A Review of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,” by B. G. Wilkinson

Misuse of Authorities

The author has engaged in wide research, but it has been undertaken with a distinct bias. And that very feature makes the unreliable character of the work the more deplorable for, building upon some of those grounds of common knowledge and consent, the author leads on relentlessly to his specious and unwarranted positions regarding the A.R.V. RABV 21.1

The author has apparently prejudged his case before looking for his testimony. To illustrate: On pages 20-22 there are repeated implications to the effect that the Vatican (Codex B) and the Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) manuscripts are two of fifty manuscripts prepared by Eusebius for the Emperor Constantine. But the following from Charles Fremont Sitterly, in the conservative” International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia,” Vol. 5, p. 2952, bears neutralizing testimony: RABV 21.2

“The theory of Tischendorf that Codices Aleph [the Sinaitic Manuscript] and B [the Vatican Manuscript] were in part prepared by the same hand and that they were both among the 50 MSS made under the direction of Eusebius at Caesarea in 331 for use in the emperor Constantine’s new capital, is not now generally accepted.” RABV 21.3

Four typical examples of untrustworthy manipulation will suffice. On page 170 the author says: “The new Greek Testament upon which Westcott and Hort had been working for twenty years was, portion by portion, secretly committed into the hands of the Revision Committee. Their Greek Text was strongly radical and revolutionary, 36” (Italics ours.) The footnote reference reads, “30 Dr. Salmon, Some Criticism, pp. 11, 12.” There is no mistaking the implication given here. But when one turns to the volume cited but not quoted in the footnote, and reads the actual words of Salmon, it appears that the expression “strongly radical and revolutionary” has been wrongly applied. Salmon, be it remembered, was a critic of Westcott and Hort, yet in this citation pays remarkable tribute to their trustworthy scholarship and conservatism, and states that their “radical and revolutionary” attitude was in increased carefulness and conservatism as compared with Lachmann who had preceded them. We quote in full: RABV 21.4

“If the leaders of the Cambridge school [Westcott and Hort] deserved the gratitude of Churchmen who knew them only by their published works, much more was due to them from those who came within the range of their personal influence. By their honesty, sincerity, piety, zeal, and the absence of all self-seeking, they gained the love as well as the admiration of successive generations of students; and it is hard to say whether they benefited the Church more by their own works or by the learned scholars whom they trained, end who possibly may still outdo the performance of their masters. Surely these were men to whom the most timidly conservative of theologians might have trusted the work of textual revision in full confidence that its results would be such as they could gladly accent. So it was all the more surprising when these critics, who, with regard to the authority of the books, belong to the conservative school, proved to be, in respect of the criticism of the text, strongly radical and revolutionary. Authorities which Lachmann had admitted into his scanty list were depressed to an inferior place; readings which Tischendorf had received into his text were bracketed or removed, altogether. Possibly it may be found on investigation that the strict orthodoxy of the Revisers had something to do with the stringency of their conditions for admission into their text.”—” Some Criticisms of the Text of the New Testament,” by George Salmon, D. D., pp. 10, 11. (Italics ours.) RABV 22.1

And as to expressions in the same citation, concerning Westcott and Hort’s Greek Testament being “portion by portion, secretly committed into the hands of the Revision Committee,” the same Dr. Salmon, in the same chapter, says:
“The company of the New Testament Revisers were indeed privately supplied with installments of. Westcott and Hort’s Greek text as their work required them. But that text did not come into the hands of the public until a little after the appearance of the Revised English Testament.”—Page 15. (Italics ours.) RABV 23.1

Surely there is a manifest difference between privately supplying as needed, and secretly committing, which implies a studied attempt to operate along questionable lines. Thus the obvious intent of Salmon is basically different from the construction placed upon the expression used in the book under review. RABV 23.2

Another typical illustration will be found upon page 183. In this chapter, “Blow After Blow Against the Truth,” the opening statement reads: “There are many who claim that the changes in the Revised Version did not affect any doctrine. Bishop Westcott reveals the contrary. His utterances prove that the Revisers worked systematically during the ten years of their task to make alterations that by a repetition of details they might alter articles of faith. This we have shown in the previous chapter. 1” The footnote reads,” 1 Westcott, Some Lessons, p. 184. “But upon actually turning to Westcott, the meaning and intent of the “repetition of details” is placed before us in the Bishop’s own words, and it proves to be quite different from that which the author of the book under review implies. Again we quote: RABV 23.3

