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

CHAPTER XI “Blow After Blow Against The Truth”

Page Reference RABV 77.1

184—I—1 2 Timothy 3:16. On the inspiration of the Scriptures. RABV 77.2

This text involves no variance whatever in the MSS as they all read alike. The change made by ARV involves the transfer of the little verb is from one part of the sentence to another part, thus affecting the meaning of the general statement by making the verse read: “Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable,” instead of “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” as it reads in AV. In the original Greek, the verb is is not expressed, as is recognized by its being put in italic in both AV and ARV. The meaning of the verse turns of course on where the is is inserted. Since no variant reading in original MSS is found, the place of inserting the is must be determined by the context and the judgment of the translator, in harmony with other scriptures, such as 2 Peter 1:19-21; 1 Peter 1:9-12; Luke 1:70, Acts 1:16. These scriptures justify the AV reading, but the ARV, while it prefers the reading of its own text, is fair in putting into the margin the exact reading of the AV as an alternative reading, thus leaving it to the reader to choose whichever reading he believes is in harmony with other scriptures. To one familiar with the sprachgeist of ancient and modern Greek, there is evidence in the Greek text itself that the AV reading is the correct one, yet with the judgment of the Revisers otherwise, it is hard to see how they could deal more fairly with the text than to give both readings to the Bible student. It might be added that this is one text in which we believe the judgment of the Revisers has gone wrong, but their going wrong will not deceive or waylay anyone because of their fairness in giving both readings. The quotation by the author from a Catholic Review, is far from true that Protestantism has been robbed of its only proof of Bible inspiration by what it calls “a correct rendering” of 2 Timothy 3:16. Though this rendering by the Revisers is much to be regretted, it does not state an untruth but only part of the truth fully expressed elsewhere in the same version. See Howell’s “Gospel Keywords,” p. 84. RABV 77.3

185—I—2 John 5:39. On the searching of the Scriptures. RABV 78.1

The ARV reading changes the first word search, as a command, to the form ye search, as a declaration. There are no variant readings in any original MSS on this passage. The verb form of search is one of those rare instances in which the Greek does not distinguish between the imperative and indicative modes. No one can say, therefore, on the basis of the Greek word alone, whether or not it is to be translated search, or ye search. It makes no difference as far as our attitude toward studying the Scriptures is concerned. Considering the passage, however, from the viewpoint of the causal clause that immediately follows, there is no doubt that the ARV reading “Ye search the Scriptures because ye think that in them” is the correct one. See Howell’s “Key Words to the Gospel,” pp. 181-2. The point Jesus was making was obviously that the Jews search the Scriptures because they think they find eternal life in them, but these are the very Scriptures that testify that Jesus is the Messiah, and why should they not accept Him? How could this good improvement change any fundamental doctrine as the author charges? Again the quotation by the author from a Catholic Review states that by this change in the rendering “Protestantism has lost the very cause of its being.” What bearing does such an untruthful statement have upon the correct rendering of the text? The AV reading is inconsistent with itself. RABV 78.2

186—II—1 John 2:11. On the question of miracles. RABV 79.1

Here the author criticises ARV on two points. One is that of using the more literal English word sign in this and a few other scriptures instead of the AV rendering miracle, and also for placing the literal reading, sign, in the margin when miracle is used in the text. RABV 79.2

There are two different words rendering miracle in the New Testament. One is semeion, meaning sign, which is the base of signify, signification, and significance. The other is dynamis, which means power. In rendering the word semeion, neither AV nor ARV is uniform in using either sign or miracle, though AV renders it miracle more often. In 9 instances where ARV roads miracle in the text, it gives the Greek literal, either sign or power, as the case may be, in the margin. In 22 uses of the word semeion, the ARV places the literal sign in the text. The author makes no mention of the fact that the AV puts sign in the text in 48 instances besides 31 where it uses miracle, and that many of these 48 have the meaning intended by miracle when it is used. In the 8 instances where the word dynamis is used, the ARV puts miracle in the text in 5 cases; in two, mighty work, and in one, power. In all instances, except the last, it puts the literal power in the margin. This shows that ARV was fair in putting in the margin the literal of whatever term is preferred in the text so that the reader may not be confused, but left to make his interpretation in the light of both the literal and the judgment of the translator. In such treatment there can be no “changed doctrines respecting miracles,” whatever the translators may personally believe about them, nor can they be justly charged with “systematic depravation of doctrine” by such fidelity to the Greek original. RABV 79.3

