[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 7-8, 1995. This material cannot be placed on BBS or Internet sites without express permission from the author. Copyright 1995 by David W. Cloud. All rights are reserved by the author. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368,. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0. The Way of Life Internet web site is http://www.wayoflife.org/.]

THE BATTLE FOR THE KING JAMES BIBLE: 1800-1870

David W. Cloud

The following is an excerpt from Chapter Two of the book For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present, copyright 1995 by David W. Cloud. This 460-page hard cover book, containing a 33-page bibliography and an extensive index, traces the history of the defense of the Authorized Version and its underlying text in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is available from Way of Life Literature for $29.95 + $4 S/H.

As I have immersed myself the last few months in studying the history of the modern texts, I have become increasingly impressed with the fact that most histories of the English Bible are revisionist. They commonly slight the rationalistic atmosphere out of which the critical text and the modern English versions have risen. How many books on this subject examine the theological aberrations of Westcott and Hort? How many describe the deception which surrounded the creation of the 1881 Revision? How many detail the influence of German religious Rationalism on nineteenth-century textual critics? How many expose the wretched theological apostasy of the RSV translators, or of the editors of the popular United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament? How many explain the destructive influence of Modernism and Romanism on nineteenth-century British denominations which laid the foundation for the modern versions? How many trace the influence of New Evangelical compromise on twentieth-century Bible versions?

We are convinced that it is impossible to understand the issue of Bible texts and versions apart from a correct understanding of these matters. In the following chapters we will attempt to highlight the social and theological influences of the last two centuries which have played a key role in the development of the modern versions.

By the early 1800s the King James Bible had ruled supreme in the English- speaking world for 200 years. It's predecessors, going back to the 1526 Tyndale Version, were the same basic Bibles. They were based upon the same Greek text and employed the same type of translation methodology. They were formal equivalencies, meaning the translators labored to carry the precise words and phrasings of the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts into the receptor language. Those who used the King James Bible in the early nineteenth century were using a Bible with 300 years of antiquity in English. The underlying Greek text had been accepted by Bible-believing Christians of the sixteenth century as the authentic representation of the Apostolic writings. Thus they called it the Received Text. In their estimation, this text had been faithfully transmitted through the centuries. This carries the antiquity of the King James Bible back, we believe, to the Apostles.

The dominance of the King James Bible in the first half of the nineteenth century was complete. Its lovely words were considered a national treasure in Britain and America alike. It was largely the words of the King James Bible that motivated the great missionary movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Missionaries and evangelists and pastors, great and humble, preached from the Authorized Bible. It's words inspired revival movements which changed the moral character of nations. It's words inspired the greatest outpouring of sound theological research the world has ever seen, an era called by many the "Golden Age" of English literature.

Many entire books have been written to trace the unparalleled influence of the King James Bible. Some examples are Annals of the English Bible by Christopher Anderson (1845), The Greatest English Classic: A Study of the KJV and Its Influence on Life and Literature by Cleland Boyd McAfee (Harper and Brothers, 1912), and Our Grand Old Bible by William Muir (Morgan and Scott, 1911). Consider some of the varied testimonies to the glorious and unique heritage of the King James Bible:

"The Authorized Version is a miracle and a landmark. Its felicities are manifold, its music has entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech, it has given countless proverbs and proverbial phrases even to the unlearned and the irreligious. There is no corner of English life, no conversation ribald or reverent it has not adorned. Embedded in its tercentenary wording is the language of a century earlier. It has both broadened and retarded the stream of English Speech" (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, p. 205).

"The influence of the Authorised Version, alike on our religion and our literature, can never be exaggerated. Not only in the great works of our theologians, the resonant prose of the seventeenth century Fathers of the English Church, but in the writings of nearly every author, whether of prose or verse, the stamp of its language is to be seen. ... So deeply has its language entered into our common tongue, that one probably could not take up a newspaper or read a single book in which some phrase was not borrowed, consciously or unconsciously, from King James's version. No master of style has been blind to its charms; and those who have recommended its study most strongly have often been those who, like Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, were not prepared to accept its teaching to the full.

"But great as has been the literary value of the Authorised Version, its religious significance has been greater still. For nearly three centuries it has been the Bible, not merely of public use, not merely of one sect or party, not even of a single country, but of the whole nation and of every English-speaking country on the face of the globe. It has been the literature of millions who have read little else, it has been the guide of conduct to men and women of every class in life and of every rank in learning and education. No small part of the attachment of the English people to their national church is due to the common love borne by every party and well-nigh every individual for the English Bible. It was a national work in its creation, and it has been a national treasure since its completion. It was the work, not of one man, nor of one age, but of many labourers, of diverse and even opposing views, over a period of ninety years. It has watered with the blood of martyrs, and its slow growth gave time for the casting off of imperfections and for the full accomplishment of its destiny as the Bible of the English nation.

"With the publication of the Authorised Version the history of the English Bible closes for many a long year. ... The scholarship of the day was satisfied with it as it had been satisfied with no version before it; and the common people found its language appeal to them with a greater charm and dignity than that of the Genevan version, to which they had been accustomed. As time went on the Authorised Version acquired the prescriptive right of age; its rhythms became familiar to the ears of all classes; its language entered into our literature; and English-men became prouder of their Bible than of any of the creative works of their own literature" (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, pp. 233,34).

"... we find that the outcome of the labours of the translators was a volume which ever since it first appeared has gone forth conquering and to conquer, and which under God and through the testimony of His Holy Spirit, has been not merely the source of Britain's greatness, but a source of blessing and consolation, of inspiration and revival. It has been a well of water for the thirsty; a river of life which has turned many a wilderness into a fruitful field; a key which has unlocked many a dungeon door and set the captives of ignorance and error, of superstition and sin, free for ever. It has opened blind eyes, and brought out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sat in darkness out of the prison-house. ...

"The Authorized Version has often been called a well of English undefiled, and much of its purity is due to the fact that its water was drawn from the ancient springs. It has the universal note which gives it a place among the immortals. It has the Divine touch, even in its diction, which lifts it above the limitations of locality and time, and makes it valid and living for all the ages. Like a rare jewel fitly set, the sacred truths of Scripture have found such suitable expression in it, that we can hardly doubt that they filled those who made it with reverence and awe, so that they walked softly in the Holy Presence....

"The English Bible is still fresh and mighty, even if it has archaic or obsolete words. It has waxed old, but it has not decayed. Its youth abides, and the sun never sets on its sphere of influence. Many volumes have perished since it first saw the light; but its message is as modern as ever. It has not only kept up-to-date, it has anticipated every need of men, and still responds to every new demand" (William Muir, Our Grand Old Bible, p. 131,192,238).

The Authorized Version of the Bible and Its Influence, published by G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1910, is another example of the books which have outlined the amazing influence of the King James Bible. The author, Albert Stanburrough Cook (1853-1927), was Professor of the English Language and Literature, Yale University. We must understand that Cook was writing as an English professor, not as a preacher or a theologian. His essay was originally written as a chapter for Volume IV of The Cambridge History of English Literature. Cook understood the unique role played by the Authorized Bible in the English-speaking world. "What Homer was to the Greeks, and the Koran to the Arabs, that, or something not unlike it, the Bible has become to the English." And by the Bible, he refers especially to the King James Bible. Cook saw the development of English following hand in hand with that of the Bible, from Bede to Purvey to Wycliffe to Tyndale to the KJV.

"The influences which molded the English language into a proper vehicle for so stupendous a literary creation as the Bible must next be briefly considered. ... Throughout the Old English period, most of the literature produced was strongly colored by Biblical diction. Even a work like Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People was under this influence. By about the year 1000, the language was able to render the Latin of Jerome ... according to the computations of Marsh, about 93 per cent of the words of the Authorized Version, counting repetitions of the same word, are native English" (pp. 35-37).

Cook discusses the translation work of Tyndale, Coverdale, and those who produced the Geneva Bible, then he focuses his attention for the rest of the book on the Authorized Version. Consider some other excerpts from this fascinating treatise:

"The translators of the Authorized Version endeavored, out of the English renderings with which they were acquainted, compared with the originals and the principal versions into other tongues, ancient and modern, to frame one which should surpass them all by appropriating the chief excellencies of each--so far, at least, as these excellencies could be harmonized with one another. ...

"Whereas previously one Bible had been read in church, and another at home, now all parties and classes turned with one accord to the new version, and adopted it as their very own. It thus became bound up with the life of the nation. Since it stilled all controversy over the best rendering, it gradually came to be accepted as so far absolute that in the minds of myriad's there was no distinction between this version and the original texts, and they may almost be said to have believed in the literal inspiration of the very words which composed it.

"It must not be overlooked that the Authorized Version profited by all the controversy regarding previous translations. Practically every word that could be challenged had been challenged. The fate of a doctrine, even the fate of a party, had at times seemed to depend upon a phrase. The whole ground had been fought over so long that great intimacy with the Bible had resulted. Not only did the mind take cognizance of it, but the emotions seized upon it; much of it was literally learned by heart by great numbers of the English people. Thus it grew to be a national possession ... No other book has so penetrated and permeated the hearts and speech of the English race as has the Bible. What Homer was to the Greeks, and the Koran to the Arabs, that, or something not unlike it, the Bible has become to the English. Huxley writes:

"`Consider the great historical fact that for three centuries this book has been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in English history; that it has become the national epic of Britain, and is as familiar to noble and simple, from John'o'Groat's House to Land's End, as Dante and Tasso once were to the Italians; that it is written in the noblest and purest English and abounds in exquisite beauties of pure literary form...'

"Swift writes, almost exactly a hundred years after the date of the Authorized Version: `The translators of our Bible were masters of an English style much fitter for that work than any which we see in our present writings, which I take to be owing to the simplicity that runs through the whole'; and again, of the changes which had been introduced into the language: `They have taken off a great deal from the simplicity which is one of the greatest perfections in any language.'

"Hallam ... admits that the style of the Authorized Version is `the perfection of our English language' ... declaring that the English of the Jacobean version [the King James Bible] `is not the English of Daniel, or Raleigh, or Bacon' in fact, that `it is not the language of the reign of James I.' ... this is strictly true, and for the reason that he assigns, namely, `in consequence of the principle of adherence to the original versions which had been kept up since the time of Henry VIII.' ...

"Great thought and great feeling draw their own appropriate diction to themselves, somewhat as the magnet attracts steel filings; and after the appropriate diction has thus been attracted, the union between it and the substance of discourse seems to be almost indissoluble. It is as if a soul had been clothed upon with flesh. From that moment, nothing can be changed with impunity; if you wrench away a word, it is as if a portion of the life-blood followed it. Now the time when the soul of the Bible began to take upon itself flesh for us was nearly three-quarters of a century before the work of the Jacobean revisers. But since the life-process, so to speak, did not absolutely begin with Tindale, it really extended over a considerably longer period than that named above, especially if we consider that Wyclif was concerned in it ... must be regarded as having initiated a process which the Jacobean revisers completed.

