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

CHAPTER XII “Blow after Blow in Favor of Rome”

204—I—1 RABV 98.1

John 1:3, 4. On creation. RABV 98.2

In this passage AV reads: “Without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.” ARV reads: “Without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.” There is no change here in the reading of the text, except that of altering the tense form “was made” to the more accurate “hath been made.” In the margin of ARV, however, is the following alternative reading: “Or, was not anything made. That which hath been made was life in him;” etc. RABV 98.3

Here again the author has placed the marginal reading in the text, and made the comment, “Let it be remembered that the marginal readings were considered of great importance by the Revisers,” whereas he should have said that the marginal readings are considered of secondary importance by the Revisers as a whole. We feel equally with the author and Dean Burgon that the marginal reading is rather unjustifiable, and are glad that it occupies only a marginal place of secondary importance, leaving the text to read exactly as it is in AV, with a little change in tense that is more accurate. It is interesting to note that the marginal arrangement is not found in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, but only in Alexandrinus and a few secondary MSS. Surely that Gnostic influence, as often charged by the author, did not affect the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus MSS in this instance, even though in one place he calls Eusebius “the author of the Vaticanus”! (See page 22.) RABV 98.4

206—II—1 RABV 98.5

1 Corinthians 11:29. On the sacraments. RABV 98.6

In this passage on the sacraments the author criticises the omission in ARV of the two words unworthily and Lord, but if he had looked at verse 27 preceding, he would have seen that it deals with exactly the same thing and contains both words omitted in verse 29. Why then is it necessary to repeat them in verse 29? How could their omission condemn Protestants, as the author declares, when they are both included in verse 27? Moreover, four major MSS and several secondary ones omit both words in verse 29, while including them in verse 27. RABV 98.7

206—III-1 RABV 99.1

James 5:16. On faults and sins. RABV 99.2

The difference in the reading of this verse is the change from the word faults in AV to the word sins in ARV. The author makes the serious charge that in order to make the change from faults to sins, the Greek was changed, whereas the truth is that the testimony of the best MSS requires the change from faults to sins. But let us suppose that the original word in the Received Text were retained, and see whether it is justifiable to translate it sins instead of faults. The word is paraptoma. It is used in Matthew 6:14, 15; 18:35, Mark 11:25, 26, where forgiveness of a brother is enjoined. It is also used 6 times in Romans 5 as the equivalent of sin. In Ephesians 1:7; 2:5; Colossians 2:13, this word is actually rendered sin in AV. In Hebrews 6:6 it is used for apostasy and unpardonable sin—surely a strong type of sin. This passage exhorts us to confess our sins “one to another,” just as we pray in the Lord’s Prayer, “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” and as is said in Matthew 6:14, following the formal prayer, “If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. “While confession by a brother to us is not necessary to our forgiving him, yet what can be forgiven one to another can be confessed one to another. What bearing does the interpretation of the Catholic Dublin Review have on the translation of this word as sins rather than faults? It is noticeable that in their quoting the ARV on this verse they omit “one to another,” and by omitting that, presume strangely to have found some basis for the Confessional, which requires that all confess to one—the priest. Why bring in such evidence? What is said here on paraptoma is to show that even if the best Greek MSS did not contain hamartia, sin, still rendering the word paraptoma as sin in English is no more than is done in other scriptures, and is true to the original word itself. RABV 99.3

207—IV—1 RABV 100.1

Hebrews 10:21. On the priesthood. RABV 100.2

Criticism is made here of the use of the phrase great priest by ARV instead of high priest by AV, and the statement is made that this change in the Revised “leaves. the conclusion possible that this change provided a priest for the Confessional.” Let us look at the reading itself. RABV 100.3

Undoubtedly the writer of the Hebrews was quoting Zechariah 6:11 in verse 21, as he so frequently quotes from the Old Testament throughout the book. In the passage in Zechariah, great is the literal epithet used in both the original Hebrew and in the Septuagint, as applied to priest. All MSS agree on the original Greek word megan in Hebrews 10:21. John 19:31 uses the same word in describing the Sabbath day as “an high day,” as it is rendered in both AV and ARV, in harmony with the Anglican usage of applying high to certain days and feasts. Moreover, the Greek word megale (a different gender of megan) is the regular word used today by the Greek Orthodox Church in describing Good Friday, and the entire week in which it occurs. Presumably the reason ARV did not translate great as high in Hebrews 10:21 is because nowhere else in the New Testament is the high priest designated in this way, but rather by the epithet arch, meaning chief. We may presume also that the writer of Hebrews would have used the regular word in this verse if he had not been quoting from the Old Testament, where the Septuagint uses megan. Moreover, the whole theme of chapter 10 and the preceding chapters is Christ, our High Priest, and who could possibly doubt that He is meant in this capacity in verse 21? Nevertheless in fidelity to the original, ARV renders megan with the word great. RABV 100.4