Here is an opinion on rendering the word semeion by a member of the 1611 Revision Committee: RABV 80.1

“It is to be regretted that semeion is not always rendered ‘sign’ in our Version; that in the Gospel of St. John, where it is of very frequent recurrence, ‘sign’ too often gives place to the vaguer ‘miracle’; and sometimes not without serious loss.”—” Synonyms of the New Testament,” Richard Chenevix Trench, D. D., pp. 330, 331. RABV 80.2

187—1 Matthew 18:2, 3. On conversion. RABV 80.3

The objection is made here by the author that the Revisers have changed the word convert into the very literal rendering turn, and thus introduces and exalts the “dangerous doctrine of salvation by our own effort.” He then quotes two writers as using this phrase in the Revised to claim that it explodes the popular error that men cannot convert themselves, but must be mere passive instruments in the hands of God to be converted by the Holy Spirit. But the author overlooks the fact that these same men could have found in the AV at least 9 times as many passages rendered with turn in the sense of conversion, and could have used these to bolster up their false doctrine that a man can convert himself. Here are the facts in the case: RABV 80.4

Matthew 18:2, 3, is the one New Testament passage using the simple form of the word strepho, meaning turn, in the sense of conversion. The form here is passive, and should be rendered literally, be turned, or turn yourselves, according to whether the passive or the reflexive sense is allowed. In the AV this same simple verb form is rendered 14 times in the passive, 11 times in the active, and 3 times in the reflexive, but out of all these, the one instance in which this verb is used in the sense of conversion is the one under consideration. RABV 80.5

The regular word for convert in the New Testament is the compound form, epistrepho. This word is used 41 times in the New Testament, but only 17 of them in the sense of conversion. Of the 17 in the sense of conversion, the AV renders 8 with convert, and 9 with turn. The ARV renders the same 9 by turn, and also 5 out of the 8, leaving 3 times in which the ARV renders it convert. To sum up: RABV 81.1

AV renders the idea of convert by turn, 9 times. RABV 81.2

ARV renders the idea of convert by turn, l4 times. RABV 81.3

AV renders the idea of convert by convert, 8 times. RABV 81.4

ARV renders the idea of convert by convert, 3 times. RABV 81.5

It is true that the ARV confines the use of convert to the three times where it is used in the active or in the abstract, but AV also uses turn 9 times for convert without undermining the doctrine of conversion. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the basic idea in the Latin word convert is exactly the same as that in the Greek word epistrepho. The Latin root is vert, which one uses in words like invert, revert, subvert, as well as in convert, as also one uses strepho in strophe, catastrophe, and the like. In the light of all this can it be justly charged, as the author does, that the “Revisers changed the doctrine of conversion?” RABV 81.6

189—IV—1 Hebrews 11:3. On world for age. RABV 81.7

In this passage the author again injects the literal reading of the margin into the scripture text, and then criticises it. His charge is that by putting the literal word age or ages in either the text or the margin, the translators have “injected evolution into the Revised Version.” But let us study more carefully what the Revisers have actually done in comparison with the AV. RABV 81.8

In this passage ARV uses worlds in the text, the same as AV, but with the literal Greek ages in the margin. The Greek word, aion, meaning age, eon, is much used in the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation, a total of 122 times. In the Book of Hebrews, where this passage occurs, the word is used four times. In two of these, Hebrews 1:2, and 11:3, AV and ARV agree in using world in the text, and ARV adds the literal age in the margin. In the other two, 6:5 and 9:26, ARV uses age in the text. Thus in the Book of Hebrews ARV is fair in using either world or age, according as it seems to fit the meaning best, but in every instance makes it clear that the literal word is age. Throughout the Book of Revelation, where the word aion is used 27 times, AV and ARV agree in rendering it with some form of ever or forever in the text, while ARV adds the literal in the margin in each instance. RABV 82.1