"If the substance of the Bible may thus be compared to a soul which was to be fitted with a body, it will follow that ... a radical change in the vocabulary at any point would be likely to throw that part out of keeping with the rest. The truth of this was recognized by Ellicott, when, in 1870, he advised future revisers to `limit the choice of words to the vocabulary of the present [Authorized] version, combined with that of the versions, that preceded it; and in alterations preserve as far as possible the rhythm and cadence of the Authorized Version.'

"It is not a little remarkable that the effects wrought by the English Bible should require so few words. The editors of the New English Dictionary reckon the words in A to Z, inclusive, as 160,813, of which number 113,677 are what they call main words. Shakespeare, it has been estimated, employs about 21,000 (others say 15,000, or 24,000); Milton, in his verse, about 13,000. The Hebrew (with the Chaldee) of the Old Testament, according to the computations of Leusden, comprises 5,642 words, and the New Testament, it is said, has 4,800, while the whole English Bible, if we may trust Marsh, employs about 6,000. ...

"The elevation and nobility of Biblical diction, assisted by its slightly archaic tinge, have a tendency to keep all English style above meanness and triviality" (Albert Cook, The Authorized Version of the Bible and Its Influence).

Thus we see the power that the King James Bible has wielded upon the English-speaking people across the centuries. We could also consider the influence of the Authorized Version in a worldwide sense. Its influence has far surpassed that of any other translation of the Bible in church history.

To trace this influence, though, would take us too far afield of the direct pursuit of our subject.

Though there were lonely voices here and there degrading the Received Text and expounding the theories which would eventually result in the Westcott- Hort Greek text and the new English versions founded upon it, these voices had practically no impact outside the circles of the professional textual critic until the end of the nineteenth century.

Thousands of faithful pastors stood for the Received Text and the King James Bible across Britain and North America. Writing in the 1930s, H.S. Miller gave this testimony of the attitude of the average Bible believer toward the King James Bible:

"For more than three centuries the King James' Version has been the Bible of the English-speaking world, and there does not seem to be much abatement, even in favor of the Revised Version. More copies are being sold each year. Its simple, majestic, Anglo-Saxon tongue, its clear, sparkling style, its directness and force of utterance, have made it the model in language, style, and dignity of some of the choicest writers of the last two centuries. Added to the above characteristics, its reverential and spiritual tone and attitude have made it the idol of the Christian church, for its own words have been regarded as authoritative and binding. It has endeared itself to the hearts and lives of millions of Christians and has molded the characters of the leaders in every walk of life in the greatest nation of the world. During all these centuries, King James Version has become a vital part of the English-speaking world, socially, morally, religiously, and politically. Launched with the endorsement of the regal and scholarly authority of the seventeenth century, its conquest and rule have been supreme" (H.S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, pp. 365,66; Miller quotes part of this paragraph from Ira Price's The Ancestry of Our English Bible).

H.S. Miller supported the Westcott-Hort text and the Revised Version, but he admits the preeminence of the King James Bible throughout the nineteenth century and extending even to the first half of the twentieth century. He was writing in 1937 when he said, "For more than three centuries the King James' Version has been the Bible of the English-speaking world, and there does not seem to be much abatement, even in favor of the Revised Version" (emphasis added) (Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 365).

The King James Bible IS the ancient scriptural landmark for the English-speaking peoples of the world. Those who follow the new versions have departed from a clear landmark. "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" (Prov. 22:28). The audacity of Westcott-Hort and the Revisers of 1881 was incredible to behold. By their own profession, they tossed aside 15 centuries of history to replace the generally-received text of Scripture with a different one. Even Westcott and Hort admitted the antiquity of the Received Text. "Hort recognised the Textus receptus as being quite as old as 350 A.D. or older" (Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment, p. viii).

Bishop Ellicott, Chairman of the English Revision New Testament committee, said this about the age of the Received Text:

"The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus. ... That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them" (Charles John Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the New Testament, by Two Members of the New Testament Company, 1882, pp. 11,12).

Only a spiritually weak generation would have allowed the ancient, traditionally-received text of Scripture to be overthrown, but such a generation was foretold: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3,4).

Another testimony to the general mood in the English-speaking world toward the King James Bible throughout the nineteenth century is summarized in another statement by Bishop Ellicott: "Nothing is more satisfactory at the present time than the evident feelings of veneration for our Authorized Version, and the very generally-felt desire for as little change as possible" (emphasis added) (Considerations on Revision, May 1870, p. 99, cited in Revision Revised, "A Letter to Bishop Ellicott in Reply to His Pamphlet," p. 369).

The deception of the Revised Version Committee is that they ignored these "feelings of veneration for the Authorized Version" and they went entirely out of the bounds of their own written rules to produce, not a mere revision of the King James Bible, but an entirely new type of Greek text and a wholesale revamping of the English translation. More on this later.

TEXTUAL CRITICS SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE TR

Throughout the 1700s and 1800s various textual critics were attempting to overthrow the Received Text, but these labored in relative obscurity in relation to the average pastor and the average Christian. H.S. Miller lists 17 textual scholars of note who labored between the mid-seventeenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries. Other historians add a number of other names to this list. Chief among those who were trying to overthrow the Received Text were Richard Simon (1638-1712) (a French priest), John A. Bengel (1687- 1752), John S. Semler (1725-91), John J. Griesbach (1745-1812), Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), Henry Alford (1810-71), Constantin Tischendorf (1815- 74), S.P. Tregelles (1813-75), B.F. Westcott (1825-1901), and F.J.A. Hort (1828-92).

It is crucial to understand that the field of textual criticism has always been divided and confused. Many of the histories would have us believe that there was a steady increase of knowledge in this field in the nineteenth century with all facts pointing in one direction and one direction only: the discrediting of the Received Text. This was NOT the case.

First, there were textual scholars working contemporary with those mentioned above who did not accept the theories of these critics and who did not believe the Received Text to be corrupt. Such men are mentioned by Miller, Metzger, Kenyon, and others, but only in passing and almost in derision, as if their scholarship were somehow suspect because they refused to reject the God-honored Received Text.

In particular, Miller acknowledges that John J. Wetstein (1693-1754), Christian F. Matthaei (1744-1811), Andrew Birch (1758-1829), J.M.A. Scholz (1794-1852), and F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-91) largely supported the Received Text rather than the critical text which was gradually gaining in popularity among textual scholars.

We also could mention George Salmon (1812-1904), John Burgon (1813-1888), Edward Miller (1825-1901), and Herman Hoskier (1864-1938). All of these were textual scholars of the highest caliber. All were contemporary with Westcott and Hort. All are slighted in most histories on textual criticism. The problem, perhaps, is that these men utterly repudiated the critical text.

Those students who read works such as Miller's General Biblical Introduction or Metzger's The Text of the New Testament (said by many to be "the standard in the field") or Kenyon's Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts or Kurt Aland's The Text of the New Testament are left with the idea that there has been no serious scholarly rejection of the theories underlying the modern Greek text. This is plainly a deception. Metzger does mention Burgon and Salmon, but he tells us nothing of consequence of their work apart from shallow caricatures. The same can be said for Kenyon. Alan summarizes the defense of the Received Text as mere "clamorous rhetoric" (The Text of the New Testament, p. 19). This is an incredibly proud position.

Second, even the various textual critics who are exalted as the giants in the field were extremely critical of one another and have held nothing like a uniformity of principle. As for their attitude even toward one another, Burgon, in his inimitable way, notes the confusion and lack of unity which reigned in the midst of these Greek editors:

"What Griesbach attempted [1774-1805], was denounced [1782-1805] by C.F. Matthaei; disapproved by Scholz; demonstrated to be untenable by Abp. Laurence. Finally, in 1847, the learned J.G. Reiche, in some Observations prefixed to his Collations of MSS. in the Paris Library, eloquently and ably exposed the unreasonableness of any theory of `Recension,'properly so called; thereby effectually anticipating Westcott and Hort's weak imagination of a `Syrian Text,' while he was demolishing the airy speculations of Griesbach and Hug. `There is no royal road' (he said) `to the Criticism of the N.T.: no plain and easy method, at once reposing on a firm foundation, and conducting securely to the wished for goal.' ... Scarcely therefore in Germany had the basement-story been laid of that `fabric of Criticism which has been built up during the last fifty years,' and which you [Bishop Ellicott] superstitiously admire, when a famous German scholar [J.G. Reiche] was heard denouncing the fabric as insecure. He foretold that the `regia via' of codices B and Aleph would prove a deceit and a snare: which thing, at the end of four-and-thirty years, has punctually come to pass" (John William Burgon, Revision Revised, pp. 380,81).

Alfred Martin, former Vice-President of Moody Bible Institute, noted this in his Ph.D. thesis before Dallas Theological Seminary faculty, May 1951:

"It should be evident by this time that the opposing schools of textual criticism are not new, and that the lines have been drawn in practically the same way since the beginning of the conflict. Just as Bengel was opposed by Wetstein, so Griesbach was opposed by C.F. Matthaei" (Martin, A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory, p. 35).

The chief thing which united this latter group of rationalistic textual critics was their animosity toward the God-honored Received Text. In summarizing the work of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Alford, noted Presbyterian scholar Robert Dabney said:

"Their common traits may be said to be an almost contemptuous dismissal of the received text, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice; the rejection of the great mass of the codices of the common text as recent and devoid of nearly all authority; and the settlement of the text by the testimony of a very few MSS. for which they claim a superior antiquity, with the support of a few fathers and versions, whom they are pleased to regard as judicious and trustworthy" (Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, pp. 354,55).

Beyond that, all was uncertainty and change. "Tregelles has published a vast list, covering ninety-four octavo pages, of the departures of the four leading editors whom he admires, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, from the received text. Their number is more than nine thousand. That is, there are so many places in which one or more of these critics differs from the received text. But the same tables evince that the critics differ among each other in more than nine thousand places!" (Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, p. 356).

The confusion and variance among textual critics has increased in this century. Those who launch out upon the theories espoused by these men set sail upon a sea of confusion and anarchy. Those who follow the modern textual critics have no absolute standard of authority and judgment. If that is not of the Devil, nothing is.

PRIVATE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS INCREASED

At the same time that the textual critics were inventing their "airy" philosophies, various English translations were being produced privately which contained deviations from the KJV. In the latter half of the eighteenth century, John Wesley, founder of Methodism, produced a New Testament containing "some 12,000 alterations from the 1611 text partly due to the use of a different text, and partly to a free use of the Authorized Version margins" (H. Wheeler Robinson, The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions, p. 230). Editions of the Wesley New Testament were published in 1755, 1760, and 1790. In 1833 Rodolphus Dickinson published his edition of the New Testament based on the critical Greek text of Griesbach. In 1840 the (Unitarian) Samuel Sharpe version appeared. It was founded upon the Greek text of Griesbach. That same year the Edgar Taylor version appeared, which also took advantage of the Griesbach text. In 1841 J.T. Conquest, a medical doctor, came out with his Bible version, containing 20,000 departures from the Old Bible. In 1857 the American Bible Union issued the first of its versions of the Bible which followed the critical text in hundreds of places. In 1858 Leicester A. Sawyer issued a New Testament based on one of Tischendorf's Greek texts. In 1872 J.N. Darby, a founder of the Brethren movement, published a Bible translation which departed from the Received Text in many instances. Darby's translation was criticized in the November and December 1872 issue of Spurgeon's Sword and Trowel, which labeled it "a faulty and pitiable translation of the sacred Book." Other examples of nineteenth-century English translations could be given.