What bearing has the personal view of Doctor Hort, whom the author calls “one dominating Reviser,” that an earthly priesthood is a necessity, if the translators have been true to the original in their rendering? RABV 100.5

207—V—1 RABV 100.6

Acts 15:23. On clergy and laity.—Sec 94—VII. RABV 101.1

208—VI—1 RABV 101.2

Hebrews 9:27. On the judgment. RABV 101.3

In this passage ARV reads “after this cometh judgment,” whereas the AV reads “after this the judgment.” The author’s criticism is on the omission of the word the as opening the way for the erroneous view of Canon Farrar that judgment comes at death, but that the judgment may not come for centuries. But what does Canon Farrar’s claims have to do with the translation of a phrase that follows the original text with fidelity? All original MSS omit the word the before judgment. What should the translator do under these conditions—supply the the? It is true that ARV supplies the word cometh to case the reading, but plainly marks it in italic as supplied. Moreover, verses 27 and 28 together make it very plain what judgment is intended, since the second coming of Christ follows the judgment, which prepares the way for His coming. RABV 101.4

209—VII—1 RABV 101.5

John 14:2. On mansions. Author’s Title: “The Larger Hope—Another Chance After Death.” RABV 101.6

Once more the author places the marginal reading in the text, and criticises the text as if there were no other reading. The ARV text reads many mansions, exactly the same as AV, but the author criticises the literal phrase abiding places in the margin. He then quotes a Unitarian minister and another theologian, who believes in probation after this life, in a way to show how dangerous it is to give the literal meaning of a Greek word in the margin of a text. But let us look at the text itself. The Greek word is monai, being the plural of mone, which is the noun corresponding to the verb meno, meaning to remain, stay, abide, which in turn corresponds to the Latin word maneo, meaning the same, and forming the base of the word mansion. It is recorded that AV borrowed this word from the Vulgate, one of the texts the author has often called corrupted or mutilated. True it is that the word is found in the Vulgate Version. Whether or not AV borrowed it from them does not matter if it rightly represents the original, as it is clear enough that it does as far as the etymology of the word goes. The original Greek word is used many times in the New Testament for the idea of dwelling, including the question asked our Lord, “Master, where dwellest thou” in John 1:38, and in John 15 of abiding in the vine. The word mone is also used in John 14:23 representing the Father and the Son as making their abode with keepers of the Word. At any rate, verse 3 of John 14 makes it entirely clear what Jesus meant by using the word mansions. The word has a wide range of meaning, from that of tarrying in a home over-night, to that of a permanent dwelling place. Who knows how permanently fixed in one place will be the mansions the Master is preparing for His people? RABV 101.7

210—VII—2 RABV 102.1

Luke 1:72. On mercy to our fathers. RABV 102.2

Strange to say, the author criticises this text because ARV follows the exact wording of the original, while AV supplies the word promised, not found in any Greek MSS. He lauds the AV for putting into the text a word that is not there, and then wanders off into a digression on limbo and purgatory. Let us look at the text. The word promised is supplied in AV, and it is so indicated. Taking that out we have left exactly what ARV says, save the substitution of show for perform. All original MSS agree on this text without the word promised in it. What can the translator do but translate what is in the text? Moreover, the text literally reads “do mercy with our fathers,” which can easily be understood as performing the mercy covenanted with our fathers. Why all the talk about limbo and purgatory? RABV 102.3