In Ephesians 2:7 and Colossians 1:26, AV and ARV agree on using ages in the text. In the Book of Matthew, where aion occurs 7 times, it is uniformly rendered by both AV and ARV with world in the text, but ARV adds the literal age in the margin. In the two Epistles to the Corinthians, where aion occurs 8 times, AV and ARV agree in using world in the text six times, ARV placing the literal age in the margin, while in one instance ARV permits age in the text, and in another, forevermore in the text. In 83 out of 122 times in the entire New Testament, AV translates aion with some other word than worlds, translating it worlds 38 times. RABV 82.2

This is amply sufficient to show that ARV uses no unfair discrimination in the rendering of this remarkable word aion, while seeking to make the reader intelligent in every instance on what the original word is. In our singing and preaching we are fond of speaking of the rolling of the eternal ages. This is very suggestive of what true evolution is. Doubtless we have much more to learn on the unfolding of the ages than we now know. See Howell’s “Gospel Key Words,” pp. 67, 157. RABV 83.1

190-IV-2 Colossians 1:15, 16. On creation in Him, or by Him. RABV 83.2

By quoting from a Unitarian minister, the author seeks to make it appear that by changing the little word by in the AV to the little word in in ARV, the Revisers have limited creation to “a spiritual application to Christianity,” instead of its including the material creation. We admit that there is some difference between creation in Christ and creation by Christ. But as far as knowing who the creator was, there is no essential difference whether we say that all things were created in Him or by Him, for in both instances it must mean that He created all things, or that “all things have been created through Him,” as ARV expresses it in the last part of verse 16. That the “all things” referred to include the visible and material, is made very clear in the verse itself. On the question of ascertaining the identity of the Creator, there is no room for quibbling on the rendering with by or in, as there is no real difference between saying, as in this verse in the ARV, “in Him were all things created,” and saying in Ephesians 2:10 in AV, “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus.” Some man’s interpretation of the ARV rendering of Colossians 1:15, 16 has no bearing upon its correct translation or true meaning, particularly if that interpreter is a Unitarian, who does not believe in the trinity at all. RABV 83.3

191-V-1 1 Timothy 3:16. On God or He who. RABV 84.1

See 97—XIV RABV 84.2

192-V-2 Acts 16:7. On the Spirit of Jesus. RABV 84.3

See 95—VIII RABV 84.4

192-VI-1 Isaiah 7:14. On virgin or maiden. RABV 84.5

Here again the author brings the marginal reading maiden into the text of ARV and makes it read: “Behold a maiden shall conceive and bear a son,” and then criticises this reading as giving room to doubt the virgin birth of Christ. ARV as well as AV uses virgin in the text, ARV adding the literal maiden in the margin. In the Old Testament the literal Hebrew for the word virgin is unmarried female. The dictionary definition of the word maiden is a young unmarried woman. The Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 7:14 is parthenos, generally understood in Greek, and defined in Thayer! s Greek Lexicon, as a marriageable maiden, or a young unmarried woman. There is no doubt cast on the virgin birth by giving the literal word maiden in the margin. RABV 84.6

193-VII-1 1 Corinthians 5:7. On the Passover for us. RABV 84.7

See 95—X RABV 84.8

193-VIII-1 Job 19:25, 26. On the resurrection. RABV 84.9

In this passage ARV renders the last clause “without my flesh shall I see God” instead of “in my flesh shall I see God” as in AV. The author charges that the ARV rendering tends to “make the resurrection from the tomb only a spiritual event.” Let us examine this passage. RABV 84.10

The number of supplied words in the AV translation of this difficult passage indicates how hard it was for the translator to make its meaning clear. The Chairman of the ARV Revision Committee definitely states that in the translation of this passage the AV follows the Septuagint and Vulgate against the Hebrew, but that of course the Hebrew text must have the preference. Here are his words: RABV 84.11

“Then the Authorized Version follows the Septuagint and the Vulgate against the Hebrew (as in the important passage, Job 19:26), the Hebrew text must of course have the preference.”—” Introduction to the Revision of the English New Testament.” Philip Schaff, p. xxiv. RABV 85.1