THE FAITH-DESTROYING INFLUENCE OF COMMENTARIES

Samuel McComb, in his history of the English Bible, also notes the influence of commentaries in undermining the Received Text and the King James Bible: "A succession of commentaries, embodying the results of the new Biblical learning and amending the Authorized Version, gradually educated the clergy, and, through them, the laity, in the necessity for some authoritative revision of what was proved to be a faulty translation" (McComb, The Making of the English Bible, 1909, p. 101). While we don't share McComb's enthusiasm for the "new Biblical learning" and we disagree with him that the Old Version is faulty, we agree that critical commentaries have wielded vast (destructive) influence. Instead of contenting themselves with expounding the Word of God, which is the preacher's duty, many commentators fancy themselves to have the incredible ability single-handedly to correct the work of those dozens of esteemed and highly skilled linguists who produced the Authorized Version (and the esteemed versions preceding the KJV) and even to criticize the textual authority upon which the KJV is founded. We see that this proud trait, which is exhibited by most twentieth-century commentators, was in evidence 200 years ago.

VOICES CALLING FOR REVISION OF THE KJV

Beginning in the early 1800s, voices began to call for a revision of the King James Bible. H. Wheeler Robinson, who taught at Oxford and at the Regent Park College in Britain, summarizes this period in his Ancient and English Versions of the Bible. We will leave out portions of Robinson's summary because he also refers to the new translations produced in the nineteenth century as well as to some of the voices lifted in defense of the Authorized Version, both of which topics we deal with more extensively in other chapters.

"It is with the nineteenth century that the explicit demand for an improved version, as distinct from the earlier stages of adverse criticism and of premature attempts at revision, may really be said to begin. ... In The Eclectic Review for January 1809, Dr. John Pye Smith, President of Homerton Congregational College, made a strong appeal for an authoritative revision; and he was followed the next year by Dr. Herbert Marsh, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, in his published Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. ... Sir James B. Burges [supported the replacement of the Authorized Version] in his Reasons in Favour of a New Translation of the Scriptures (1819)...

"Fresh stimulus was given to the discussion by a scholarly booklet entitled Hints for an Improved Translation of the New Testament, produced in 1832 by the Rev. Jas. Scholefield, Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge, and re-edited in 1836 and (in an enlarged form) in 1849. ...

"Some caustic remarks regarding the archaic vocabulary and literary quality of the Authorized Version were offered by Henry Hallam in the third volume of his Literature of Europe (1839) ...

"The matter was broached in the Lower House of Convocation in March 1856 by Canon William Selwyn, of Ely and Cambridge, but he met with comparatively little support; and later the same year he pleaded for revision in his Notes on the Proposed Amendment of the Authorized Version (re-edited 1857)--a plea which Dr. C.J. Ellicott was also passionately urging at this time in his commentaries on the Pauline Epistles" (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, pp. 236-238).

We leave Robinson's summary in 1857, because we will begin our next chapter precisely at this point in history when we take up the battle over the English Revised Version.

In spite of the disparate voices calling for revision, in general there was not a great challenge to the Received Text or to the King James Bible until the latter end of the 1800s. This explains why there was not a lot of activity on the side of defending the KJV in the first half of the nineteenth century. You don't defend something unless there is a challenge.

The only real challenge to the KJV in the first half of the nineteenth century consisted of the Pre-Westcott-Hort Greek texts which proposed to discard the Received Text in favor of a new one. A few examples of the response to these by defenders of the Old Bible follow.

MEN WHO STOOD FOR THE AUTHORIZED VERSION

AND ITS UNDERLYING TEXT

FREDERICK NOLAN'S (1784-1864) An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin was published in 1815. As the title suggests, this 576-page volume was a defense of the text underlying the Authorized Version. Nolan said, "... it shall be my object to vindicate those important passages of the Received Text which have been rejected from the Scripture Canon, on the principles of the German method of classification" (p. 43). Among the several passages that he thus vindicated are 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7. Presbyterian leader R.L. Dabney described Nolan's volume as "a work which defends the received text with matchless ingenuity and profound learning" (Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871).

Nolan defended the sixteenth-century text on the basis of faith and theological purity. He opposed the critics of his day who were disparaging the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza in a manner mimicked by today's modern version proponents, In particular, Nolan was defending the TR against the text and theorizing of J. Griesbach. Nolan saw the hand of God guiding the sixteenth-century textual editors, and he understood that the Received Text is theologically superior to the critical texts. He also understood that the efforts to undermine the Received Text were destructive to the authority of the Bible.

"The necessary result of this process, as obviously proving the existence of a number of spurious readings in the Received Text, has been that of shaking the authority of our Authorized Version, with the foundation on which it is rested" (Nolan, p. 6).

In concluding his overview of the arguments which had been arrayed against the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7, Nolan says:

"On summing up the arguments which have been urged against the text of the heavenly witnesses, I cannot therefore discover anything which materially affects the authenticity of this verse, either in the omissions of the Greek manuscripts, or the silence of the Greek fathers; in the variations of the Latin version, or the allegorical explanations of the Latin polemics. The objections hence raised against that text, are perfectly consistent with that strong evidence in its favour, which is deducible from the internal evidence, and the external testimony of the African Church; which testimony remains to be disposed of, before we can consider it spurious. Nor is there any objection to which the text of the Vulgar Greek [Received Text] is exposed, in other respects, which at all detracts from its credit" (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 564).

Nolan devastates the popular idea that Erasmus and the Reformation editors were working with insufficient textual evidence and that they did not know about the readings preferred by today's textual critics. Consider Nolan's comments on Eramus's methodology:

"With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in the possession of the Greek church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted" (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 413-15).

One hundred and eighty years ago this respected scholar devastated the popular line which is promoted today in regard to the Erasmus text. The critics of the Received Text claim that Erasmus based his text upon a mere handful of manuscript evidence. They look down upon Beza for refusing to give consideration to manuscripts WHICH WERE IN HIS POSSESSION but which contained a reading contrary to the Received Text. The critics claim that the discovery of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and similar manuscripts gave the nineteenth-century textual critics an advance over the Reformation editors. Read practically any introduction to the history of modern textual criticism, and this is the picture you will find. The fact is that the Reformation editors were familiar, generally, WITH ALL OF THE VARIOUS READINGS known today, even the peculiar readings of Vaticanus. As Nolan shows, the Reformation editors did not follow the Received Text because they lacked sufficient textual evidence, but because they consciously chose to reject the critical readings. The fact is that the Reformation editors believed that God had preserved His Word in a certain family of manuscripts which can be called the Traditional Text and it was to this text that these wise men looked when they were searching for the words of God. The Reformation editors recognized that the Traditional Text is theologically pure whereas the text represented by Vaticanus and friends is impure. In a word, they did not adopt the Received Text out of ignorance, but out of conviction!

Nolan, in a careful and very technical manner, traced the history of the doctrinal corruptions which were introduced into the text of various manuscripts during the first four centuries after Christ.

"The works of those early writers lie under the positive imputation of being corrupted. The copies of Clement and Origen were corrupted in their life time; the manuscripts from which Tertullian's works have been printed are notoriously faulty; and the copies of Cyprian demonstrate their own corruption, by their disagreement among themselves, and their agreement with different texts and revisals of Scripture. It is likewise indisputable, that these fathers not only followed each other, adopting the arguments and quotations of one another; but that they quoted from the heterodox as well as the orthodox. They were thus likely to transmit from one to another erroneous quotations, originally adopted from sources not more pure than heretical revisals of Scripture. ... New revisals of Scripture were thus formed, which were interpolated with the peculiar readings of scholiasts and fathers. Nor did this systematic corruption terminate here; but when new texts were thus formed, they became the standard by which the later copies of the early writers were in succession corrected" (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 326- 332).

Nolan connects this textual corruption with such manuscripts as the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus which contain readings at variance with the Received Text.

Nolan detailed the overwhelming textual authority which supports various passages which were in the Received Text but which are disputed by the modern versions.

The amazing thing is that these facts, which were understood by the Reformation editors and confirmed by wise scholars in the nineteenth century, are scoffed today, even by many supposed Evangelical and Fundamental scholars. Why? Because these Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are not depending on their own scholarship but upon the rationalistic scholarship of the past two centuries. Theologian Bernard Ramm admits this fact: "Much evangelical scholarship is piggy-backing on non-evangelical scholarship. It does not have an authentic scholarship of its own" (Ramm, After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology, New York: Harper & Row, 1983). Ramm was not speaking specifically of textual criticism, but the shoe does fit.

HENRY JOHN TODD, M.A., in 1819, published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible, and of preceding Versions, from the Objections of Mr. John Bellamy, and of Sir J.B. Burges. Todd was writing in opposition to those voices (mentioned earlier) which were calling for a revision of the Authorized Version and a replacement of the Received Text. In particular Todd exposed the error of statements called forth by John Bellamy in defense of his own private version of the Old Testament and in harsh criticism of the King James Bible. An excerpt gives the tone of the whole:

"From either of these schemes, the bold project of a new translation, or the more specious one of a revisal of the present version of the Holy Scriptures, there can be so little gained, and may be so much hazarded, that the probable good bears no manner of proportion to the threatened danger. ... With regard to revision, it is of little importance that a few particles be adjusted, a few phrases polished, if the whole fabric of that faith which was once delivered to the saints is thereby shaken to its foundation" (emphasis added) (T. Rennell, "Discourses on Various Subjects," cited by H.J. Todd, A Vindication of Our Translation and Translators of the Bible, p. vi).

This represented the popular opinion at that point in time, and I believe Rennell's words are prophetic.

Bellamy had claimed that the King James Bible and its predecessors were translated by men who were not skilled in the Hebrew language. Todd countered this nonsense by examining the qualifications of a number of the esteemed Reformation translators and by bringing forth many respected testimonies in defense of the scholarship of the Authorized Version translation committee. Todd described Tyndale's excellent skills in the Hebrew language. He noted the exalted linguistic abilities of the men who produced the Geneva Bible. He gave details of 17 of the KJV translators who were highly skilled in Hebrew.

J.W. WHITTAKER, M.A., Fellow of St. John's, Cambridge, in 1820, published An Historical and Critical Enquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, with Remarks on Mr. Bellamy's New Translation. It was a brilliant defense of the Authorized Version against John Bellamy's harsh criticisms. As we noted in the previous paragraphs, Bellamy had launched a vicious attack on the authenticity of the King James Bible and had made the accusation that the translators of the KJV and its predecessors were not skilled in Hebrew. Whittaker, a Hebrew scholar, carefully detailed the linguistic excellencies of Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, and the translators of the Great Bible, the Geneva, the Bishops, and the Authorized 1611. Whittaker gave examples from these translations, demonstrating that the versions conformed to the Hebrew rather than to the Greek Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate.