“The illustrations of the work of Revision, hitherto given, have been taken for the most part from isolated words and phrases. Such changes as have been noticed unquestionably increase the vividness and force of the version. They enable the English reader to weigh the significance of identity and differences in the parallel passages of the New Testament with a confidence which was before impossible. But the value of the Revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable group of passages, which bear upon some article of the Faith. The accumulation of small details then produces its full effect. Points on which it might have seemed pedantic to insist in a single passage become impressive by repetition.”—” Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the New Testament,” by Brooke Foss Westcott, D. D., D. C. L., pp. 184, 185. RABV 23.4

Surely there is a fundamental difference between a deliberate attempt to alter articles of faith, as alleged, and the full effect of repetition that strengthens and supports faith. RABV 24.1

Yet another example of misuse of authorities,—by reference to then as the basis of statements made in the text, without directly quoting the authority,—is found on page 248, where the author says, “The spirit of the Revisionists on both sides of the ocean was an effort to find the word of God by the study of comparative religions.” As authority for such a statement, reference is made to “The Person of Our Lord,” by G. F. Nolloth, page 3. But the following is the statement made by Mr. Nolloth: RABV 24.2

“In the process of readjustment which is now in progress, a different course is being pursued. The Christian religion is being subjected to an examination based, roughly speaking, on two factors. One is the comparative study of religions. The other is the critical study of the original Christian documents.” RABV 24.3

The author of “The Person of Our Lord” makes absolutely no reference to the Revisionists or their work, and it is a perverted use of authority to cite him in support of the charge made by the author. RABV 24.4

Still another glaring exhibition is to be found on page 21 where we reed: “The following quotation is given as evidence that the Sinaitic Manuscript was the work of Origen.” The quotation as found in the author’s text reads thus: RABV 24.5

“It [Sinaitic MS.] seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the correctors (probably of seventh century) adds this note at the end of Esdras [Ezra]: ‘This Codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus (d.309); which exemplar contained at the end, the subscription in his own hand: “Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it”’.... The text of Aleph bears a very close resemblance to that of B.” RABV 25.1

The reference given is, “Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 86.” RABV 25.2

The whole paragraph from which this extract is made follows. And pertinent comment upon the three lines underscored will bring out three significant facts. RABV 25.3

“In age this manuscript ranks alongside the Codex Vaticanus. Its antiquity is shown by the writing, by the four columns to a page (an indication, probably, of the transition from the roll to the codex form of MS.), by the absence of the large initial letters and of ornaments, by the rarity of punctuation, by the short titles of the books, the presence of divisions of the text antedating Eusebius, the addition of Barnabas and Hermas, etc. Such indications have induced experts to place it in the fourth century, along with B and some time before A and C; this conclusion is not seriously questioned, though the possibility of an early fifth-century date is conceded. Its origin has been assigned to Rome, Southern Italy, Egypt, and Caesarea, but cannot be determined (Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N. T., London, 1901, p. 56 sqq.) It seems to have been at one time at Caesarea; one of the correctors (probably of seventh century) adds this note at the end of Esdras: ‘This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus d. 309; which exemplar contained at the end the subscription in his own hand: “Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it.”’ Pamphilus was, with Eusebius, the founder of the library at Caesarea. Some are even inclined to regard Aleph as one of the fifty MSS. which Constantine bade Eusebius of Caesarea to have prepared in 331 for the churches of Constantinople; but there is no sign of its having been at Constantinople. Nothing is known of its later history till its discovery by Tischendorf. The text of Aleph bears a very close resemblance to that of B, though it cannot be descended from the same immediate ancestor. In general, B is placed first in point of purity by contemporary scholars and Aleph next. This is especially true, for the N. T., of the Gospels. The differences are more frequent in the O. T. where Aleph and A often agree.” RABV 25.4

A comparison of the extract used by the author with the original paragraph in full shows (1) that if the author had begun his quotation with the beginning of the paragraph his claim would have been nullified, since it says that the origin of the Sinaitic MSS. “cannot be determined;” (2) if the author had retained in his extract that portion which he omitted, his claim would again have been invalidated, since in dealing with the question of whether the Sinaitic MS. was one of the fifty manuscripts made by Eusebius for Constantine it says, “There is no sign of its having been at Constantinople;” and (3) it will be observed by comparison of these paragraphs that the author closes his extract in the middle of the sentence, evidently because if he had quoted the whole sentence it would again have nullified his claim, for the omitted part reads, “it cannot be descended from the same ancestor.” Thus the author, in dealing with this paragraph for the purpose of establishing his claim, has perverted it in a threefold manner by omitting those portions of the paragraph which would absolutely disprove his claim. RABV 25.5