Be that as it may in this passage, it is not difficult to understand from the ARV translation that Job’s sustaining hope was that though his body of flesh might be destroyed in the grave, yet in spite of that fact he was sure to see God. Moreover, Paul says “Thou sowest not that body which shall be.” 1 Corinthians 15:37. If this were the only passage we had on the resurrection of the body, we might be in a more difficult situation, but Paul’s great discourse on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, the bodily state of Adam and Eve before sin came in, and to which the righteous are to be restored, and other scriptural teachings, leave us in no doubt about what God’s plan of resurrection and restoration is to include. RABV 85.2

194-VIII-2 Acts 24:15. On the question of the resurrection. RABV 85.3

In the ARV reading, the phrase “of the dead” is omitted for textual reasons. The author objects to this as making it easier to spiritualize away the resurrection. If there is to be a resurrection both of the “just and unjust,” as definitely stated in both AV and ARV, how could there possibly be a resurrection but of the dead? The point is not vital, for in 13 other instances ARV renders resurrection “of the dead” or “from the dead” exactly the same as AV. RABV 85.4

194-IX-1 Matthew 24:3. On the second coming of Christ. RABV 86.1

Here again the ARV reading is criticised on the basis of its giving in the margin the literal meaning of the phrase “end of the world,” while using in the text as the preferred rendering the exact language of the AV. When there is no variant reading in the MSS, and when the original actually says practically verbatim, if not quite literatim, “the consummation of the age,” how can the translator be true to his responsibility, and not let the student of Scripture know what the original really says? RABV 86.2

On the word coming, the texts of AV and ARV agree perfectly, but ARV puts the literal presence in the margin. Readers of the Greek have observed this wonderful word parousia, presence, many times, here and elsewhere, and been thrilled by its vividness in describing the return of Christ. All through His earthly life, Jesus was present in body and spirit with His disciples day and night. In His discourse in John 14, looking forward to his return, he declares, “I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also”—a restoration of that marvellous presence with his children which the disciples had enjoyed. All this one would miss without knowing the literal of parousia. Why should the author so unfairly charge that the Revisers would “radically change the doctrine of the second coming of Christ?” RABV 86.3

195-IX-2 Philippians 3:20, 21. On our vile body. RABV 86.4

The familiar reading of AV “Who shall change our vile body” is changed to read in ARV, “Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation.” By this the author declares that the change of the body “may occur at any time before His coming,” and “it may be a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues.” Here again the author ignores the reading of the Greek text. When there is no variant reading of the MSS, what is one to do when the original actually says “the body of our humiliation,” using two nouns to express it, but accept this reading instead of the phrase “vile body,” which uses only one noun and one adjective likely to convey a wrong impression in our modern parlance? The body is as really transformed in one rendering as the other, and how could it possibly mean “a change from abstract vices to abstract virtues?” RABV 86.5

195-IX-3 2 Thessalonians 2:2. On the day of Christ at hand or now present. RABV 88.1

Without any indication the author glides over the ARV reading to the English Revised and finds the phrase now present used instead of the phrase at hand, found in both AV and ARV, and strives to make a difference between the meaning of the two phrases. Let us look at the text itself. The Greek verb here rendered by AV at hand, and by ARV now present, is the very verb whose participle is used by Greek grammarians in designating the present tense, as distinguished from the past and future tenses. Other forms of the same verb are used in the AV in Hebrews 9:9 in stating the time as then present, in Romans 8:38 to designate things present, in 1 Corinthians 3:22, again to denote things present, in Galatians 1:14, to describe the “present evil world.” What can be the harm, then, in rendering it present in 2 Thessalonians 2:2? Moreover the Century Dictionary defines the phrase at hand as meaning, “within reach, nearby, present.” RABV 88.2

196-IX-4 Titus 2:13. On the glorious appearing. RABV 88.3

The author objects to changing the adjective glorious to the noun glory, but the original text in which there is no variance in the MSS, actually uses the noun where it occurs in the ARV translation. It is surely safe for us to accept the reading of the Scripture as it is actually written, and incur no danger of making the coming of Christ appear to be a “manifestation among men of abstract virtues which may appear at any time and repeatedly in this present life,” as the author very illogically reasons concerning this change of reading to conform to the text as it reads. RABV 88.4