Whittaker also describes the exalted linguistic climate which existed uniquely during the Reformation era.

"Had this gentleman [Bellamy] consulted any historical authority, or in the slightest degree investigated the characters of our translators, he would have found that many of them were celebrated Hebrew scholars, and could not have failed to perceive that the sacred language was at that time cultivated to a far greater extent in England than it has ever been since. We have already seen that twelve editions of the Hebrew Bible were printed before the year 1527, four of which were published in one year. Ever since the first dawn of literature in Europe, the study of the Scriptures in the original languages had been an object of the warmest enthusiasm. The turn which religious controversy took at the birth of the Reformation compelled all learned men to take their authorities from the inspired text, and not from a Romish version.In the year 1540, King Henry the Eighth appointed regular Hebrew Professors, and the consequences of this measure were instantaneous. In Queen Elizabeth's reign no person who pretended to eminence as a learned man was ignorant of this language, and so very common did it become, that the ladies of noble families frequently made it one of their accomplishments. ...

"Under Queen Elisabeth and King James, who were not only the patrons of learning by their institutions, but examples of it in their own persons, Hebrew literature prospered to a very great extent, and under the last of these monarchs attained its greatest splendour. The Universities, and all public bodies for the promotion of learning, flourished in an extraordinary degree, and AT THIS HAPPY JUNCTURE OUR TRANSLATION WAS MADE. Every circumstance had been conspiring during the whole of the preceding century to extend the study of Hebrew. The attempts of the Papists to check the circulation of the translations, the zeal of the Protestants to expose the Vulgate errors, the novelty of theological speculations to society at large, and even the disputes of the Reformed Churches, GAVE AN ANIMATED VIGOUR TO THE STUDY OF THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES WHICH HAS NEVER SINCE BEEN WITNESSED" (Whittaker, pp. 99-104).

Many modern version proponents ignore these facts and persist with the myth that the theological scholarship existing at the end of the nineteenth century was well advanced over that of the sixteenth and seventeenth. On the contrary, the climate of the second half of the nineteenth century, both as to theological and linguistic purity and scholastic achievement, was inferior to the centuries preceding.

RICHARD LAURENCE, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1820 published Remarks upon the Critical Principles Adopted by Writers Who Have Recommended a New Translation of the Bible. He was opposed to the critical principles. He argued "learnedly against the possibility of improving on the Hebrew and Greek texts on which the Authorized Version was based" (H. Wheeler Robinson, Ancient and English Versions of the Bible, p. 237).

HENRY WALTER, a Hebrew scholar of note, claimed in 1823 that in the previous two centuries knowledge of biblical Hebrew HAD NOT progressed significantly beyond that of 1611. He testified, "On the whole, I see little reason for supposing that the philological apparatus accumulated since King James's time, has carried the knowledge of Hebrew perceptibly farther than it was possessed by his translators" (Letter to the Right Rev. Herbert, p. 140, cited by Edwin Cone Bissell, The Historic Origin of the Bible, p. 349). Frederick Nolan and J.W. Whittaker had made this same observation a few years earlier. Alexander McClure would repeat this view in 1855, as would Joseph Philpot in 1857, George Marsh in 1860, and others who followed. This, of course, is contrary to the popular notion held by proponents of modern Bible versions.

JOHN JEBB, Bishop of Limerick, in 1829 verbalized his opposition to proposed revisions of the Authorized Bible which were beginning to circulate in his day.

"I deeply regret that you should, in however modified a sense, and with whatever cautionary feeling of attending dangers, be favorable to a revision of our English Bible. That it has errors and imperfections I most readily admit; what human performance is exempt from them? But I humbly conceive that, in the present days of unsettlement and appetency after change, the only safety lies in keeping things as they are. We have not hitherto indeed had any great encouragement from the revisionary labours even of our first scholars and divines. Looking around me in the present day, I see much to fear, and little to hope; for one trifling error corrected I doubt we should have ten worse introduced; while, in point of style, from everything that has appeared of late years, I am obliged to think we should be infinitely losers. I, then, for one, am content to bear with the few ills I know, rather than encounter thousands that I know not of. But, in truth, with all its errors, ours is the best version I have seen, or hope to see. Let individuals give new versions ... but in days of epidemic quackery, let our authorized version be kept inviolate, and guarded as the apple of our eye" (John Jebb, Life of John Jebb, ii, p. 454, cited by Samuel Hemphill, A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament, pp. 21,22).

First, let me say that I don't agree with Jebb's idea that the Authorized Version has errors. Of course, we don't know precisely what he meant by the term "errors." To admit that the KJV could be updated and improved in certain points is not to say that it contains errors. We believe this is an important matter, because we are dealing with biblical authority. Further, those who point out errors in the KJV often act as if this version were merely the informal product of a few inconsequential translators. On the contrary; the Authorized English Version is the product of the most intense, scholarly, sacrificial, wide-reaching Bible translation and revision effort ever to be made in any language in history. (The revisions since 1870 cannot properly be placed into this stream, as they have taken off on an entirely different textual and methodological direction.) If the KJV has all of the errors that so many speak of, why weren't these errors found and corrected between 1526 and 1638 (the date of the last formal revision, other than the orthographical revision of the 1760s, of the 1611 KJV)? We personally do not believe there are any true errors.

Let me give an example to illustrate what I am trying to say. A pastor wrote to me recently and said, "`Synagogues' in Psalm 74:8 is wrongly translated. There were no synagogues for six hundred years after this. The Hebrew word is better translated `meeting places,' certainly not `synagogues.'" I replied as follows:

"To say that Psalm 74:8 could also read `meeting places' is a reasonable statement and one that I would agree with, but to say categorically that Psalm 74:8 is an error in the King James Bible I find strange. The word `synagogue' comes from the Greek through French and means `meeting place.' That is why the Jews adopted the word for their assemblies and assembly halls. That is apparently why the KJV translators kept the word intact from the Bishops Bible they were revising. `Synagogue' goes back at least as far as the Geneva and probably all the way back to Coverdale, who was the first to print the entire Old Testament in English from the Hebrew. Are you saying that these brilliant scholars, working under the mighty hand of God, did not know enough to figure out that `there were no synagogues for six hundred years after this'?" (Letter of March 29, 1995).

Wouldn't it be wiser to give the KJV translators (and Tyndale and Rogers and Coverdale and the Geneva and the Bishops') the benefit of the doubt, and to admit that they had serious reasons for every translation they gave, though we can't necessarily trace all of their reasoning today, hundreds of years after the fact. Again, it is one thing to say that a certain word or passage could be translated differently; it is quite another to brazenly claim that the KJV is WRONG. The more I learn about the King James Bible and its history, the more reluctant I am to believe there are any errors in it.

Returning to John Jebb's opposition to revision, the chief point is that Jebb did see great danger in a revision of the Authorized Version. The man was not a mere traditionalist. He saw the danger of dividing and weakening biblical authority by departing from the absolute standard of the KJV. He was convinced that the theological climate of the nineteenth century could not produce biblical purity. Jebb's warnings have come to pass, yet these wise considerations are given practically no attention in modern treatises on this subject.

Dr. Jebb continued to oppose the revision of the Authorized Bible. During the discussion which surrounded the proposal for revision in May 1870, in the Lower House of the Province of Canterbury, Jebb gave his opinion that it was "a fatal thing that a version, of which we have been now in possession for more than 250 years, should be subject to the criticism of this very hasty and not very orthodox age" (John Stoughton, Our English Bible, p. 288). Dr. Jebb refused an appointment to the revision committee.

This man had a much wiser understanding of his times than those who were rushing to overthrow the Old Bible.

WILLIAM T. BRANTLEY, D.D., and OCTAVIUS WINSLOW, D.D., jointly published in 1837 Objections to a Baptist Version of the New Testament with Additional Reasons for Preferring the English Bible as It Is. The title leaves little doubt about the position of the authors in regard to the Authorized Bible and any proposed revisions thereof. Brantley was very bold about his position: "It is our heart's desire and prayer to God that this venerable monument of learning, of truth, of piety, of unequalled purity of style and diction, may be perpetuated to the end of time just as we now have it. Let no daring genius meditate either change or amendment in its structure or composition; neither let any learned impertinence presume to disturb the happy confidence of the tens of thousands who now regard it as, next to the original languages, the purest vehicle through which the mind of the Holy Spirit was ever conveyed to mortals" (emphasis added) (William Brantley, Objections to a Baptist Version of the New Testament, New York, 1837, p. 50). No beating around the bush here! Amen, we second that motion.

ALEXANDER M'CAUL, D.D., in 1857 came out with his defense of the Authorized Bible under the title Reasons for Holding Fast. M'Caul saw the danger of tampering with the underlying Greek and Hebrew text. He saw the danger of dividing the authority of God's Word by the multiplication of versions.

"The changing of these words would establish a principle, that words not intelligible to the general reader must be changed for others more easily understood. And then a great many and important words must be removed. The possibility of having our theological language and therefore our theology changed (as might be the case), makes us rather satisfied to hold fast what we have than to run the risk of emendations of so sweeping a character. ... All the other perils are as nothing compared with the alteration of the original texts. Everybody knows that, in the New Testament especially, there are some texts affecting the very foundations of our faith, others affecting the controversies between High Church and Low Church, which are subjects of debate. At present, the English Church leaves the discussion of such passages, and the merits or demerits of the various readings, open to the deliberations of criticism. But let these passages be changed, and the weight of church authority is at once thrown into the scale; and a doubtful, mischievous reading may be put forth as the oracle of God" (emphasis added) (Alexander M'Caul, Reasons for Holding Fast, London, 1857, pp. 21,22,46).

This is precisely what has happened in countless places in the modern versions, because the translators have not been content to translate, but have determined to place in the text their own private interpretation. In speaking of alteration of the original texts, M'Caul was referring to the attempts by Lachmann and Tischendorf to put forward their critical Greek texts--which were similar to that adopted by Westcott and Hort and the English Revisers of 1881.

Speaking before the Edinburgh Bible Society in January 1857, LORD PANMURE delivered a rousing opposition to all proposals to revise the Authorized Bible:

"We have heard in this country, and we have seen it absolutely put into practice in the United States of America, of a scheme for what is called a new version of the Bible. Now, feeling very strongly on this subject, I take this opportunity of publicly stating my opinion: that any such scheme is fraught with the utmost danger to the Protestant liberties of this country. Nay, it is fraught with danger, I believe, to the Protestant religion itself. ... It is quite true, and every man must admit it, that there are perhaps some slight things, some mistranslations slight in themselves, and not affecting any great principles, which might be corrected in the translation of the Scriptures. But they are so slight in comparison with the danger of letting in those who would make alterations, partly from the criticisms of erudition, partly for the purpose of getting in dogmas of their own, that I think it would be the most dangerous and disastrous thing which could occur to this country, if we were to permit those words to be tampered with which have been household words in many a pious family for upwards of three hundred years, and I hope will be household words to all the families of the world before three hundred years more are passed" (Lord Panmure, The Witness, January 10, 1857, as cited by Bissell, p. 351).

