Benjamin Wilkinson: Adventist Advocate of the Authorized Bible

Note: Since the original book is not readily accessible, page references for Our Authorized Bible Vindicated are based on the 2014 reprint by TEACH Services, Inc., with the original page number following in brackets [].

Benjamin Wilkinson: Adventist Advocate of the Authorized Bible

A Canadian by birth.

Benjamin George Wilkinson was born June 20, 1872 in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, to John M. Wilkinson and Elizabeth Johnston.[i] They had married in Scotland in 1856, and had moved to Canada by 1871.

Benjamin Wilkinson married Vinnie Maude Morrison May 20, 1902, in London, England. She was the daughter of James Harvey Morrison and Jennie Mitchell of College View, Nebraska. Benjamin and Maude had 3 children: Willard Russell, Benjamin George Jr., and Horace Wilkinson. Maude Wilkinson graduated from Union College in Lincoln, Nebraska, then taught at both Union College (circa 1900) and Washington Training College (1904-1912). While living in France, she attended the University of Paris.[ii] She died in Nebraska in 1912.[iii] In 1914, B. G. Wilkinson married Dorothy R. Harris of Washington, DC, the daughter of Frank C. Harris and Emma M. Neal. They had one son, Rowland Francis Wilkinson. Dorothy attended Atlantic Union College in South Lancaster, Massachusetts and entered Adventist denominational work before marrying Benjamin Wilkinson. “Mrs. Wilkinson…was a great help to her husband in his work as an evangelist and administrator, and assisted in the preparation of two books.”[iv]

Benjamin Wilkinson died January 28, 1968, age 95, at Riverdale Park, Prince George’s County, Maryland. He outlived two wives and all but one of his children. Benjamin and Dorothy Wilkinson are buried at George Washington Cemetery in Adelphi, Prince George’s County, Maryland. Vinnie Maude is buried at the Wyuka Cemetery in Lincoln, Lancaster County, Nebraska.

An Adventist by denomination.

Yes, Benjamin Wilkinson was a Seventh-day Adventist. This is one fact that most anti-King James Onlyists make sure all must know and hear ad nauseum.

According to his obituary in the Columbia Union Visitor, Wilkinson was raised in a Methodist family, but he (at age 19) and his entire family became Seventh-day Adventist through reading E. G. White’s The Great Controversy.[v] In 1891 he enrolled in Battle Creek College in Battle Creek, Michigan to study for the ministry.[vi] Following this he served in a ministry of evangelism in Wisconsin, before enrolling in the University of Michigan. In 1897 he received a BA from there. He then served as dean of theology at Battle Creek College. He obtained the MA degree from the University of Paris in 1903.[vii] In 1908 he graduated from George Washington University, the largest institution of higher education in Washington, DC, becoming the first Seventh-day Adventist to earn a PhD. In 1904, Wilkinson took charge of the Bible and history departments at Washington Missionary College/Columbia Union College (then called Washington Training College, now Washington Adventist University) in Takoma Park, Maryland.[viii] He served as dean of theology for five years, and president from 1936 to 1946. The College received accreditation during his presidency. The main administration building, Wilkinson Hall, is named in his honor. Additionally, Benjamin Wilkinson served in a number of denominational positions in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, including in Europe. He held evangelistic meetings and gave lectures in large cities on the U.S. east coast.[ix] While serving in education, he also served as a pastor, including the Capitol Memorial Church and the Mount Pleasant Church.

Writings

Benjamin Wilkinson wrote two major book length works – Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) and Truth Triumphant: the Church in the Wilderness (1944). He was a prolific writer of shorter pieces in denominational periodicals. Some on the topic of the Bible include:

• “The Bible and the Life of the People,” Christian Education, April 1911, p. 13.
• “The Glories of the Bible,” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 5, 1918, p. 5.

“The natural man must be converted into the spiritual man before he has spiritual eyesight sufficient to comprehend the treasures, which, in the Scriptures, have been given to man.”

“Any student, by painstaking effort, can master Hebrew and Greek, but no scholar has ever yet been able to learn the language of grace without the assistance of the Holy Ghost.”

• “Transforming Power of the Bible,” The Canadian Watchman, March 1927, p. 25.

“The flesh has fewer tortures; the mind has more freedom; the soul has more peace when ‘the entrance of Thy words giveth light.’”

These earlier writings reflect some of Benjamin Wilkinson’s views on the Bible, but do not address the issue of Bible versions. His view against the RV and ASV may have developed and strengthened over a period of time. Michael Campbell writes, “Although Wilkinson was present at the 1919 Bible Conference, he did not at that time voice any recorded objection to the use of newer translations.”[x] At least by 1928 he stands against these revisions.

Hominem, Hominem, Hominem

Perhaps in using Wilkinson’s material without identifying that he was a Seventh-day Adventist, David Otis Fuller sent fundamentalist and evangelical opponents a bold invitation to beat “King James Onlyism” with a heavy ad hominem club. Invitation or no, they verily have done so. Here are a few examples among many of the guilt-by-association ad hominems.