196-IX-5 Revelation 1:7. On wailing because of, or over Him. RABV 89.1

In this verse the ARV reading is that “all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him,” instead of “shall wail because of Him.” This is not a question of the textual reading, but of interpreting the Greek preposition epi, used with the accusative. We frequently use over, meaning because of. We mourn ever a loss, or over a failure or over a defeat which will cause our heart sorrow, but with no thought whatever of the penitential in it. Because Westcott or some other man interprets over here to mean or make possible penitential sorrow, and universal salvation, is no reason for saying that the use of ove r is wrong. Besides that, there is no justification for such an interpretation in the light of the context and the other teachings of the Scripture. The same preposition is rendered over in 47 other places. Nevertheless we wish that the rendering because of had been retained as expressing a less equivocal meaning than over. RABV 89.2

197-IX-6 Acts 3:19. On times of refreshing. RABV 89.3

This passage is an outstanding example of the help to the Bible student in a more accurate rendering of the original language. The change of the time clause “When the times, etc.,” into a purpose clause, “so that the times, etc.,”—is a more accurate rendering, as can be ascertained by comparing it with others in the New Testament, in both Greek and English. Moreover, in our interpretation of this passage, we have been accustomed to say, and say truthfully, that the blotting out of sin precedes the coming of Christ, and that the blotting out and the coming of Christ bring the times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord in their fullest sense, not denying that they do come in a degree at the time of repentance and forgiveness. That this interpretation and the ARV rendering are not only in agreement, but are justified by the reading of the Greek is made clear by Dr. Robertson’s testimony that the clause in question is a final, or purpose, not a temporal clause. Speaking of the general use of the conjunction that introduces this clause, he makes it plain that hopos retains its full force as a purpose clause in Acts 3:19 and a few others: RABV 89.4

“Hopos no longer has an in final clauses save in the quotation from Psalm 51:6 (Psalm 50:4 in LXX), in Romans 3:4 and three passages from Luke’s writings (Luke 2:35; Acts 3:19; 15:17 from Amos [so A, but B without an] 9:12)”—A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Lights of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, M. A., D. D., L. L. D., p. 986. RABV 90.1

Yet in the face of these fact the author uses a whole page of his book in quotations and comments in a vain effort to show by unfair deduction from the quotations, that the change of the time to the purpose clause has wrought havoc with the gospel, whereas, as shown above, it makes the passage harmonize with the teaching of the rest of the New Testament. RABV 90.2

198-X-1 Revelation 22:14. On the robes and commandments. RABV 90.3

See 98-XVII RABV 90.4

198-X-2 Acts 13:42. On the Sabbath of the Jews. RABV 90.5

See 94-VI RABV 90.6

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 11, p. 14] RABV 90.7

199-XI-1 Mark 7:19. On clean foods. RABV 91.1

In this passage the AV reading in this last phrase is purging all meats, while the ARV reads “This he said, making all meats clean,” in which the phrase “This he said,” is printed in italic to show that it is supplied. Leaving out the supplied words the two readings have exactly the same meaning, as any one will recognize that “purging” and “making clean” mean the same. By strange reasoning the author endeavors to make it appear that the Lord Jesus was here dealing with the distinction between animal meats that are clean or unclean by nature as in the 11th Chapter of Leviticus. He makes two serious errors in his reasoning by again disregarding the Greek original. First, he makes the word meats appear to mean flesh food, whereas the original denotes foods in general, and makes no reference whatever to flesh as such. His second error is in overlooking the fact that Christ was here distinguishing between foods ceremonially or morally, the point being that there is no heart defilement in physical foods. His quotation from Milligan really has no bearing at all upon the point, with the sole exception that that little change in one Greek letter makes possible the connecting of the phrase “making all meats clean” directly with the Lord Jesus as speaker, instead of making it apply to his general statement on the course that natural food takes in the body. The difference again is between the simple Greek “o” and the compound long “o” of the Greek alphabet. Yet it has already been made clear that it makes no difference which way the reading runs, for the inference from the text must be the same in either case. RABV 91.2