Panmure leaves no doubt as to his position in regard to the Old Bible. He wanted no revision. Explain a few things in the margin, if you will, but leave the Old Bible alone. That was the position of thousands of that day. Panmure saw Bible revision schemes as "fraught with danger." Oh, that today's so-called Evangelicals had such insight, such spiritual fervor. They write about these life or death matters, about the eternal words of the Living God, with a dry, unemotional, ho-hum attitude more befitting a discussion of agricultural techniques than the transmission of the Holy Bible. Panmure's insight into the connection between what he called "Protestant religion" and an authoritative Bible was prophetic. The multiplicity of versions has weakened the authority of the Bible in the hands of those churches that have adopted them. The sole authority of the Bible-believing Christian is the BIBLE. Leave him with an imperfect Bible and he has no genuine, absolute authority. We believe there is a connection between the success of Roman Catholic ecumenism and the multiplicity of versions. Today Rome works hand-in-hand with Protestant textual editors and Bible translators throughout the world. It puts its imprimatur on the new versions almost as they leave the press. One of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, which is used in most Protestant colleges (and Baptist, too) throughout the world, is Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini. To fail to see a connection between Rome's success and the fact that Protestants have adopted Rome's old corrupt Vaticanus into their Bibles since 1881 is blindness.

SOLOMON CAESAR MALAN, D.D. (1812-1894), Vicar of Broadwindsor, published A Vindication of the Authorized Version, from Charges Brought against It by Recent Writers (1856), A Plea for the Received Text and for the Authorized Version of the New Testament (1869), and Seven Chapters of the Revision of 1881 Revised (1881). The first book was Malan's reply to a call for revision which had come in 1856 through William Selwyn and James Heywood.

Also, about the same time five Anglican ministers were lobbying for revision. These were Charles Ellicott (later the New Testament Revision Committee Chairman), Henry Alford, W.H.G. Humphry, John Barrow, and G. Moberly. This group had been brought together in 1856 by Ernest Hawkins, secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and between 1857 and 1863 they published several revised portions of Scripture. These were issued under the title of Revision of the Authorized Version, by Five Clergymen. This work has been called "the germ of the 1881 revision." Malan wrote in opposition to this.

Malan exhibited a very learned grasp of the unique and glorious heritage of the Authorized English Version. He understood very well the seriousness of any attempt to revise it. Let's go back in time almost 150 years and listen in as this brilliant man gives a defense of the King James Bible:

"It [the KJV] stands as yet unrivalled among other modern versions for the devout spirit in which its authors rendered the original texts; for the simple beauty of its style; and for the dignified and easy flow of a language that was in a great degree formed from it, and that singles it out from among other translations of the Bible, even as a mere literary composition. It is free from the ruggedness and from the archaisms of the older English versions; and at the same time it possesses at least an equal merit with them, for its faithful rendering of the original. But it has this great advantage over some of them, that whereas they were the work of single individuals, this was made by a goodly company of nearly fifty of the most pious and learned men of that time; who, together, availed themselves of the labours of their predecessors in order to raise their own production to a higher degree of excellence. ...

"It may, indeed, be taken down; but, if so, never to be rebuilt as it was. It might, it is true, have a more modern appearance; but then, it would lose the solemn look of age. It might also possibly be better adapted to the fastidious taste of the present day; but then, unbroken associations of two centuries and a half, together with much of national individuality, would perish for ever; and those persons who think the Authorized Version antiquated, would be the first to regret the change. ... And they would lament the day when, for the sake of novelty, they had abandoned those sweet and solemn words of warning blended with their earliest recollections of childhood, by renouncing their trust of a national treasure, committed to them in the safe keeping of the Authorized English Version of the Bible. ...

"So much care, so much earnestness, in the due performance of this important task [the creation of the King James Bible], were not bestowed in vain. They have stamped the work with a character for excellence to which no modern version, and but one or two of the older ones, can lay claim. As regards the Old Testament, the Authorized Version is, generally speaking, less paraphrastic, and is therefore a more correct rendering of the Hebrew, than the Septuagint and the versions that follow them wholly or in part; such as the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Coptic, the Vulgate, the Arabic, and even the Syriac. ... And, as regards the New Testament, the English Bible agrees best with the old versions, which are of the highest value, on account of their faithfulness and accuracy. ...

"... it stands pre-eminent when side by side with more modern versions, not only for its devout adherence to the original texts, but also for the beauty of its style. ... So true is this, that whereas neighbouring nations have had, within a short period, a succession of versions of the Bible in their respective languages, to the detriment of union and of uniformity among the readers of the Bible in those countries, the English Version has stood on its own merits, and has shone of its own lustre for nearly two centuries and a half. ...

"Thus it is that it has entered into the very substance of the nation. It is interwoven with its sinews, and forms more than any other book ever did an unseen, by many perhaps, unacknowledged, or even neglected, but still a living, element in the prosperity of the people. ... THESE LASTING AND WHOLESOME EFFECTS ARE THE RESULT OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE BEING ONE AND THE SAME FOR ALL. IF, INSTEAD OF ONLY ONE BIBLE, ENGLAND HAD, LIKE SOME OTHER COUNTRIES, MANY BIBLES, THAT VARIETY ALONE WOULD BREED AND FOSTER ENDLESS DIVISION. ...

"Their reverence for the Sacred Scriptures induced them [KJV translators] to be as literal as they could, to avoid obscurity; and it must be acknowledged that they were extremely happy in the simplicity and dignity of their expressions. Their adherence to the Hebrew idiom is supposed at once to have enriched and adorned our language; and, as they laboured for the general benefit of the learned and the unlearned, they avoided all words of Latin original when they could find words in their own language ...

"Thus, then, the English Bible has not only stood for centuries, and NOW STANDS, ON ITS OWN MERITS AS A TRUE WITNESS OF THE INSPIRED TEXT OF SCRIPTURE; but it is also strong of its own strength, in being, as the highest authorities tell us, `the best standard of the English language.' ... For `our translators,' says Dr. Adam Clarke, `not only made a standard translation, but they have made their translation the standard of our language. THE ENGLISH TONGUE, IN THEIR DAY, WAS NOT EQUAL TO SUCH A WORK; BUT GOD ENABLED THEM TO STAND AS UPON MOUNT SINAI, AND CRANE UP THEIR COUNTRY'S LANGUAGE TO THE DIGNITY OF THE ORIGINALS, so that after the lapse of two hundred [and fifty] years, the English Bible is, with very few exceptions, the standard of the purity and excellence of the English tongue. The original, from which it was taken, is alone superior to the Bible translated by the authority of King James.' ...

"Such considerations, however, have no weight whatever with many who are willing to sacrifice much to the love of change; or at all events, who seem to take pleasure in aiming blows at everything that is not of yesterday. Everything now must keep pace with the age; even the word of God. ... And yet wisdom neither came with us, nor will die with us. As regards the Authorized Version then, and those who find fault with it, `let us not too hastily conclude,' says Mr. Whittaker, `that the translators have fallen on evil days and evil tongues, because it has occasionally happened that an individual, as inferior to them in erudition as in talents and integrity, is found questioning their motives, or denying their qualifications for the task which they so well performed. ... It [the KJV] may be compared with any translation in the world, without fear of inferiority; it has not shrunk from the most rigorous examination; it challenges investigation; and, in spite of numerous attempts to supersede it, it has hitherto remained unrivalled in the affections of the country.'

"And God grant it may long continue so, for the good of the people to which it belongs! ...

"I purpose therefore ... to look into the charges thus brought forward against the English Bible, with those who cling to it as they ought, affectionately and devoutly; in order to assist them in expelling from their mind all doubt on the subject. Meanwhile, they may rest assured that, hitherto, all attempts at improvement upon their Bible, have come far short of it in language, in style, in truthfulness, and above all, in a generally correct and devout rendering of the original texts" (Malan, A Vindication, pp. i-xvi, xxii-xxvi).

Malan noted and answered the various arguments which were being put forth in advance of a revision of the Authorized Version. For example:

"... we now hear from many, that the English Bible is no longer suited to the exigencies of the present day, but that our advanced state of knowledge loudly calls for a new revision. An evil day that will be when it comes. However, Bishop Middleton holds out no encouragement to them, when he says:

`The style of our present version is incomparably superior to anything which might be expected from the finical and perverted taste of our own age. It is simple, it is harmonious, it is energetic; and, which is of no small importance, use has made it familiar, and time has rendered it sacred.' ... its words are `household words,' ... its simple and hallowed language is understood and loved alike, by the poor peasant and by the august Sovereign, whom it binds to Her people. England has not `a Bible,' one of many to choose from, like her neighbours; but `the Bible' is in every English home; and `my Bible,' in English, means that one Book, the very words of which are the same for all" (Malan, A Vindication, pp. xviii, xix).

Malan plainly saw the danger of loosing from the ancient moorings of the Received Text and the Authorized Version.

"Who will be bold, or I might almost say hardened enough, if not perhaps to pull down, yet even to whitewash the stately edifice of the English Bible? ... It might possibly be better adapted to the fastidious taste of the age; but then, unbroken associations of two centuries and a half, together with much of national individuality, would perish for ever; and those persons who think the authorized version antiquated would be the first to regret the change. ... For independently of the words of the Bible being sacred in all languages, the language of the English Bible in particular is consecrated ... the vernacular translation of the Bible has formed and fixed the language of the country" (Malan, A Vindication of the Authorized Version, 1856, pp. iii, iv, xiv).

Malan pointed out the unsettled, ever-changing character of modern textual criticism, noting: "In other words, the translator chooses his own text, which he renders as he thinks fit; so that, in fact, he has it all his own way. ... Mill is thought by some to be antiquated, Griesbach out of date, and Tischendorf even not exactly to their taste" (Malan, A Vindication of the Authorized Version, p. xxi).

Malan "takes exceptions even to the quite prevalent custom of ministers' criticising the present translation before their congregations, on the ground that it `needlessly unsettles the mind of their hearers on a subject in which comparatively few of them can ever be fair judges'" (Bissell, The Historic Origin of the Bible, p. 350).

In his second book Malan directed his remarks to a critique of Henry Alford's 6th edition Greek New Testament (published in 1868) which followed Tischendorf and gave heavy preference to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. Malan comments on some of Alford's readings in the Gospels and the book of Titus. The following two examples illustrate the tone of the whole:

"[Matthew 1:25] `Till she had brought forth her first-born son,' A.V. is changed by Dr. Alford to `till she had brought forth a son'! His reasons for this change are, that the Vatican MS. and a very few others make it; whereas the reading of the Auth. Version, which is that of the Received Text, is far better supported, and by many more MSS. The English reader may refer to p. 37 for a discussion on this passage; but if he knows no Greek, he may rest assured the Authorized Version is right and far better than the Dean's alteration `till she brought forth a son'..." (Malan, A Plea for the Received Text and for the Authorized Version of the New Testament, p. 103).

