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


An Epitome of the Findings of This Section

The book before us is manifestly not an unbiased examination of facts; instead, there is hopeless confusion of fact, conjecture, and assertion. There are many fine passages, but the author often rises to a grandiloquent style to dazzle and impress, forgetting that assertion or inference is not proof. The volume abounds in illogical conclusions clothed in oratorical garb. Constructive textual criticism is confused with destructive higher criticism in unwarranted and fantastic ways. In many places the argument is plainly built upon an appeal to religious and denominational prejudice rather than upon solid facts or a legitimate appeal to reason. It takes advantage of the unfamiliarity of the average reader with the facts alleged, and to which the average reader cannot possibly have access. RABV 40.1

The “vindication” unquestionably represents a large amount of research. But no matter how vast one’s examination, if his premises and operating principles are not sound, his conclusions are necessarily faulty, and an intensified study of this character can easily become an obsession. Many authorities are cited in the reference footnotes. But their often claimed support is frequently misleading because citations are often used to support an unwarranted inference, instead of sound facts, and are sometimes perverted to support such claims. Instead of a “systematic depravation of Scripture” by the Revisers, as the author claims, there is in fact a systematic misuse of evidence by the author. RABV 40.2

To afford a convenient survey of the fundamental points in Section I, we summarize briefly as follows: RABV 41.1

1. The author violated established denominational procedure in publishing his volume. RABV 41.2

2. The author constantly violates the primal laws of evidence in his misuse of authorities; many of the quotations used not sustaining the contentions for which they are cited. RABV 41.3

3. He casts unjustifiable aspersion upon those who prefer the A.R.V. RABV 41.4

4. There is gross misrepresentation of the character and intent of the changes as between the Authorized and the Revised Versions. RABV 41.5

5. The author’s arbitrarily created “two parallel streams of Bibles” is shown not to rest upon historical authority, and the “changes” between the A.V. and A.R.V. are shown to be but minor deviations of what is substantially one identical, fundamental text. RABV 41.6

6. The contention upon the “Itala,”—as the pure Bible of the Waldenses, and descended from apostolic origin,—is shown to be untenable. RABV 41.7

7. The attempt of the author to connect the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS. of the New Testament with the Hexapla of Origen,—which was solely an Old Testament text,—is exposed. RABV 41.8

8. The contention upon the corrupting influence of Westcott and Hort over the A.R.V., and the Revision Committee, is shown to be unjustified. RABV 41.9

9. The frequent misuse and mis-quotation of authorities are exposed by typical examples. RABV 41.10

10. The mis-statements of the author relative to modern foreign translations,—and the conflict of his premises with the governing rules for the Bible Societies’ translations,—is exposed. RABV 42.1

11. The unfair allegation of the author relative to the attitude and practice of Ellen G. White toward the Revised versions is unmasked. RABV 42.2

The triple contention of the author, (1) that the Greek text upon which the A.R.V. is based is seriously corrupted by papal influence; (2) that the translated product is dangerously pro-papal or clearly biased toward Modernism, and (3) that the Received Text is the pure, uncorrupted, apostolic Scripture transmitted without substantial change through the centuries, is, on the basis of this general survey of the volume, clearly overthrown. But the findings of this division will be strongly augmented in Sections II and III, where critical and cumulative evidence is presented completely, and we believe conclusively, covering the basically fallacious argument on the “pure Greek text of Erasmus,” as well as the technical features relating to the texts cited in chapters VI, XI, and XII. RABV 42.3

The uncalled for and untimely appearance of this book has unfortunately opened a question that should properly remain closed by this people. We have difficulties enough in the prosecution of our world task, without this added controversy concerning the versions. But to the presentation of our distinctive message with its unpopular teachings, we are already sufficiently misunderstood, misquoted, and opposed by all other religious bodies over the clear issue of their rejection of present day light and truth. And now there is gratuitously added a needless cause for misunderstanding and ridicule by reverent scholars and Bible lovers, for such a volume will be justly construed as an attack upon the very Bible itself. RABV 42.4