212—VII—3 RABV 102.4

1 Peter 4:6. On the dead. RABV 102.5

The criticism here is the substitution of the literal word dead in ARV for the longer rendering “them that are dead” in AV. Surely the author wrests this scripture to get out of it what he says he does, with the help of parentheses. All MSS agree in the wording of this text. The text reads literally: “for unto this end also to the dead was the gospel preached.” It follows a verse in which it is said that we shall give account to him that is ready to judge the living and the dead, adding by way of explanation that the gospel was preached to the dead also as well as the living. The word dead in this verse is nekrois. Just the naked word, without even the article or any verb accompanying it. AV renders it “them that are dead,” a rather extensive rendering for a single word. ARV renders it simply “the dead,” which is the nearest to the original our idiom allows. How the author perceives any distinction between “them that are dead” and simply “the dead” is hard to see, for the supplied word “now” which he places before the word “dead” does not appear in either AV or ARV. RABV 102.6

212—VII—4 RABV 103.1

Job 26:5. On the shades. RABV 103.2

The AV reads, “Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.” The ARV reads, “They that are deceased tremble beneath the waters, and the inhabitants thereof,” with the literal the shades in the margin referring to they of the text. The author’s criticism is on the use of the literal word shades in the margin, and declares that “it is very evident here that the Revisers did not have a Protestant mentality.” But it would seem to require something more than a “Protestant mentality” to get very much out of the AV rendering, while ARV does use language that is at least intelligible. Even the Septuagint rendering makes some sense: “Shall not giants be sought for destruction under the waters, and their neighbors also? Naked is hell before him,” etc. The technical difference between the two verses lies in the use of dead things by AV and the use of they that are deceased in the ARV, with the literal the shades in the margin. The Hebrew word used here means literally shades. It is used also for dead in Psalm 88:10, Proverbs 21:16, Isaiah 26:19, and elsewhere. Is it wrong for the Revisers to put the literal in the margin, while putting in the text the expression “they that are deceased,” which certainly means the dead? What bearing has the comment of someone, even a Reviser, on “God’s control over departed spirits?” RABV 103.3

212—VII—5 RABV 104.1

2 Peter 2:9. On punishment. RABV 104.2

The latter part of this reads in AV “to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” In ARV it reads “to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment.” The author has found here a real cause for just criticism of the ARV translation, although he does make a rather singular statement that “The Revisers have gone even beyond the Douay Version” to get their rendering. The passage needs close examination. RABV 104.3

All MSS agree on the wording of this text. The discussion turns on the phrase “to be punished” in AV, and the phrase “under punishment” in ARV. It should be stated first that the Greek word kolazomenous “which is the basis of the two phrases just quoted, has the literal meaning to restrain, curb, hold, detain. It is easy to see how two interpretations of the word might be made, according to the setting in which it is used. One of these would be simply to hold or detain for some future purpose. The other would be to hold under restraint, as in prison, as an act of punishment. Whether the word should be rendered “held in restraint for some future purpose” or “held in restraint as a punishment,” must be determined by the context. The word is used only four times in the New Testament, first in Matthew 25:46, where it is rendered punishment in both AV and ARV, but where other scriptures plainly teach us that the meaning is “everlasting detention,” or everlasting “effects of punishment.” The next place is Acts 4:21, where again it is rendered punishment in both AV and ARV, but where the idea of further detaining them for trial or punishment lies close to the surface. Another scripture is 1 John 4:18, where AV has torment, and ARV punishment, but where the Apostle John evidently means suffering caused by fear in the heart. The fourth scripture is the one under consideration, where the question lies between the idea of detention, or reserving, for the purpose of future judging and punishment, and the act of punishment itself. Taking the whole verse under consideration, it is easy to see that a contrast is drawn between the deliverance of the godly, and the keeping of the unrighteous in bonds, under restraint. The contrast is not between the rewarding of the godly and the punishment of the wicked. More than that, it is utterly inconsistent to charge the Lord with knowing how to keep men under punishment before they are judged! RABV 104.4

For these reasons we believe that ARV is absolutely wrong in the rendering of this verse, and that AV conveys the correct meaning. In this instance, we agree that the author is right in his contention that the theological view of the Revisers on punishment of the wicked influenced their translation here. We cannot interpret the passage correctly ourselves without a proper understanding of scripture teaching on the judgment and the punishment of the wicked. Our translation of the verse could be said to be influenced by Seventh-day Adventist theology, and properly so. Yet in conceding all this, we concede no more than is true of AV in numerous instances, of which Matthew 25:46 is only one. RABV 105.1

213—VIII—1 RABV 105.2

Revelation 13:8. On names in the book of life. Author’s Title: “The Different Regions of the Conscious Dead, as Roman Catholics Teach, Supported by the Revised.” RABV 105.3