"[Mark 13:14] `Spoken of by Daniel the prophet,' A.V., `omit,' Dr. Alford. This clause is not, indeed, in the Vatican MS., but is found in others, as well as in the Syriac, Georgian, Slavonic, and Ethiopic versions. So that we need not obey Dr. Alford's peremptory order to omit it" (Ibid., p. 142).

Malan's conclusion offers a window on the feelings of a great many nineteenth-century English-speaking preachers in regard to attempts to undermine the Received Text:

"A man who, like him [Henry Alford], sets to a work of this kind, apparently without the slightest hesitation or misgiving in his own powers, thinking it the easiest thing in the world to make wholesale changes in the Greek text and in the joint labours of more than fifty learned men of old, instead of dealing with the utmost reverence and caution, not only forms an unworthy estimate of the work he undertakes--but he also recklessly wounds the feeling of deep respect and affection with which men, nowise his inferiors in judgment or scholarship, still continue to look upon the Received Text and the English Bible.

"Both these have, indeed, lasted more than two centuries; a long time, in truth, for those who think that wisdom, learning, and scholarship have only just dawned on the land, and that, until now, all was darkness and ignorance. Wise men, however, do not think so but rather take the long life of those two monuments of ancient piety and learning as a proof of their real merit and excellence. ...

"... a better acquaintance with his [Alford's] work ONLY TENDS TO DEEPEN THEIR REVERENCE AND TO STRENGTHEN THEIR AFFECTION FOR THEIR OLD FRIENDS AND COMPANIONS, THE RECEIVED GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF IT--NEITHER OF WHICH THEY EVER INTEND TO GIVE UP; not even at the Dean's bidding" (Ibid., pp. 210,11).

When the 1881 Revision appeared, Malan was not swayed from his earlier position. "The learned writer charged the Revisers with having `looked upon' their work `in the light of a Greek exercise,' and with having `taken pleasure in making as many changes as they could, with little or no regard for cadence, rhythm, style, or even grammar.' He pronounced the result to be `little short of a great failure'" (Samuel Hemphill, A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament, p. 96).

ALEXANDER W. MCCLURE, D.D. (1808-1865), wrote a series of biographical sketches of the King James Bible translators called The Translators Revived. It was published in New York by the Board of Publications of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in 1855. Dr. McClure had a very high regard for the King James Bible and did not believe it could ever be replaced. We can sense the man's mature understanding of history and his depth of feeling toward the King James Bible from the following excerpt:

"[T]he translation and printing of the Bible in English forms a most important event in modern history. Far beyond any other translation, it has been, and is, and will be, to multitudes which none can number, the living oracle of God ...

"Thus it came to pass, that the English Bible received its present form, after a fivefold revision of the translation as it was left in 1537 by Tyndale and Rogers. During this interval of seventy-four years, it had been slowly ripening, till this last, most elaborate, and thorough revision under King James matured the work for coming centuries.

"The English language had passed through many and great changes, and had at last reached the very height of its purity and strength. The Bible has ever since been the grand English classic. It is still the noblest monument of the power of the English speech. It is the pattern and standard of excellence therein.

"As to the capability of those men, we may say again, that, by the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental tongues, and of rabbinical lore, had then been carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since. ... all the colleges of Great Britain and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking. ... It would be impossible to convene out of any one Christian denomination, or out of all, a body of translators, on whom the whole Christian community would bestow such confidence as is reposed upon that illustrious company, or who would prove themselves as deserving of such confidence.

"But this blessed book is so far complete and exact, that the unlearned reader, being of ordinary intelligence, may enjoy the delightful assurance, that, if he study it in faith and prayer, and give himself up to its teachings, he shall not be confounded or misled as to any matter essential to his salvation and his spiritual good. IT WILL AS SAFELY GUIDE HIM INTO ALL THE THINGS NEEDFUL FOR FAITH AND PRACTICE, AS WOULD THE ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES, IF HE COULD READ THEM, OR IF THEY COULD SPEAK TO HIM AS ERST THEY SPAKE TO THE HEBREW IN JERUSALEM, OR TO THE GREEK IN CORINTH.

"Nor is this any disparagement of the benefits of a critical knowledge of the original tongues. For while a good translation is the best commentary on the original Scriptures, the originals themselves are the best commentary on the translation. Passages somewhat obscure in the translation often become very plain when we recur to the original, because we then distinctly see what it was that the translators meant to say. ... It is only maintained, that the common English reader enjoys, by the good providence of God, that which comes the nearest to the privilege of the classical scholar; and has a translation so exact, plain, and trustworthy, that he may follow it with implicit confidence as `a light to his feet and a lamp to his paths.' (emphasis added)

"Not that the utmost verbal perfection is claimed for the English Bible as it now stands. Some of its words have, in the lapse of time, gone out of common use; some have suffered a gradual change of meaning; and some which were in unexceptionable use two hundred years ago, are now considered as distasteful and indelicate. But the number of such words is very small, considering the great size and age of the volume; and the retaining of them causes but little inconvenience, compared with the disadvantages of wholesale projectors of amendment volunteered by incompetent and irresponsible schemers.

"[I]t may help our contentment with the Bible as we have it, to notice what opinions have been expressed as to its merits by the ablest judges of a performance of this nature. These testimonials might be swelled to the size of a volume, but a few will be sufficient for the present occasion. ... The famous John Selden, in his Table-talk, thus utters his opinion: `The English translation of the Bible is the best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best.' Dr. Brian Walton, the learned editor of a Bible in nine different languages, and six tall-folios, assigns the first rank among European translations to the common English version. Dr. Edward Pococke, that profound Orientalist, in the Preface to his Commentary on Micah, speaks of our translation as `being such, and so agreeable to the original, as that we might well choose among others to follow it, were it not our own, and established by authority among us.' Dr. Middleton, Bishop of Calcutta, and for ever famous for his work on the Greek Article, says, `The style of our present version is incomparably superior to any thing which might be expected from the finical and perverted taste of our own age. It is simple, it is harmonious, it is energetic; and, which is of no small importance, use has made it familiar, and time has rendered it sacred.' ...

"Dr. White, Professor of Arabic at Oxford, to other strong commendations adds: `Upon the whole, the national churches of Europe will have abundant reason to be satisfied, when their versions of Scripture shall approach in point of accuracy, purity, and sublimity, to the acknowledged excellence of our English translation.' ...

"To this testimony let there be added that of Dr. Alexander Geddes, a learned minister of the Church of Rome, who himself also attempted a re-translation of the Bible into English: `... IF ACCURACY, FIDELITY, AND THE STRICTEST ATTENTION TO THE LETTER OF THE TEXT, BE SUPPOSED TO CONSTITUTE THE QUALITIES OF AN EXCELLENT VERSION, THIS OF ALL VERSIONS, MUST, IN GENERAL, BE ACCOUNTED THE MOST EXCELLENT. Every sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.' Pagninus himself is hardly more literal; and it was well remarked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago, that `IT MAY SERVE AS A LEXICON OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, AS WELL AS FOR A TRANSLATION.'

"Dr. Adam Clarke, the Wesleyan, in the General Preface to his Commentary on the Bible, having spoken of the common version as superior in accuracy and fidelity to the other European versions, adds the following declaration--`Nor is this its only praise; THE TRANSLATORS HAVE SEIZED THE VERY SPIRIT AND SOUL OF THE ORIGINAL, AND EXPRESSED THIS ALMOST EVERYWHERE WITH PATHOS AND ENERGY.' Besides, our translators have not only made a standard translation, but they have made their translation the standard of our language" (The Translators Revived, pp. 11,59,61,63-66,235-239).

Note that Dr. McClure claimed that the listing of testimonials to the excellency of the King James Bible could be "swelled to the size of a volume" in his day. That gives us an idea of how the King James Bible was revered in the mid 1800s.

McClure's quotation of Robertson that the King James Bible may serve as a lexicon of the Hebrew language is very important. Many fail to understand this truth. The King James Bible is as much a lexicon on the biblical languages as it is merely a translation. For one to run, say, to Vine or Thayer or Brown or Strong or Barry or Zodiates or Webster, and to accept the interpretation of ONE man as to the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word, while slighting the deliberated and agreed interpretation of DOZENS of men is not wise. The wording of the King James Bible represents the labors of almost one hundred years of brilliant, believing, sacrificial, godly scholarship. Dozens of some of the best biblical linguists who have ever lived applied their minds and their prayers to translating into English PRECISELY what the Hebrew and Greek text mean. That was their goal. When someone says, "The Greek in this passage means such and such," they should never fail to mention that the Greek in that passage also means exactly what the King James translators said it means. It is important to explain and interpret Bible words, but it is never wise to correct or criticize those words and to try to replace them with one's own private translation.

Unless one has the capability in the biblical languages to correct the Old Masters, one is wise not to pretend to a level of scholarship that he does not possess. Be careful, friends. Am I saying we should not use lexicons and study aids? Not at all. Use all the tools you can find--the lexicons, the grammars, the dictionaries, the encyclopedias. They are helpful inasmuch as they are faithful to the Word of God. Learn Greek and Hebrew and Latin and German, if you please. They can help you. But don't be deceived into thinking that the wording of the King James Version itself is some kind of secondary witness to the meaning of the biblical text, and that some extra-biblical lexicon has an authority superior to that of the King James Bible itself.

D.H. CONRAD delivered a message in April 1856, in Richmond, Virginia, which further illustrates the tone of the nineteenth-century defense of the King James Bible:

"[Regarding the proposed revision of the Authorized Bible] (1) As to its impolicy. Granting its [the new translation's] general fidelity, what is to be gained? If there be various or double meanings to words, you have the marginal system which has served so well hitherto; and if you adopt the marginal reading in the text, you must in most cases make the text the marginal reading, and what do you gain? (2) You open a crevasse through which you know not how soon the floods of innovation may sweep away the sacred landmarks. (3) You risk too much for a small (supposed) accuracy, for you let in the cavils of those `who watch for your halting.' You will have, as allies in the undertaking, all the heresies, past, present, and to come, to say nothing of those who now hate the Bible, because it stands a solemn protest against their ideal theories" (emphasis added) (D.H. Conrad, Esq., at a Bible Convention, Bible Society Record, December 1856, cited by Edward Cone Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible, 1873, pp. 348,349).

Conrad was displaying a powerful logic and a prophetic foresightedness. We believe the man was absolutely correct, and it is important to note that he represented the position of a great many godly men.

