Concluding Letters On The Cum Privilegio

[The following information was edited from a letter dated 11/28/96 from James White concerning Luke 2:22. However, this information concerns the Cum Privilegio and has been added here:]

(Thomas Holland writes:)
>>I would very much like to have an answer to these questions. The last time I wrote you it concerned your historical error about the Cum Privilegio. To this date, to the best of my knowledge, you have yet to correct your error. I do hope that the points above are not likewise ignored. As a fellow student of scripture I know that your time is limited. If you find that you have been in error, please be gracious enough to admit it. If not, please at least provide a scholarly response.<<

I'm sorry that I have not felt your reasoning on the CP was overwhelming, Dr. Holland. I have intimated more than once, and will now state plainly, that I do not find you particularly fair in your arguments, nor in your honoring the context of my statements. I have yet to find out if you agree with the arguments of KJV Only advocates regarding "copyrights," which was, of coures, my point. But I recently received the following information from a correspondent in Britain, which I find to very much substantiate the *point* I was making, which was, of course, that the argument used by KJV advocates backfires (the right of universities, granted by the Crown, hardly damaging that argument):

I contacted Nigel Lynn of Oxford University Press regarding your question. He informs me that the KJV is not copyright. Instead it is covered by a "Royal Letters Patent in Perpetuity". This means that it will never come into the public domain unless HM the Queen or one of her sucessors releases the patent. Therefore if follows that whilst all the modern translations will be in the public domain within the next century the KJV will not be unless the British Monarch so wishes. You could therefore argue that the KJV has better protection than any modern translation, the main difference being that (as far as I know) the Queen does not charge for the use of the KJV (I didn't ask Mr. Lynn that question).

Now Dr. Holland, won't you agree with me that the arguments used by KJV supporters against modern versions based upon modern copyright laws are pretty well hypocritical in light of this kind of information?

James>>>

[The following information was edited from a letter dated 12/05/96 from Thomas Holland concerning Luke 2:22. However, this information concerns the Cum Privilegio and has been added here:]

Concerning the Cum Privilegio James White wrote:
>>I'm sorry that I have not felt your reasoning on the CP was overwhelming, Dr. Holland. I have intimated more than once, and will now state plainly, that I do not find you particularly fair in your arguments, nor in your honoring the context of my statements. I have yet to find out if you agree with the arguments of KJV Only advocates regarding "copyrights," which was, of course, my point. But I recently received the following information from a correspondent in Britain, which I find to very much substantiate the *point* I was making, which was, of course, that the argument used by KJV advocates backfires (the right of universities, granted by the Crown, hardly damaging that argument):<<

James, when have you ever asked me my point of view concerning the Cum Privilegio or copyrights? Your statement reads as if I am avoiding telling you what I think on this matter and sidestep the issue by raising questions about your comments. This, my friend, is not the case. You have never asked me (at least I cannot find any record of such) my possession. Nonetheless, I will give it. I think using the argument of copyrights in order to support the KJV is a very weak argument. To me, it does not prove anything other than that currently if you want to print the NIV you have to pay to do so but you do not have to receive anyone's permission to print the KJV. However, as we both know, three hundred years from now (or even 75 years from now) the copyright on the NIV will cease and anyone can print it without permission or payment.

If you had simply argued such in your book, I would have had NO disagreement, for you would simply be stating fact. The point I was making, which I am very such you know, is that you made your point by using false information. This, by itself, would not discredit your argument for anyone can make a mistake. But your refusal to accept responsibility for your mistake, your delay in admitting it was a mistake (as you did in a current letter to me), and your shifting the blame from yourself to me does you a disservice.

You wrote, >>I pointed out earlier that the KJV was first printed by the royal printer, and that for a hundred years no one else could print it.<< (TKJOC, p. 244).

The context of this statement (i.e. copyrights) is not important. What is important is your claim that no one else could print the KJV for the first 100 years of its publication. When I provided evidence by John Dore that the KJV was printed early and often in Amsterdam, you responded with "Obviously, my comment was about England, not Amsterdam." (Personal letter to User192905 [aka Logos1611] Date:95-09-13 16:20:34 EDT). When I then provided evidence from Black, Dore, and Lewis that both Oxford and Cambridge printed the KJV in England within the first 100 years (as was permitted by the crown long before James I of England), you responded with silence. It was not until November 1, 1996 that you finally admitted, "You are correct that universities with royal approval could print the Bible; you have a technical victory there. Of course, if you will read the statement in context and see what it is addressing (the issue of copyrights and the alleged problem this creates for all modern translations), your technical victory does nothing to the point I made." Why do you find it so hard to admit a mistake? I do not care about the point concerning copyrights, I care about the fact that you claimed that no one printed the KJV for the first 100 years except for the royal printer. This is an error.

