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

Section III: Review of the Scripture Texts Cited in Chapters Six, Eleven and Twelve

The aim of this book all the way through is to show that the English and American Revised Versions, especially the latter, are manipulated, unreliable translations—the product of deliberate, persistent purpose to render the text of the Scriptures in such a way as to fortify certain theological views of the translators. To this end, attempt is made also to show that the King James Authorized Version is an inerrant, perfect translation of the only genuine, flawless Greek text that has come down to us—the Textus Receptus. The acid test of the author’s contention does not lie in the historical background of men and means that had to do with original texts and translations through the centuries, nor with the theological views hold by translators of the King James and the Revised Versions, nor yet with any man’s interpretations or comments on the language of a given translation, but the test does lie in whether or not the translation itself does violence or justice to the reading of the best authenticated original texts that the widest research, scholarship, and sympathetic devotion to the Scriptures have been able to produce. We may therefore proceed directly to the consideration of the texts cited in evidence of the author’s contention, as found mostly in Chapters VI, XI, and XII of his book. RABV 63.1

Before taking up these texts individually and in order, however, we give a number of typical examples of how the author deals with the texts he cites. This is done for the benefit of any who do not desire to follow through the examination of all the texts but yet desire to know something of the author’s methods. RABV 63.2

At the close of Chapter XII also, is given a summary of findings in review of the texts, which together with the typical examples given in this introduction will serve to give the reader a general idea of how the author handles his problem. It should be said, however, that no one can get the full significance of his methods without following this review right through text by text. RABV 63.3

Here are some of the methods followed, with typical examples cited by reference to examination itself beginning on page 4 of this section. RABV 64.1

Ignoring the context.—In numerous instances of criticism, no regard is paid to the context, often in even the same verse, which completely nullifies the criticism. Examples are found in the pages following, marginally marked as follows: 92—III, 94—VI, 95—VII, 97—XVI, 206—II—1, 207—V—1. RABV 64.2

Disregarding parallel texts.—Criticism is frequently made on a particular text when numerous other scriptures in the same version supply what textual reasons oblige the translator to omit in the passage criticised. Examples are: 93—IV, 93—V, 96—XII, 96—XIII, 190—IV—2, 191—V—1, 202—XII—1b, 207—IV—1, 222—XII—1. RABV 64.3

Alternative readings in margin.—Not infrequently the translators find MS authority on a given passage somewhat divided, and must exercise their best judgment on which reading to give the preference in the text. In such instances, in order to be fair to the Bible student, the alternative reading is given in the margin. The author’s criticism of such a passage almost invariably ignores the alternative reading as if none were there, or treats a mere marginal note as if it were an alterative reading. Examples are: 181—I—1, 185—I—2, 202—XII-1b, 202—XII—1d, 202—XII—1i. RABV 64.4

Criticizing the marginal reading.—One of the author’s unfairest methods is to substitute a marginal reading in the text, then criticise the text as if that were the translators preferred reading. Examples are 95—IX, 192—VI—1, 202—XII—1, 202—XII—1c, 204—I—1, 213—IX—1. RABV 64.5

Criticising the literal reading.—Whether the literal meaning of a word or phrase is given in the margin, or whether it is used in the text of a passage while elsewhere appearing in the margin, the author criticises the translators RABV 64.6

[Review Sec. III. Ch. 6, p. 3] for placing the literal anywhere if it differs from the AV reading. Examples are: 186—II—1, 187—III—1, 189—IV—1, 194—IX—1, 195—IX—2, 196—IX—4, 209—VII—1, 212—VII—4. RABV 64.7

Disregarding Greek forms.—Strange to say, some of the author’s severest criticisms either ignore or defy the literal reading of the Greek forms of words, the criticism being based on the mere feet that the reading differs from the AV. Examples are: 185—I—2, 195—IX—3, 197—IX—6, 215—X-1, 216—XI—1, 220—XI-2. RABV 65.1

Disregarding Greek MSS.—Apparently the author has presumed to criticise ARV translations in entire disregard of the testimony of the MSS—any further than his contention that the Textus Receptus is a “pure Greek text,” and any MS which differs from that is manipulated or spurious. Examples are: 202—XII—1c, 202—XII—1e, 206—III—1, 210—VII—2, 212—VII—3. RABV 65.2

Looseness of reasoning or assertion.—Far-fetched inferences from any change from AV reading, aid loose assertions without any real proof, are not difficult to find. Examples are: 98-XVII, 194—VIII—2, 198—X—1, 199—XI—1, 200—XI—2, 202—XII—1g. RABV 65.3

Quotations from questionable sources and of questionable kind.—It is not uncommon to find quotations drawn from some Catholic, Unitarian, or Gnostic source, or some Protestant with & faulty theology, to bolster up the author’s criticism or strained interpretation of a change in the reading of a scripture passage: Examples are: 184—I—1, 185—I—2, 202—XII-1f, 208—VI—1. RABV 65.4

Before starting on chapter VI, one passage dealt with in the author’s typical style on page 1 of the book, should be noticed. RABV 65.5

In the opening paragraphs the claim is made that the ARV in its translation of 2 Samuel 21:19 declares that Elhanan killed Goliath. A comparison between the AV and the ARV will show that the AV supplied certain words, as shown by their being printed in italics, and that therefore the AV made the passage read as the Committee thought it ought to read, while the ARV Committee translated the same RABV 65.6

[Review Sec. III Ch. 6, p. 4] Hebrew text without supplying any words. At the same time, in the margin, they call attention to the fact that in 1 Chronicles 20:5 the Hebrew text reads “Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” These facts are not stated in the book, but the question is raised, “Is the American Revised Version correct on this point, or is the Bible, which has led the Protestant world for three hundred years, correct?” Is this a fair and unprejudiced dealing with this passage? RABV 65.7