200-XI-2 Luke 23:44, 45. On the darkening of the sun. RABV 92.1

In the description of the darkness at the crucifixion AV says, “And the sun was darkened,” while ARV says, “The sun’s light failing.” Because there is a difference in the wording, though one cannot see how there can be any difference in the meaning, the author objects to the changed wording in ARV because it differs from AV. He then brings in the reading from Moffatt’s translation, not found in the Revised Version, “owing to an eclipse of the sun,” and then criticises the Revisers because they did not render their version with eclipse, the same as Moffatt, charging them with dishonesty because they did not so render it, because the Greek word forms the basis of our Word eclipse. Going back to the AV and ARV readings which are the ones in question, and which have no real difference in meaning whatever, let us notice the passage. RABV 92.2

There is a variant reading of the MSS in this verse. The Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Paris, and two later MSS read “the sun failing.” The Alexandrian, an amended Paris, Beza, and three secondary MSS read “and the sun was darkened.” What difference can there really be between the sun’s failing to shine as usual, and the sun’s being darkened? Any thoughtful reader would surely understand the meaning to be the same. It is true that the word failing is eklipontos, from which we spell over our word eclipse, but this by no means signifies that eklipontos in the Greek always means eclipse, for it is the exception when it does. The ARV does not call it an eclipse, yet suppose it did, like Moffatt, would it not contribute all the more to the supernatural idea of darkening the sun at that time, if it can be shown by astronomy that the moon was full, and that any eclipse would, or could, not naturally occur? An eclipse of the sun is only a shadow cast upon it that modifies the brightness of its shining. The casting of darkness over the face of the sun at the very time when there was no possibility for a natural eclipse, surely argues strongly for the divine act at the crucifixion in casting a pall of darkness over the sun and over the land. RABV 92.3

201-XII-1 Mark 16:9-20. On the ascension. RABV 93.1

On this passage of Scripture dealing with the ascension, the wording throughout is essentially the same in both AV and ARV, but the author objects to the following note printed in the margin of ARV: “The two oldest Greek MSS and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the gospel.” With what sense of justice can the author indict the Revisers “as exercising an extreme and unwarrantable license” for telling the simple, historical truth about this passage from the viewpoint of the MSS, while at the same time retaining the entire passage in the text? Would he have them cover up the truth, or is it more fair to the Bible student to know the truth concerning this passage? RABV 93.2

Let it be noted first of all that only verse 19 of the extended passage under consideration here, deals with the ascension, and that in the briefest way it is recorded anywhere in the Gospels or in the Acts. Luke gives two verses to the account, telling all that Mark does, and more. In Acts 1:9-11 is given a still fuller account from MS that is without any variance, and therefore unquestioned. This is ample authority for the ascension, if Mark said nothing about it. The author charges Doctor Hort, whom he calls “the evil genius of the Revision Committee,” with the responsibility for questioning the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel. But it is a fact that in Westcott and Hort’s own Greek Testament they include verses 9-20 along with the rest of the chapter without any question in a footnote or elsewhere. The passage is not included in their list of rejected readings nor in their list of suspected readings in the latter part of their Greek Testament. Even if anyone were disposed to question the genuineness of the passage, there is other ample authentic record on the genuineness of the ascension. RABV 93.3

201-XII-1a Matthew 6:13. On the Lord’s Prayer. RABV 94.1

See 93-V RABV 94.2

202-XII-1b Matthew 17:21. On fasting. RABV 94.3

The author objects to the omission of this verse in the ARV text. Though verse 21 is omitted in ARV, the marginal note says, “Many authorities, some ancient, insert verse 21, ‘but this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting.’ See Mark 9:29.” The marginal note on Mark 9:29 says “Many ancient authorities add ‘and fasting.’” 1 Corinthians 7:5 omits “and fasting,” with no marginal note. An examination of the MSS shows that ten of them, including all the major ones, omit the word “fasting” here, while only three secondary ones retain it. That should the translator do in such a case? Moreover, ARV retains the word “fasting” in many other scriptures where there is no variation in the MSS, such as Matthew 6:17; 9:15; Mark 2:20, Luke 5:35; Acts 13:2, 3; 14:23; et cetera, giving ample evidence of the genuineness of fasting as a Scriptural doctrine. RABV 94.4

