What if King James was Gay?

In the last couple of decades, D. M. Bergeron has attempted to argue that "King James", the impetus for the "King James Bible" translation had homosexual tendencies. He has published two books on this subject: Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland (1991) and : King James & Letters of Homoerotic Desire (1999).

This raises a number of questions for me, two being: 1) "If King James really was gay, how might this challenge the fundamentalist, King-James-Onlyists view of their Bible?" and 2) "How might this force those same people to think about homosexuality?"

Furthermore, do you think they would be more willing (acting as if the premise were true) to give up a KJV-Only view first or their views towards homosexuality? Or, would it not make a difference at all if this were true?

(By the way, D. Capps has written an article that seems to aptly refute the accuastions about King James! ("The Homosexual Tendencies of King James:
Should this Matter to Bible Readers Today?" in Pastoral Psychology)


  1. I think that, even if you could show such an accusation to be historically verifiable, you would have a very hard time convincing KJV only people. Since they believe a priori that the KJV is the Word of God they would simple claim that the historical research is wrong because God would not use a homosexual to produce His Word. To me the KJV only people are the most frustrating because it does not matter to them what evidence or reason you present to them, since the KJV is the Word of God anything that shows that it is not is a wrong or some sort of trick from the world or Satan.

  2. Daniel, without a doubt, you have some good points here and raise some good criticisms.

  3. Ditto what Daniel said. My experience has been the same, and there is no convincing them otherwise.

    Not that for me it really matters whether King James was homosexual or not. David was a murderer and adulterer and we have his Psalms (granted, he was penitent). Besides, I still prescribe to NASB-onlyism (it doesn't matter that I frequently quote from the NRSV or NET), so King Jimmy's habits in the sack of little interest to me.e

  4. Owen, Great point about David and co. I just wonder how a KJO would respond to that?