The criticism here is based on the shifting of a phrase. The latter part of the phrase reads in AV “whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” In ARV it reads “every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain.” Here again the author has found a just basis for criticism, though we cannot concede the reason he implies why the Revisers render the passage as they did, namely, to side with the Jesuits. This passage too needs careful examination. RABV 105.4

There is no variance in the reading of this passage. The AV follows closely the Greek order from the word whose onward, which reads literally as follows: “Of whom hath not been written the name of him in the book of the life of the Lamb the slain from foundation of world.” By a Greek idiom the modifier of Lamb is emphasized by repeating the article the before the modifier slain, and placing both after the word Lamb, which also favors the modifier of slain being placed immediately after it in the words “from foundation of world.” These considerations remove every doubt that the phrase “from the foundation of the world” is a modifier of slain, and not written, which latter comes far back at the beginning of the relative clause, as is seen in the literal rendering above. In the marginal note, ARV gives the following alternative reading to what it has put in the text: “written in the book... slain from the foundation of the world.” This reading is exactly that of the AV, and is beyond question the correct translation. Connecting the phrase “from the foundation of the world” with the word “written,” as is done in the text, constitutes another outstanding example of where ARV has surely erred from fidelity to the Greek text, and for any known reason is inexcusable. RABV 105.5

213—IX—1 RABV 106.1

Revelation 13:18. On the number of the beast. RABV 106.2

Once more the author substitutes in the ARV text a reading from the marginal note, making the latter read, “And his number is six hundred and sixteen,” instead of “And his number is six hundred and sixty and six,” as the ARV text actually does read. The marginal note in ARV is not an alternative reading, but simply a note of information that “Some ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen.” The author exclaims, “Behold the uncertainty and confusion brought into the interpretation of this prophecy by offering in the margin the substitute number, 616. Did not the Revisers by this change strike a blow in favor of Rome?” He then quotes a long caustic criticism by Dean Burgon, in which the facts are doubtless correctly stated and acceptable. On the whole, however, we need not be disturbed by the harmless marginal note, since if one would look into the evidence for the Greek reading of the text with the number 666, he would find that all the major MSS, and the principal secondary ones, including Westcott and Hort, justify the reading 666, while the only sources for the number 616, as correctly stated by Dean Burgon, are only one corrupt Uncial (C.), only one Cursive copy (11), and only one Father (Tichonius), and not one ancient version. RABV 106.3

215—X—1 RABV 106.4

Matthew 2:15. On being called out of Egypt. Author’s Title: “The Entire Meaning Touching Old Testament Prophecies Changed.” RABV 106.5

There is no question on the textual reading here, but only the translation of it, and the verb call in particular. AV reads “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” while the ARV reads “Out of Egypt did I call my son.” RABV 107.1

This verb call is in the aorist form. According to standard Greek usage, this tense form, when used in a finite verb, is employed to denote the simple occurrence of an act in past time, without indicating whether the act itself was instantaneous, progressive, or in a completed state. Its effect is to lay emphasis on the fact or occurrence of the act, rather than on the nature of the act. In harmony with this standard usage, ARV has rendered the verb “did call,” which is our emphatic form in English, rather than as the AV has it “have called,” which is our form to denote a completed state of the action. The passage in Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matthew 2:13, if one can judge by its context, was used historically in regard to calling Israel out of Egypt, but like many historical statements in the Old Testament, had also a prophetic significance which is recognized by Matthew’s quoting it as fulfilled in the flight of Joseph and Mary to Egypt with the child Jesus, and their returning again to Nazareth. It is interesting to note that the Septuagint renders the verb call in Hosea 11:1, in the aorist form, exactly as the original Greek in Matthew 2:15 does in quoting it. If a Greek writer could understand its prophetic application through the use of the aorist, and also record his application of it in the aorist form, what question is there in our understanding the prophetic use of “did call” in the more accurate rendering of the ARV? The incident recorded is historical in both Hosea and Matthew, for both the events recited had already taken place. It was also prophetic in both Hosea and Matthew because when uttered by Hosea, it looked forward to the incident in the life of Jesus, while Matthew looked back to the same incident, and recorded it as a fulfillment of prophecy. Dean Farrar’s comment on this text is to the point, namely, that by observing the tenses of the original, we may gain added light in the study of the Scriptures. As Dean Farrar says, this one change of verb form to represent the Greek aorist conception accounts for hundreds, and he right have said thousands, of the 56,000 changes the author has reckoned up as made in the AV, giving the impression that the changes have been more extensive and revolutionary than they are. RABV 107.2