202-XII-1c John 8:1-11. On the woman taken in adultery. RABV 94.5

It is not exactly true, as the author states, that ARV “sets off to one side” this passage, for it is retained in full in the text, though enclosed with brackets. The marginal note reads: “Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53 to 8:11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.” Among the MSS omitting the passage are 13 besides Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Those retaining it are Beza and five secondary MSS. Placing these facts before the Bible student, is dealing with them fairly. Westcott and Hort in their Greek Testament place this passage in the list of both suspected and rejected readings, on the basis of the facts just given above. Scholars must deal with facts as they find them in the best evidence available. RABV 94.6

202-XII-1d Luke 9:55, 56. On another abbreviation. RABV 95.1

The author objects to the shortening of this passage in ARV, but on verse 55, ARV has the following marginal note, “Some ancient authorities add ‘and said, ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.’ Some, but fewer add also ‘for the Son of Man came not to destroy men’s lives but to save’ them. Compare chapter 19:10; John 3:17; 12:47.” In the Scripture references given in the footnote, essentially the same statements are found as are omitted in Luke 9:55 for lack of textual evidence. Again this is fair dealing, but said by the author to be mutilating the Scripture. RABV 95.2

202-XII-1e Acts 8:37. On Philip and the eunuch. RABV 95.3

The author objects also to the omission of this verse in ARV and ERV. In ARV reference is given at the end of verse 36 to a marginal note reading, “Some ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part, verse 37, ‘and Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’” This verse is omitted in 6 other MSS besides Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is included in Beza in part, and in four secondary MSS. On this particular verse Scrivener says: RABV 95.4

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 11, P. 19] RABV 95.5

“We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critic editors condemn, and which seems to have been received from the margin, where the formula ‘I believe, etc.,’ had been placed, extracted from some church ordinal.”—“Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” Vol. II, p.369.See also first extract from Scrivener in the next paragraph. RABV 96.1

202-XII-1f 1 John 5:7. On the trinity. RABV 96.2

In a quotation from the Catholic Dublin Review, on page 203 of the book, the following sentence appears: “The Heavenly Witnesses have departed, and no marginal note mourns their loss.” This has reference to the fact that in the ARV 1 John 5:7 is omitted. The following two extracts from Scrivener, recognized by the author as a scholarly critic, explain this omission: RABV 96.3

“A shorter passage or mere clause, whether inserted or not in our printed books, may have appeared originally in the form of a marginal note, and from the margin have crept into the text, through the wrong judgment or mere oversight of the scribe. Such we have reason to think is the history of 1 John 5:7, the verse relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses, once so earnestly maintained, but now generally given up as spurious. Thus too Acts 8:37 may have been derived from some Church Ordinal.”—“A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Vol. I, p. 8. RABV 96.4

“It (Codex Montfortianus) contains the whole New Testament, apparently the work of three or four successive scribes, paper leaves, only one of them—that on which 1 John 5:7 stands—being glazed, as if to protect it from harm. This manuscript was first heard of between the publication of Erasmus’ second (1519) and third (1522) editions of his N. T., and after he had publicly declared, in answer to objectors, that if any Greek manuscript could be found containing the passage, he would insert it in his revision of the text; a promise which he fulfilled in 1522.”—“A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, pp. 199, 200, Vol. II. RABV 96.5

[Review Sec. III, Ch. 11, p. 20] RABV 96.6

202-XII-1g Ephesians 5:30. On His flesh and His bones. RABV 97.1

In this verse ARV stops at the word body, while AV adds “and His flesh and His bones.” Here the author exclaims: “Behold how greatly this verse is cut down in the Revised!” One wonders how this affects the meaning, since the body surely includes the flesh and the bones. The three most ancient MSS make the omission, and two later ones retain it. But is the point vital? Is any doctrine affected? RABV 97.2

203-XII-1h 2 Timothy 4:1. On the time of the judgment obliterated. RABV 97.3

See 97-XV RABV 97.4

203-XII-1i Revelation 3:10. On captivity. RABV 97.5

In this passage ARV reads “for captivity” where AV reads “Leadeth into captivity.” While ARV prefers the reading of the text as better supported in the MSS, it gives the following alternative reading in the margin, “Or, leadeth into captivity.” RABV 97.6