduction, to the best of my knowledge, we are ten years
and counting in waiting for any such reconsiderations to come from the author
of The King James Only Controversy! If he has rethought any of his language, he has
hidden the fact remarkably well…. --TLH. Return to the Introduction
to My Parody |
Who
cares about facts? It's good propaganda!, James White's book claims to be "a plea for
understanding" in the continuing discussion over Bible versions (p.
249). However, it is marked by its author's profound misunderstanding
of those who differ with him. The substance of White's charges is much less
impressive than the smooth writing. He assures us, on p. VII, that he has
endeavored to be fair, but time after time, we find a double standard laid
down by the author: the rules are generous when modern versions are
questioned, but strict and even unfair when applied to the KJV or its
adherents. This may seem severe but is easily documented: 1.
White recommends: "Whenever you encounter a supposed 'change' in the
Bible's text [in modern translations], take time to look carefully at the
available information. You will discover that there are reasons for the
differences..." (p. 146). But our author has failed to allow the same
latitude to the KJV. Mr. White often blames the KJV for the fact that he
himself does not understand a rendering and did not bother to check an
unabridged dictionary to educate himself (e.g., pp. 145-6 [2 Tim. 3:12], p.
233 [Acts
12:4--"Easter" means "Passover"], p. 226 [1
Cor. 4:4]), p. 225 [Lk. 18:12], p. 238, note 3 [Mk. 6:20: the
"inferior" KJV reading means exactly the same thing as the NAS
reading!], ). White also writes that "while it is true that heretics
down through the ages have appealed to this text or that, we must not allow
the misuse of biblical texts to
determine the readings we choose for the text of Scripture" (p. 258);
however, Acts 9:7 & 22:9 in the KJV are to be condemned based on the
understanding of Mormons, and Matt. 13:18 & Rom. 13:9 based on that of a
"nationally known atheist" (pp. 228-9). 2.
White complains that Gail Riplinger associates modern scholars with Charles
Manson, "the Mormon prophet Brigham Young," Jehovah's Witnesses,
and New Agers (p. 122, note 5). Yet how is White's linkage of KJV adherents
to "Roman Catholics" looking to an "infallible pope," to
Mormons seeking guidance from "the Prophet and Apostles in Salt Lake
City," and to Jehovah's Witnesses looking to their Watchtower
headquarters (pp. 93-4) any different? Or his association of "KJV Only
advocates" with readings found in the "Jehovah's Witnesses' New
World Translation" (p. 267)? 3.
White complains that in Peter S. Ruckman's writings "those who present
the facts are to be insulted, belittled, and identified as
'Alexandrians,'" (p. 115), but asserts his own right to use pejorative
terms ("KJV Only," "KJV Onlyism") because they are not
"insulting" or "inaccurate"--according to him!--but
represent a group which uses modern translations "only to point out how
bad and inaccurate they allegedly are" (p. 248). He also complains of
"Blustery words and insulting invective" (p. 247) from Ruckman, but
indulges in some notable bluster of his own: "The [KJV] position is, by
its nature, anti-intellectual, anti-scholarship, and anti-freedom" (p.
151). 4.
Numerous other faults of research, authorial grasp, and presentation might be
cited if space allowed. E.g., White seems to grossly misrepresent Aland's
concept of "tenacity" of the New Testament text to mean that
"once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn't simply go
away" (p. 48)--which would mean that every scribal miscopy in every Greek
manuscript ever written has been providentially preserved, something far more
against the odds that the beliefs White attacks. Also, White defines
"conjectural emendation" as a change "made to the text without
any evidence from the manuscripts" (p. 63)--a gross oversimplification,
since "evidence" can be more than the fact that a text at a given
point doesn't read X; an editor can make a case for copyist eye-skip or
transposition of letters, or draw on analogous passages in the edited work,
all of which draw broadly on the ms's "evidence." Such emendation
is used literally thousands of times in Greek and Latin classical authors,
and while one might argue as to whether or not it is appropriate for the
Bible, an author who, like White, is not overly concerned about precision in
defining this critical term forfeits the reader's confidence in other areas. White
has not only a bias--reasonable in an apologetic work--but an outright
prejudice against the KJV adherents' position. It may be that the author
resents KJV apologetics so much, and is so convinced that they smack of
double standards (and not always without cause, since some are poorly
reasoned, as are a portion of writings on any controversial position), that
he is overcompensating without even realizing it, taking "revenge" with
some double standards of his own by writing this seriously flawed polemic. George
Orwell's observation in writing about the Spanish Civil War--"The truth,
it is felt, becomes untruth when your enemy utters it"--certainly
reflects the attitude of some of White's partisans, as does the converse:
that inaccuracy becomes "truth"--or 'good enough'--as long as it
serves its purpose against "KJV Onlies." (See the book cover
blurbs, by men who should have had enough scholarship to know better, for
proof of this.) White shows himself in this book to be to the
"controversy" what Jackie Collins is to great literature.
Unfortunately, too many on White's side of the aisle are trying to make him
out to be Ernest Hemingway, which is much more profound a statement on the
"controversy" than anything in White's book. Some of his backers
seem interested in nothing but scoring points, fair or not, off the
opposition; White's inaccurate but highly polished writing will no doubt be
useful as propaganda to this end. |