In a letter published in the London Times, August 26, 1856, JOHN CUMMING, D.D., gave this warning about the proposed revision to the Authorized Bible:

"What I contend is, that, all circumstances considered, there is not a reasonable prospect of finding a body of linguists and divines who would be unanimous, when our noble version is assumed or asserted to be at fault, in proposing corrections ... a fire would probably be kindled at which Dr. Wiseman would delight to warm his hands. ... I am not unaware of many defects in our version. But these are in nine cases out of ten so trivial, and when the defect is generally thought grave, there is so much learned dispute, that our policy at present is to be very thankful for what we have, very patient under ill-natured censure of aspiring scholars, and truly glad that the authorized version is not intrusted to the manipulation of some improvers, whose zeal, to say the least, outstrips their discretion. ... I CANNOT LOOK AROUND ON THE BROAD CHURCH, AND THE LOW CHURCH, AND THE HIGH CHURCH PARTIES WITHIN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, OR AT THE KEEN CONTROVERSIES THAT RAGE WITHOUT HER WALLS--NOT TO SPEAK OF OTHER PECULIARITIES INCIDENTAL TO OUR DAY--WITHOUT AN EARNEST AND ANXIOUS WISH THAT OUR COUNTRY MAY HOLD FAST THAT WHICH AT PRESENT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED--OUR GLORIOUS COMMON VERSION."

These sober words of wisdom were eventually drowned out by the clamor of the textual "scholars" and those who yearned for revision and were all for throwing caution to the winds. Not that a majority ever did support a revision. That the majority did not support the revision of the Authorized Version is plain by the fact that the Revision soon fizzled into extinction.

As early as 1856 the Christian statesman ANTHONY ASHLEY COOPER (1801-85), better known as the SEVENTH EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, was speaking out plainly and powerfully against any revision of the Authorized Version. He understood the rationalism of the hour. He understood that much of the pressure for the revision of the Authorized Bible was coming from Germany via those scholars who had imbibed of what he called "the neological spirit of the age." He saw the issue of Bible revision particularly as it turned upon the matter of authority and standards of absolute truth. He understood that to multiply English versions and rob the people of the absolute standard of an "authorized version" would leave them at the mercy of the scholars. Speaking before the British & Foreign Bible Society, May 1856, the Earl gave this rousing opposition to revision of the Authorized Bible:

"Supposing that this new version were given to the world, would it be possible that thenceforward we could have for this country, for our colonies, for the States of North America that speak our own language, an `Authorized Version,' one that could be received with common consent by every human being that speaks the Anglo-Saxon language. DESTROY THAT COMMON CONSENT TO RECEIVE AN `AUTHORIZED VERSION,' AND MY BELIEF IS THAT YOU HAVE INFLICTED A DEADLY WOUND ON THE CAUSE OF THE PROPAGATION OF THE TRUTH AMONG ALL THE NATIONS THAT SPEAK OUR LANGUAGE. ... At present we have the `Authorized Version,' and we consent to receive it. We are, therefore, all on an equality; when we enter into a controversy we are on an equality; THE LAITY CAN EXERCISE THE BEREAN PRIVILEGE OF EXAMINING THE SCRIPTURES `TO SEE WHETHER THESE THINGS BE SO,' AND CANNOT BE TOLD BY THOSE FROM WHOM THEY DIFFER, `IT MAY AGREE WITH YOUR VERSION, BUT I HAVE ANOTHER AND A BETTER ONE, AND THEREFORE, I CAN HAVE NO CONTROVERSY WITH YOU.'

"What is proposed would, if carried out, tend to destroy the exercise of private judgment--that grand, sacred, solemn principle which is the right of every man, and which I imagine to be the great security of churches and nations, and the life and soul of individuals. WHEN YOU ARE CONFUSED OR PERPLEXED BY A VARIETY OF VERSIONS YOU WOULD BE OBLIGED TO GO TO SOME LEARNED PUNDIT IN WHOM YOU REPOSED CONFIDENCE, AND ASK HIM WHICH VERSION HE RECOMMENDED; AND WHEN YOU HAD TAKEN HIS VERSION, YOU MUST BE BOUND BY HIS OPINION. I HOLD THIS TO BE THE GREATEST DANGER THAT NOW THREATENS US. IT IS A DANGER PRESSED UPON US FROM GERMANY, AND PRESSED UPON US BY THE NEOLOGICAL SPIRIT OF THE AGE. I hold it to be far more dangerous than tractarianism or popery, both of which I abhor from the bottom of my heart. This evil is tenfold more dangerous, tenfold more subtle than either of these, because you would be ten times more incapable of dealing with the gigantic mischief that would stand before you.

"Patience and habits of critical comparison are not the characteristics of the working classes. The translators will have introduced, so the people will think, a `strange' Gospel, and the multitude, believing that it is `another,' will lose faith in all. Could the revision be limited to marginal readings, I should feel much less objection. But is it possible to open the sluice-gates? Your excellent and discriminating rules [those of the textual critic] would avail for nothing. The cry for further amendment would know no end. It would be difficult to construct an impartial commission. The immense variety of opinion on doctrinal matters, and the immense diffusion of knowledge, both deep and superficial, in these days, would render necessary such a combination of members as would include the extremist forms of Ritualism, Socinianism [denial of Christ's deity--note that Unitarians did indeed participate in the revision], and Infidelity. Numerically and as scholars, these professors would be very strong, and experience will not allow us to believe that these learned persons, after years of thought and study in the same groove, fixed and sincere in their peculiar opinions, would not entertain (unknown to themselves no doubt) a decided bias towards special renderings of the sacred text" (Lord Shaftesbury, as cited by Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible, p. 355).

The Earl's biographer tells us that he continued his opposition to the new Bibles to the end. "Lord Shaftesbury was a stout opponent of the Revision of the Authorised Version of the Bible." He saw the danger of the multiplicity of versions as "one of the most subtle dangers that beset true religion." He protested the revision "on the ground of the uncertainty which would be created in mens minds as to which was, and which was not, a true and reliable version" (Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, 1892, p. 641). After the revision was published, the Earl said, "... it is so stiff and stilted, and full of stones that break your shins at every turn, that I do not for a moment think it will ever displace the Authorised Version--that precious, inestimable, and holy gift to England; that wondrous translation of His everlasting and Divine Word."

The Earl of Shaftesbury had great foresight. His testimony on this echoes down the corridors of 150 years and thrills my heart. His words give me courage to resist the modern versions which have accomplished precisely the confusion of which he forewarned.

JOSEPH CHARLES PHILPOT (c1800-1869), Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, minister of the Gospel, and Editor of The Gospel Standard 1840-1869 (co- editor with John M'Kenzie from 1940 to 1949) is another example of those who stood boldly for the KJV prior to the publication of the Revised Version. Philpot exhibited a rare combination. He was an Oxford-educated scholar of the highest caliber, having the reputation as one of the greatest Hebrew and Greek masters of his day. He was also a deeply spiritual man "with a sanctified discernment of the evil trend of the apostate church." Note the following lovely testimony which appeared in April 1857:

"We cannot but admire the great faithfulness of our translators in so scrupulously adhering to the exact words of the Holy Spirit, and when they were necessarily compelled to supply the ellipses in the original, to point out that they had done so by marking the word in italic characters. By so doing, they engaged themselves, as by bond, TO GIVE THE WORD OF GOD IN ITS STRICT ORIGINAL PURITY; and yet, as thorough scholars in the original tongues, and complete masters of their own, THEY WERE ENABLED TO GIVE US A VERSION ADMIRABLE NOT ONLY FOR ITS STRICT FIDELITY, BUT FOR ITS ELOQUENCE, GRANDEUR, AND BEAUTY."

Philpot gave six reasons for rejecting a revision of the King James Bible, and his warnings of what would occur if such a revision were popularized have proven to be uncannily accurate. Consider:

"1. Who are to undertake it [a revision of the KJV] ... Of course they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines. But these are notoriously either tainted with popery or infidelity. Where are the men, learned, yet sound in Truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.

"2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands, as to which was the Word of God--the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints, to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!

"3. But besides all this, there would be two Bibles spread throughout all the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as to the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this Judge of all dispute, this Umpire of all controversy would cease to be the looser of strife if present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.

"4. If the new translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well enough alone, as it is easier to mar than to mend. ... The Socinianising Neologian would blot out `GOD' in 1 Tim. 3.16, and strike out 1 John 5.7, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit his Tractarian views. ... Once set up a notice, `The Old Bible to be mended,' and there would be plenty of workmen, who trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. ... All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning and INSTEAD OF THE NOBLE SIMPLICITY, FAITHFULNESS, AND TRUTH OF OUR PRESENT VERSION, WE SHOULD HAVE A BIBLE THAT NOBODY WOULD ACCEPT AS THE WORD OF GOD, TO WHICH NONE COULD SAFELY APPEAL, AND ON WHICH NONE IMPLICITLY RELY.

"5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in pert and flippant language of the day. ...

"6. The present English Bible (Authorized Version) ... is, we believe, the grand bulwark of Protestantism; the safeguard of the Gospel, and the treasure of the church; and we should be traitors in every sense of the word if we consented to give it up to be rifled by the sacrilegious hands of the Puseyites, concealed Papists, German Neologians, infidel divines, Arminians, Socinians, and the whole tribe of enemies of god and godliness" (Joseph Charles Philpot, "The Authorized Version of 1611," The Gospel Standard, April 1857; reprinted in The Authorized Version--1611 vs. The New English Bible: A Critical Review, Trinitarian Bible Society, 1961).

Amen and amen!! Philpot was correct on every point. This is precisely what has happened as a result of the new versions. I'm looking forward to seeing old Philpot in Glory and discussing this matter with him. What a prophet of God! He saw precisely where the revision of the Authorized Version would lead.

In 1861 Philpot wrote about the glories of the literary side of the Authorized Version:

"They [the KJV translators] were deeply penetrated with a reverence for the word of God, and, therefore, they felt themselves bound by a holy constraint to discharge their trust in the most faithful way. UNDER THIS DIVINE CONSTRAINT THEY WERE LED TO GIVE US A TRANSLATION UNEQUALLED FOR FAITHFULNESS TO THE ORIGINAL, AND YET AT THE SAME TIME CLOTHED IN THE PUREST AND SIMPLEST ENGLISH. ... No one can read, with an enlightened eye, the discourses of our Lord without seeing what a divine simplicity ran through all His words; and our translators were favoured with heavenly wisdom to translate these words of the Lord into language as simple as that in which they first fell from His lips. What can exceed the simplicity and yet beauty and blessedness of such declarations as these?--`I am the bread of life:' `I am the door;' `I am the way, the truth, and the life:' `I lay down My life for the sheep;' `I am the vine:' `God is love;' `By grace ye are saved.' Even where the words are not strictly monosyllabic they are of the simplest kind, and as such are adapted to the capacity of every child of God, in whatever rank of life he may be. The blessedness of having not only such a Bible, but possessing such a translation of it can never be sufficiently valued. ... it is because the language of our Bible is such pure, simple, unaffected, idiomatic, intelligible English that it has become so thoroughly English a book, and has interwoven itself with our very laws and language" (Philpot, Gospel Standard, February 1861).

Between 1860 and 1870 GEORGE P. MARSH spoke out in defense of the Authorized Bible and in opposition to the proposed revision. (He continued to speak out after the publication of the Revision.) He saw the importance of maintaining an absolute standard by keeping the ancient English Bible and not flying to novelties.

