The controversy regarding the reliability of modern translations of the Bible, especially in comparison to the King James Version, has been incredibly divisive, often splitting churches and even families. A lot has been said, and even more will be said, in the seemingly never-ending debate over Biblical translations and text families. Without a good understanding of the issues involved, a pastor can easily lead his congregation astray; at the very least, he will be uninformed about an issue that has no small importance to his church. The reliability of the Bible that we read is of utmost importance to Protestant Christians, whose faith is based on the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura. James White's book The King James Only Controversy, has been one of the key sources for people who are engaged in correcting the error that is King James Version Only (KJVOnly)-ism.
This book is written to be very accessible to anyone who is looking for good information about the debate. White's purpose is not to engage in intellectual discussion of the issue; he is seeking to give the average reader basic knowledge so that they can understand the issue and its implications to Christians. He also makes an effort to refute many of the more popular arguments of the KJVOnly apologists.
White goes to great lengths to make this book accessible to lay readers, even including textual criticism information as an Appendix (labeled "Part 2" in the book) so that readers who want more information on this particular topic can investigate further, but people who do not want this depth of information can enjoy the book without it. I think that this book, if given to the average KJVOnly who really wants to have an open mind about the subject, it will succeed in showing them the flaws of the King James Only position.
This book is not without its shortcomings, however. I was disappointed at the very abbreviated treatment of the Comma Johanneum, since this is one of the areas of tremendous conflict in the debate. White does not address the argument that Cyprian quoted the comma, even though this is an argument that is often used—and rather easy to refute. He does not address the presence of the comma in Codex Brittanicus. He ignores the alleged use of the verse by Eugenius at the Council of Carthage in 485. These are all arguments that KJVOnlies can and will use, and readers of White's book will be aware of them—or will be made aware of them.
Article comments
1 - Aaman
So you will be including the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Bible then, and the Gospel of Brian, too?
2 - Warren
I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. If you're referring to the Codex Brittanicus, it is an ancient copy of the Bible, not an extra-Biblical source. I never mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, which actually do contain some copies of Biblical texts (Isaiah comes to mind right away).
Maybe instead of being snarky, you could add something substantial to the discussion.
3 - Aaman
Try hunting me, I'm so snarky:)
For Brian, query Monty Python+"Life Of Brian"
And if you do not acknowledge or include the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Gnostic Gospels, you are only leaving out much fine stuff from early-Christianity, that never got included thanks to those guys in the fourth century
4 - Warren
Actually, the Gnostic Gospels were eliminated by orthodox Christianity as early as 170 (Muratorian Canon). The whole Gnostic issue was debated extensively in the early 1900s when the Oxyrhincus (sp?) papiri were found.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are pre-Christian, so their canonicity would be best determined by Jewish tradition rather than Christianity.
And I'm very familiar with Life of Brian, I was just wondering about it's relevance.
5 - gonzo marx
i had thought a lot came from Iraneus in about 180 AD and his missives on discrediting "heresies, even when they speak of a Truth"
will have to look that up from home..
thanks for bringing up the topic with the Article...much to talk about and debate concerning these matters...
more to come...
Excelsior!
6 - DrPat
I think the issue is that Bibliolaters want to be sure they're worshipping at the true altar. So the Gnostics are on the sideline, and Monty Python is right out...
7 - Dave Nalle
Having been raised Anglican, I was always under the impression that the King James version was the result of a little-known but secretly accepted second revelation.
Dave
8 - Warren
Dave -- there are many who believe that the KJV is a second revelation from God that corrected the Greek. The men who actually translated the KJV rejected that idea.
DrPat -- I think that the key is what documents were actually used by the church in the first and second centuries, and what documents were rejected by everyone except those who were more concerned about adding mystical revelation to Christianity.
Gonzo -- I THINK Irenaeus was referring specifically to the Montanists, who taught that they had a special revelation from God. They rejected a good part of the orthodox canon in the process, including the Old Testament as a whole.
9 - gonzo marx
to Warren,
Iraneus was Bishop of Lyon in 180 A.D.
his goal was to promote a stable and unified orthodoxy to the early Christian church, primarily via his major work "Libros Quinque Adversus Haeresus" (five books against heresies)
his Foes included any of the Gnostic sects and thier philosophy of personal experience and understanding in regards to spiritual matters within Christianity...
towards this goal he asserted it was required to discourage and punish individual speculation and encourage unquestionig Faith in the fixed dogma as espoused by the priests that taught under a structure of codified tenets that allowed no interpertation by the Individual..
(sound familiar gentle Readers?)
to oppose and combat personal interpertation and gnosis, Irenaeus preached a single universal("catholic") Church resting on a fundament of apostolic authority and succession
to create and organize such a Church he recognized the need for a common canon, so he poured thru the various writings at the time, keeping some and tossing aside others to suit his purposes
Ireneaus is recognized as the first writer/editor whose New Testament conforms to that used in the present day
one might easily say that his Work is the cornerstone in the foundation of all present day Christian churches
as always, gentle Readers...don't believe me..do your own research, think about it...and decide for yourself
my Postulate is.... gnosis > dogma
Excelsior!
10 - dee
I do not care which version of the bible you own or read. If you do not follow the teachings of christ, what good is it doing to read it? I own three king james versions, two women's devotional bibles (niv) and one Good news bible. I prefer the king james because I like it but that does not mean other bibles are not good. They were given to me by friends and I do read them on occasion. I do not follow the KJversion only line of thought.