You conclude by citing Nigel Lynn and the "Royal Letters Patent in Perpetuity" (which, BTW, I found very interesting). You then follow with:

>>Now Dr. Holland, won't you agree with me that the arguments used by KJV supporters against modern versions based upon modern copyright laws are pretty well hypocritical in light of this kind of information?<<

Hypocritical, no. Ill-informed, yes. Now, Professor White, won't you agree with me that the argument used by you in your book against the KJV based on the Cum Privilegio is misleading and should be corrected in light of historical facts?

Well, my friend, take care and God bless. Please keep me as informed as you can concerning our possible debate this spring. Until later.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland
Psalm 118:8

[The following information was edited from a letter dated 12/21/96 from James White concerning Luke 2:22. However, this information concerns the Cum Privilegio and has been added here:]

(White had written):
>>I'm sorry that I have not felt your reasoning on the CP was overwhelming, Dr. Holland. I have intimated more than once, and will now state plainly, that I do not find you particularly fair in your arguments, nor in your honoring the context of my statements. I have yet to find out if you agree with the arguments of KJV Only advocates regarding "copyrights," which was, of course, my point. But I recently received the following information from a correspondent in Britain, which I find to very much substantiate the *point* I was making, which was, of course, that the argument used by KJV advocates backfires (the right of universities, granted by the Crown, hardly damaging that argument):<<

(Holland had responded with):
>>James, when have you ever asked me my point of view concerning the Cum Privilegio or copyrights? <<

I assumed, possibly wrongly, that you had expressed your viewpoint back when we first met in the AOL forum. In any case, it has seemed to me, anyway, that your entire point has been to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, saying, "Aha, see! Since the universities (which existed with royal permission) could print the KJV, White's wrong about it all!" The exception of the universities doesn't have almost anything to do with the point I was making, that being that to attack modern translations for having copyrights is self-contradictory for the KJV Only advocate.

Now, again, the impression I had from reading your initial review (in print) was that you are coming from the same viewpoint as all the others who have been so insistent upon finding anything to attack in my book that they could not care less about the context, or the over-all argument. Did I misread your intentions?

(Holland had written):
>>Nonetheless, I will give it. I think using the argument of copyrights in order to support the KJV is a very weak argument. To me, it does not prove anything other than that currently if you want to print the NIV you have to pay to do so but you do not have to receive anyone's permission to print the KJV. However, as we both know, three hundred years from now (or even 75 years from now) the copyright on the NIV will cease and anyone can print it without permission or payment.<<

That is quite true. Now, let me be so bold as to ask you directly: have you informed folks like Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman of your opinion on this argument? My experience has been pretty universal on this point: if you dare disagree with them on anything you run the risk of being labeled a "rude, crude heretic" (to use Gail Riplinger's description of me).

(Holland):
>>If you had simply argued such in your book, I would have had NO disagreement, for you would simply be stating fact. The point I was making, which I am very such you know, is that you made your point by using false information. This, by itself, would not discredit your argument for anyone can make a mistake. But your refusal to accept responsibility for your mistake, your delay in admitting it was a mistake (as you did in a current letter to me), and your shifting the blame from yourself to me does you a disservice.<<

If you mean the statement about the royal printer, I'll gladly admit the exception of the universities. Do you assert, however, that the Bible could be printed by *anyone* without royal permission?

(Holland):
>>You wrote, >I pointed out earlier that the KJV was first printed by the royal printer, and that for a hundred years no one else could print it.< (TKJOC, p. 244). The context of this statement (i.e. copyrights) is not important. What is important is your claim that no one else could print the KJV for the first 100 years of its publication. When I provided evidence by John Dore that the KJV was printed early and often in Amsterdam, you responded with "Obviously, my comment was about England, not Amsterdam." (Personal letter to User192905 [aka Logos1611] Date:95-09-13 16:20:34 EDT).<<

That would be quite true in that instance---taking the issue outside of England would be to remove it beyond the context in which I placed the statement.

(Holland):
>>When I then provided evidence from Black, Dore, and Lewis that both Oxford and Cambridge printed the KJV in England within the first 100 years (as was permitted by the crown long before James I of England), you responded with silence. It was not until November 1, 1996 that you finally admitted, "You are correct that universities with royal approval could print the Bible; you have a technical victory there. Of course, if you will read the statement in context and see what it is addressing (the issue of copyrights and the alleged problem this creates for all modern translations), your technical victory does nothing to the point I made." Why do you find it so hard to admit a mistake? I do not care about the point concerning copyrights, I care about the fact that you claimed that no one printed the KJV for the first 100 years except for the royal printer. This is an error.<<

OK, Dr. Holland, if you wish to make the exception of the universities an "error," fine, do so. Will you at least admit that the universities fell under royal oversight?