"...Both the theologian and philologist will admit that a certain degree of permanence in the standards of religious faith and of grammatical propriety is desirable. The authorized version of the Bible satisfies this reasonable conservatism in both points, and it is therefore a matter of much literary, as well as religious, interest, that it should remain intact so long as it continues able to discharge the functions which have been appointed to it as a spiritual and philological instructor" (George Marsh, Lectures on the English Language, New York: Charles Scribner, 1860, p. 207).

Marsh did not simply desire to keep the Authorized Bible for the sake of maintaining permanence in standards, he understood that theological rationalism had weakened the character of the churches of his day. He believed that the theological conditions existing at the end of the nineteenth century were less suitable for the production of a Bible translation than at any time in the prior 300 years:

"The acuteness of German criticisms, the speculations of German philosophy, have given rise to a great multitude and diversity of opinions, not on questions of verbal interpretation merely, but of doctrines also, which are but just now beginning to be openly and freely discussed in this country and in England, and THE MINDS OF MEN ARE NOW PERHAPS MORE UNSETTLED ON THESE TOPICS THAN THEY HAVE BEEN AT ANY TIME BEFORE FOR THREE CENTURIES. ... the future is more uncertain than the past ... the irreverent and wanton thoughtlessness of an hour may destroy that which only the slow and painful labor of years or of centuries can rebuild" (emphasis added) (Ibid., p. 630).

"Shall we for the sake of changes like these [updating obsolete words and such] expose the whole version to a revision which may essentially alter its general coloring? Or shall we trust to our mothers, our Bible readers, and our other religious teachers, to bring the intelligence and heart of the young, whom they initiate into the mysteries of Christianity, up to the comprehension of a sacred dialect, not, indeed, so readily intelligible as a newspaper, but less archaic, except in mere grammatical forms which no one thinks of expunging, than that of Bacon?" (emphasis added) (George Marsh, The Nation, New York, October 13, 1870, cited by Bissell, p. 354).

ROBERT LEWIS DABNEY (1820-98) is another example of those who were opposing the theories of modern textual criticism in the United States at this time. Dabney taught at Union Theological Seminary from 1853 to 1883 and pastored the College Church during most of those years. He contributed to a number of publications, including the Central Presbyterian, the Presbyterian Critic, and the Southern Presbyterian. His last years were spent with the Austin School of Theology in Texas, a university he co- founded. He boldly withstood the apostasy which was creeping in on every side in this day. His biographer called him "a soldier until death, at war with much in his age."

"By any standard Dabney was a remarkable man. At the age of 22 he was offered the editorship of a newspaper--`no man of your age in the Union is superior as a writer'--and when he was 40 Charles Hodge pleaded for his help at Princeton Seminary (A.A. Hodge was to call him `the best teacher of theology in the United States, if not in the world'). ... In 1862 he answered a call from General T.J. Jackson to serve as Adjutant-General of the `Stonewall' Brigade, and in this capacity Jackson later referred to him as the most efficient officer he knew'" (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, cover jacket, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977 edition of the 1903 original).

Though Dabney allowed for some possible minor revision in the Received Text, he gave a very powerful defense, in general, of the Text underlying the KJV and in opposition to the critical views of modern textual criticism. He did not believe the Received Text should be replaced. He opposed the striking textual changes which were being proposed in his day--changes which have appeared in all of the modern English versions since 1881. He understood the theological corruption of the critical text, and he traced these corruptions to second- and third-century heretics. He understood that scholarship is not synonymous with wisdom and spiritual discernment. He knew the fickleness of modern scholarship. He knew that the modern theories of textual criticism are founded upon conjecture and rationalism, not absolute truth and biblical faith. We do not agree with all of Dabney's conclusions on textual matters, but the fact remains that his analysis of modern textual criticism is devastating. It is crucial to understand that the modern English versions are translated from a Greek text which is built upon discredited theories. Consider an excerpt from one of his articles on this subject:

"The minds for which criticism retains its fascination are usually of that peculiar and `crotchety' type found among antiquarians. The intelligent reader is, therefore, not surprised to find, along with much labor and learning, a `plentiful lack' of sober and convincing common sense. ... This method, substantially adopted by Tischendorf and by Alford, no longer retains the received text as a common basis for emendation, or standard of comparison, or even as a mere cord upon which to string the proposed corrections, but proceeds to construct a text just as though it never existed. It is this objectionable and mischievous feature of the later criticism which, as we believe, especially demands the notice of biblical scholars at this time. ... It is very clear that, practically, the people must either trust the Bibles they have, or believe in none. For there is no practicable substitute. THIS APPEARS FROM THE FACT THAT NO TWO OF THE CRITICS ARE AGREED; no one of them is willing to adopt the text as settled by any other; their art has not found, and probably never will find, an authoritative umpire, to end their differences. ...

"Let us, as a preliminary task, test the soundness of that boast which the recent critics usually echo from Lachmann; that they discard conjecture as a guide to correct readings, and rely in preference upon the testimony of competent ancient witnesses. Do they really discard conjecture? ... [It may be that] no particular reading rests upon conjectures; BUT THE GRAND FOUNDATION OF THE WHOLE IS A BUNDLE OF CONJECTURES; that is, upon Lachmann's inferences from internal marks about the writings which he selects as ancient and competent. ... Why does he conclude that the Vatican, the Alexandrine, the Cambridge, the Codex Ephremi, are ancient MSS., while none of the Byzantine are? ... his ground of selection is but conjecture. This charge is eminently true concerning the age which they are pleased to assign to those Greek MSS. which they recommend to us as most venerable: The Vatican, the Alexandrine, and now the Sinai. It is expressly admitted that neither of these has an extant history. No documentary external evidence exists as to the names of the copyists who transcribed them, the date, or the place of their writing. Nobody knows whence the Vatican MS. came to the pope's library, or how long it has been there. ... Tischendorf himself was unable to trace the presence of his favorite codex, in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Horeb, by external witnesses higher than the twelfth century. THEIR EARLY DATE IS CONFESSEDLY ASSIGNED THEM BY CONJECTURE (conjectura: a casting together) of internal marks. It may be rightly assigned, yet by conjecture. ..

"A second critical canon much employed is this: Where any ground exists for suspecting a various reading in any passage which has a parallel in another gospel, that reading shall be condemned as spurious which would harmonize the two parallel places most; and that reading shall be held the original one which most tends to make them contradict each other. The argument for this astonishing canon is that, since the change was made by somebody, in one way or the other, it is presumable it was made by the over-zeal of the copyists, in order to hide the supposed evidence of contradiction between two inspired men. ... THE CHIEF OBJECTION TO THIS CANON IS THAT, LIKE SOME OTHERS WHICH EVANGELICAL CRITICS HAVE ADOPTED FROM THE MINT OF INFIDEL RATIONALISM, ITS SOLE PROBABILITY IS GROUNDED IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE EVANGELISTS AND APOSTLES WERE NOT GUIDED BY INSPIRATION. Let us adopt the Christian hypothesis, that the scenes of our Saviour's life were enacted, and his words spoken, in a given way, and that the several evangelists were inspired of God to record them infallibly; and the most harmonizing readings will obviously appear to us the most probable readings. ...

"The following list [of doctrinal corruptions in the critical Greek text] is not presented as complete, but as containing the most notable of these points. ... the Sinai and the Vatican MSS. concur in omitting, in Matthew vi. 13, the closing doxology of our Lord's prayer. In John viii. 1-11, they and the Alexandrine omit the whole narrative of Christ's interview with the woman taken in adultery and her accusers. The first two omit the whole of Mark xvi., from the ninth verse to the end. Acts viii. 37, in which Philip is represented as propounding to the eunuch faith as the qualification for baptism, is omitted by all three.

"... in Acts ix. 5,6 ... the Sinai, Vatican and Alexandrine MSS. all concur in [omitting `Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said...' from the passage.]

"In 1 Tim. iii. 16 ... the Sinai, Codex Ephremi, and probably the Alexandrine [omit God]...

"In 1 John v. 7 ... all the old MSS. concur in omitting the heavenly witnesses...

"In Jude 4 ... the MSS. omit God.

"In Rev. i. 11 ... all three MSS. under remark concur in omitting the Messiah's eternal titles...

"If now the reader will glance back upon this latter list of variations, he will find that in every case, the doctrinal effect of the departure from the received text is to obscure or suppress some testimony for the divinity of the Saviour. ...

"Everything in the historical position of those churches, which afterwards formed the patriarchate of Constantinople, marks them as the most likely places in which to look for correct copies of the New Testament. There was the native home of the Greek language, with the truest Grecian culture. To them nearly all the New Testament was at first addressed. ... There chiefly labored nearly all the apostles who have wielded the pen of inspiration. ... In a word, the soil of the Greek Church is the native birthplace of the New Testament canon. ... Facts are also much obscured by representing Alexandria as the metropolis of Greek learning after the Christian era ... Antioch was still its equal ... and, beside her acknowledged classic culture, the pretensions of Alexandria were but semi- barbaric. ... until the middle of the fifteenth century, Constantinople still stood, sorely pressed indeed by the Moslems, but yet independent; a Christian Greek kingdom, retaining the ecclesiastical literature, the language ... Then came the final overthrow and dispersion of 1453. The Greek scholars and ecclesiastics, who then filled Europe with the news of their calamity, became the channels for transmitting to all the west the precious remains of early Christianity; and providence prepared the church with the new art of printing to preserve and diffuse them. It was thus that the Constantinopolitan MSS., the representatives of the common text of former ages, became the parents of our received text. ...

"The significant fact to which we wish especially to call attention is this: that all the variations proposed on the faith of these manuscripts which have any doctrinal importance, should attack the one doctrine of the Trinity; nay, we may say even more specifically, the one doctrine of Christ's deity. ... Their admirers [of the favored manuscripts supporting the critical text] claim for them an origin in the fourth or fifth century. The Sabellian and Arian controversies raged in the third and fourth. Is there no coincidence here? Things do not happen again and again regularly without a cause. ... And when we remember the date of the great Trinitarian contest, and compare it with the supposed date of these exemplars of the sacred text, the ground of suspicion becomes violent. ... THESE VARIATIONS ARE TOO NUMEROUS, AND TOO SIGNIFICANT IN THEIR EFFECT UPON THE ONE DOCTRINE, TO BE ASCRIBED TO CHANCE. ... there are strong probable grounds to conclude, that the text of the Scriptures current in the East received a mischievous modification at the hands of the famous ORIGEN, which has not been usually appreciated. ... He is described by Mosheim ... as `a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.' ... HIS REPUTATION AS THE GREAT INTRODUCER OF MYSTICISM, ALLEGORY, AND NEO- PLATONISM INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, IS TOO WELL KNOWN TO NEED RECITAL. Those who are best acquainted with the history of Christian opinion know best, that Origen was the great corrupter, and the source, or at least earliest channel, of nearly all the speculative errors which plagued the church in after ages. ... HE WAS STRICTLY A RATIONAL