11 - Aaman
I guess you've never heard of comparative religion then.
And of the sources of many of the key parts of the bible - Sumerian/Egyptian myths.
Treat it like the mythology/sociology it is and look on the brighter side of life, or Monty Python as the case may be
12 - Warren
dee -- I agree with you on the issue adressed in the book (interesting that out of now 12 posts only 1 is actually dealing with the topic of the book reviewed). Unfortunately, many do not agree, and are rather vehement in their rejection of the rest of us.
Aaman -- I'm not even going to get into the whole "who influenced who/which came first" debate. Egyptians and Sumerian legends bear minor similarities at best -- and if you drag out the dying messiah stories I will be very disappointed -- you sound much more intelligent than that.
Gonzo -- Irenaeus was the first writer whose list matched ours, true. And I support his efforts against personal interpretation -- in spite of what many postmodern thinkers tell us, there is a Truth, and not multiple truths. If my truth contradicts your truth, one of us must be wrong. This is one area where I agree wholeheartedly with the reformers -- Scripture is our final authority. I believe in the priesthood of all believers (the P in Baptist lol), but I also believe that this means we each have a responsibility to represent truth as reflected in Scripture. Where Scripture is not specific, we have room to disagree and still be brothers. Where Scripture is specific, there can be no room for opinion.
13 - DrPat
I'm reading a Norse-mythology-influenced novel right now that reminded me that Odin All-Father (Wodin or Votan in some legends) was "hung on a tree" and had his "side pierced with a spear" for the benefit of his believers.
Virgin mothers, resurrection, eternal punishment for the god-cursed, assumption into virtuous afterlife for the "saved": common religious memes have propagated themselves throughout the world's religions.
The power gained from adopting these images lends strength to newly-arisen belief-systems, and with the passage of time, the links to the older faiths are forgotten.
14 - Warren
DrPat:
I've heard them all. Most are unconvincing, many date to well after Christian beliefs were propagated. I'm curious as to how Jews in Palestine in the first century learned of the All Father and his death.
I'm working on a post at my own blog about this -- it's a bit too involved to be treated fairly in a comment. When it's done and posted, I'll put a link to it here.
15 - gonzo marx
greetings Warren, and welcome gentle Readers...
in comment #8 Warren refers to "Montanists"...who i must gather were another sect of early Christians dubbed "heretics" by Irenaus in some communication i am unaware of..
or...he could be referring to the Marcionites, followers of a shipping magnate/bishop who arrived in Rome in 140 A.D. and was promptly "excommunicated" 4 years later...
Marcion was a wealthy man who had spent a large portion of his fortune gathering the first canonical collection of Christian writings..his "heresy" was making a distinction between "law" and "love"...equating "law" with the old Testament and "love"(read:Agape)with his new Testament, which did NOT include the old Testament..it was in direct response to Marcion's work that Irenaeus compiled his canon which Warren acknowledges form the New Testament bible we know today
remember from my quote in comment #5?
Irenaus..the Bishop of Lyon, decided and edited all of the works available at the time (these would include the Nag Hammadi texts and many others) and then shaped them to conform to his own idea of what doctrine should be so as to establish a priest class...his own words to a follower instruct that bishop to deny anything "heretics" say , lie if needed, when such "heretics" spoke a Truth outside of the doctrine Irenaeus codified
i find it quite Interesting more than 1900 years later Warren would say...
*Scripture is our final authority. I believe in the priesthood of all believers*
even more telling of how well this one man in 180 A.D. achieved his goal..
Warren sez..
*Where Scripture is specific, there can be no room for opinion.*
if you would enjoy the discourse, i could go over some of the History of the 4 Gospels in the New Testament and make some observations you could find thought provoking
i have no faith in the works of Iraneus himself...a man who self-admittedly woudl violate many of the prime tenets of the Faith he espoused in order to further his personal and political ends...i tend to stand with his first target of accusations , Valentinius(teacher of Ptolemy among others, was in Rome from 135-165 A.D)
Valentinius was persecuted for refusing to submit to Roman authority, believing that personal gnosis took precedence over any external and arbitrary hierarchy. i tend to agree.
thus my personal Postulate remains..
gnosis > dogma
your mileage may vary...
Excelsior!
16 - Warren
"or...he could be referring to the Marcionites, followers of a shipping magnate/bishop who arrived in Rome in 140 A.D. and was promptly "excommunicated" 4 years later..."
Yes -- I was wrong. That's what happens when you start trying to remember things that you haven't read on in a while. My focus lately has been split between Medieval history (which is my passion) and 16th-17th century Baptist history (which I had to study for school).
IIRC, Marcion was a dualist -- a classic sympton of gnosticism. One theme that permeates the writings of those who followed Christ most closely (Peter and John especially) is that the Christ of the New Testament and the Jehovah of the Old Testament are the same. Christ is identified in John 1 with the creator God of Genesis (something Marcion couldn't stomach, which is why he rejected John's gospel).
It's unfortunate that Irenaeus felt it was OK to misrepresent the views of the early heretics -- we don't have any real accurate records of their teachings as a result. And Marcion did do a few things right -- his rejection of Roman authority, for example.
I'm familiar with Valentinius, but haven't read much of what he wrote -- maybe that should be my next project.
17 - Warren
BTW -- the Montanists were another heretical group -- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm.
They existed about the same time as the Marcions, so that's why I got the two groups confused.
18 - Warren
I promised a link when I got the post up, so here it is: http://pewview.mu.nu/archives/083864.html