James>>>

[The following information was edited from a letter dated 12/26/96 from Thomas Holland concerning Luke 2:22. However, this information concerns the Cum Privilegio and has been added here:]

Concerning the CP and my statements, you (i.e. White) write:
>>I assumed, possibly wrongly, that you had expressed your viewpoint back when we first met in the AOL forum. In any case, it has seemed to me, anyway, that your entire point has been to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, saying, "Aha, see! Since the universities (which existed with royal permission) could print the KJV, White's wrong about it all!" The exception of the universities doesn't have almost anything to do with the point I was making, that being that to attack modern translations for having copyrights is self-contradictory for the KJV Only advocate.<<

It is no mountain, nor is it a mole-hill. It is a simple point of fact. As I have stated on several occasions to you, we all make mistakes. This one point in no way obscures the rest of your book, it simply shows an overstatement on your behalf which I think should be corrected in any upcoming editions of your book so that historical facts may be presented correctly.

(White):
>>Now, again, the impression I had from reading your initial review (in print) was that you are coming from the same viewpoint as all the others who have been so insistent upon finding anything to attack in my book that they could not care less about the context, or the over-all argument. Did I misread your intentions?<<

Yes. The technical points in your book, and in the writings of others, I deal with in my online lessons and, in some small degree, in my published critique. Personally, I think the CP is a very small point on either side of the issue. KJV supporters who use it to condemn modern versions are focusing on the wrong issue, and so are modern versions supporters who use it to condemn KJV advocates. The whole point, in my opinion, is irrelevent. If the KJV were under the same copyright law as say the NIV, this would have nothing to do with the doctrine of preservation. In fact, I wish it were. After all, copyright laws are not so much about money as they are about protecting the writing. I have not thought about this before, but one could argue that the CP was one way God used to help preserve the KJV from early changes by textual scholars. We could argue, "The King of England and the Royal Universities were the only ones permitted to publish the Authorized Version within the confines of England for the first hundred years of its existence. Thus, this was God's way of preserving it from independent sources which would seek to corrupt Holy Scripture." Hey, this sound good. I might just use it. . . just kidding :-D.

I had written:
>>I think using the argument of copyrights in order to support the KJV is a very weak argument. To me, it does not prove anything other than that currently if you want to print the NIV you have to pay to do so but you do not have to receive anyone's permission to print the KJV. However, as we both know, three hundred years from now (or even 75 years from now) the copyright on the NIV will cease and anyone can print it without permission or payment.<<

You responded with:
>>That is quite true. Now, let me be so bold as to ask you directly: have you informed folks like Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman of your opinion on this argument? My experience has been pretty universal on this point: if you dare disagree with them on anything you run the risk of being labeled a "rude, crude heretic" (to use Gail Riplinger's description of me).<<

No. But I will send a copy of this letter to Jody Adair (since we write of him) and he can give it to Dr. Ruckman. However, I doubt that he will start calling me names because of my views concerning copyrights.

I had written:
>>If you had simply argued such in your book, I would have had NO disagreement, for you would simply be stating fact. The point I was making, which I am very such you know, is that you made your point by using false information. This, by itself, would not discredit your argument for anyone can make a mistake. But your refusal to accept responsibility for your mistake, your delay in admitting it was a mistake (as you did in a current letter to me), and your shifting the blame from yourself to me does you a disservice.<<

You respond with:
>>If you mean the statement about the royal printer, I'll gladly admit the exception of the universities. Do you assert, however, that the Bible could be printed by *anyone* without royal permission?<<

And you also write:
>>OK, Dr. Holland, if you wish to make the exception of the universities an "error," fine, do so. Will you at least admit that the universities fell under royal oversight?<<

You ask if I would assert that the KJV could ONLY be printed (in England) during its first hundred years (per CP) by royal permission. I can't. That would be historically incorrect also. Remember Oliver Cromwell? During the war between Charles I and Parliament, Cromwell and Parliament ruled. During this time the KJV, in 1650, was published without royal permission. If you are going to use the CP as a basis of argumentation, then I think you should present all the facts concerning it. It had two noted exceptions in the Universities at Oxford and Cambridge. It was not enforced during the time of Cromwell. And it dealt only within the confines of England, and not the whole world in that the KJV was published in Holland and elsewhere. But again, I think the real answer is not found in the CP. It is found in the facts of copyright laws themselves.

James, I really enjoyed this last letter of yours. I would much rather discuss our differences in such a manner. Thank you for your response and your attitude. May God bless as you labor for Him.

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland (Psalm 118:8)
"Commendo vos dilectioni Dei, et odio papatus et superstitionis."

Back to Debate Page