It can be truthfully stated that if no more change of doctrine has been effected among these thousands of changes than is the case in Matthew 2:15, there is little to fear. Matthew 2:15 rather confirms our doctrine of interpreting prophecy, as any other instance of fidelity to the true reading of the original will do. RABV 108.1

216—XI—1 RABV 108.2

1 Corinthians 15:3, 4. On the charge of tense in the verb. Author’s Title: “Entire Meaning of Great Crises in Christian Life Changed.” RABV 108.3

In this passage on the resurrection the author says that he arose has been changed to he hath been raised, for a definite purpose, and proceeds to lay a charge against the Revision Committee of “deliberately making changes in order to introduce a new set of doctrines.” The one definite reason for changing he arose to he hath been raised is the simple fact that the Greek verb is in the present perfect passive form, and requires our English present perfect passive form to express it. How much more emphatic it was for Paul in this great chapter on the resurrection to emphasize the raising of Christ from the dead in the verb form that denotes the great act as fully accomplished, and its effect as extending to the time he was writing, and passing on to us a form that also remains true in all its glorious effect to the present hour, and will so continue to the hour of His coming. Here is a plain example of the additional light that Dean Farrar says we get by observing carefully the verb forms in the original. The simple form, he arose, merely designates the act as occurring, but does not imply in any sense the completed or continued state of that act in the effects of it that we enjoy today. In many connections the simple form is all the writer would desire to use, but where the special theme is the resurrection, as in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul uses the more meaningful form, and it is a strong help to us to bring out the full force of the verb form he employed. Paul further shows a fine sense of discrimination in the use of tense forms in the same chapter, by employing the aorist exclusively in verses 6 to 8, while using the perfect again in verse 12, then coming back to the aorist in verses 15 and 16. RABV 108.4

How can the author in all reason call the translation purely arbitrary when it follows the original faithfully? His quarrel should be with Paul and not with the translator. His claims at the bottom of page 2l9 regarding the use of the tenses, seem utter folly in the light of the original forms used in the text. RABV 109.1

220—XI—2 RABV 109.2

Matthew 27:46. Again on the tense form. RABV 109.3

In this passage AV reads “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” ARV reads exactly the same word for word, but puts the following alternative reading in the margin “Or, why did’st Thou forsake me?” The author has placed the marginal reading in the text and then criticises the substituting of the literal aorist form of the verb for the free and loose rendering in AV by the perfect tense. But the author’s comments go far afield from the text. There is no mention of death in the passage, but only a forsaking. Does the author want it to appear that the apparent forsaking of Christ by the Father at the time of His agony should be “supreme” and “continuous” in effect? This is almost, if not altogether, implied in the AV use of the perfect tense form. At any rate the author has again brought in the marginal reading to serve as a basis for his criticism, and then does not discuss the idea of forsaking at all, but goes off on another tirade on revision changes in general, and theological views concerning them. RABV 109.4

22—XII—1 RABV 109.5

1 Corinthians 11:24. On the sacraments. Author’s Title “The Jesuitical Doctrine of the Sacraments Favored by the Revised.” RABV 109.6

In this passage on the sacraments the words take, eat, and broken, which are found in the AV are omitted in the Revised. That this omission is not a RABV 109.7

[Review Section III, Chap.12—15] deliberate attempt of the translators to mutilate a passage, but rather to render it in fidelity to the Greek test is clear enough when we take the facts into consideration. RABV 109.8

The two words take and eat omitted in this passage, are both included in the ARV text in Matthew 26:26. In the Corinthian passage they are not found in any principal MS except the Received Text. Luke also omits these two words in his record of the supper in chapter 22:19, as is easily seen in both AV and ARV. The word broken is omitted also in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in AV. This makes it clear that broken is not used in any of the Gospels, and in the Corinthian passage it is found only in later amended editions of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, Paris, and Beza MSS, and in a few secondary ones. RABV 110.1

But in the face of these facts, the author makes an attack on the “Cambridge trio of Revisers,” and on what he calls their central doctrine, “the Person of Christ”, using several pages in an attempt to discredit this doctrine, closing with a paragraph that is noticed in the latter part of the following summary. RABV 110.2