“The first noticeable deviation from this accepted and historic agreement was published in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin Wilkinson, who wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.”[xi]

“All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson…He also expresses a strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath keeping (Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27).[xii] I documented some of Wilkinson’s grosser errors in ‘Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors,’ Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. 1, No.3, Fall, 1990.”[xiii]

CAnswersTV posted on YouTube an undated video interview with Bob L. Ross and Gary Hudson – titled “King James Onlyism Heresy (Part 1): Origins - A Seventh-day Adventist Invention.” The blurb come-on to the listener strengthens their claim: “King James Version (KJV) Onlyism, which denies all other Bible translations, is an invention of a Seventh-day Adventist cultist named Benjamin Wilkinson beginning in 1930… King James Onlyism is a more recent fad, started circa 1930 by a Seventh-day Adventist…”[xiv]

An ironic twist finds KJV detractors spinning ad hominem attacks against the defense of the King James Bible, based on and because of Wilkinson’s denominational affiliation. These polemicists defend non-Christian scholars as competent to critique the Bible simply because they are scholars. Suddenly they revert to “name-calling” when they get to the PhD Benjamin Wilkinson. In “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted”[xv] Jan Krans makes this observation:

“In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.”

If the quality of one’s academic work does not depend on one’s faith, then – to them – the quality of Wilkinson’s work should be immaterial to his being a Seventh-day Adventist.[xvi] Yet they almost never fail to mention this affiliation. Seems they can’t help themselves! The sincerity of their claims comes into question when legitimate scholars – that is, legitimate by their own standards – are “drummed out of the corps” for coming to any contrary conclusion (e.g., E. F. Hills).[xvii] Again, if they are sincere in their claims, they should impeach Wilkinson by the quality of his work, or lack thereof, without continually spotlighting “Seventh-day Adventist” as their “gotcha” tactic.

A King James Bible supporter by choice.

Benjamin Wilkinson was dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Washington Missionary College in Takoma Park, Maryland at the time Our Authorized Bible Vindicated was published in 1930. He entered the fray with strenuous objections to the Revised Versions and strong support for the Authorized Version. We can establish some circumstances and developments leading up to his writing.

Developments leading toward and related to Our Authorized Bible Vindicated

• 1910. Adventists tended to see themselves as conservative/fundamental in light of the growing fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the early 20th century. They were aware of events and writings in the wider religious world.[xviii]
• 1915. Ellen G. White, co-founder and leader of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, dies July 16, 1915.
• 1917. Earle Albert Rowell writes The Bible in the Critics’ Den; or, Modern Infidelity Challenged and Refuted (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1917). Rowell’s concern seems to be for the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and the Bible’s authority in reference to higher criticism, infidelity, and modernism – without particular reference to Bible versions.
• 1919. A Bible Conference, similar to the Fundamentalist prophetic conferences of 1918 and 1919, was held at Takoma Park, Maryland, over a 5-week period in the summer of 1919.[xix] “The 1919 Bible Conference illustrates the polarization in Seventh-day Adventist theology that took place as Adventists grappled with conservative evangelicalism (what later became known as Fundamentalism). Adventist theologians became divided, most notably, between ‘progressives’ and ‘traditionalists,’ both of whom were influenced by the emerging Fundamentalist movement... The topics that had the most lasting effect upon Adventist history and theology were the discussions about Ellen G. White’s writings and their relationship to the Bible.”[xx]
• 1928. “LeRoy Froom, founder of Ministry Magazine, begins promoting the American Revised Standard Version of the Bible and demotes the King James Bible to not accurate and old-fashioned status.”[xxi]
• 1928. William Warren Prescott writes, “I regard the American Standard Revised Version of the Scriptures superior to the Authorized Version for several reasons…”[xxii]
• 1928. November 11, 1928 B. G. Wilkinson lectured at the Arcadia Auditorium in Washington, DC on “Is the American Revised Version a Protestant or Jesuit Bible?” The newspaper advertisement noted, “Dr. Wilkinson returns from a Summer of travel and research in great libraries. Hear his startling facts.”[xxiii] Another article mentions the summer of research in the libraries at Harvard, Oberlin College, Princeton, Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, and Yale.
• 1928. William Ambrose Spicer, President of the General Conference, writes a letter (dated November 18, 1928) to Elders Hamilton, Martin, Prescott, Robbins, and Wilkinson apparently seeking moderation in the “Bible Versions” debate. Wilkinson says the letter was “unofficial,” and that Spicer maintained “that this denomination, by years of usage, has taken no position on the comparative merits of the Bible translations.”[xxiv]
• 1928. “At the end of 1928 Prescott left Nebraska to return to his General Field Secretary duties in Takoma Park. It was during this period that the professor became involved in several minor controversies that swirled around headquarters. He wrote apologetic literature in the so-called ‘Versions Controversy,’ defending Adventists who used the Revised Version of the Bible against those Adventists who argued that the King James Version was the only reliable version and that those who did not use it were apostate.”[xxv]
• 1929. William G. Wirth writes “The King James and Revised Versions,” defending the American and English Revised Versions against charges made against them in the “too ardent defense of the Authorized Version.” He advised that “no preacher or Bible teacher ought to expound the Scriptures until he first checks up, so to speak, his King James references with the revised, to insure accuracy.”[xxvi]
• 1929. The Seventh-day Adventist denominational periodical Signs of the Times in 1929-1930 runs a series of eleven articles by W. W. Prescott, in which he promoted the ASV over the KJV. This was introduced in the November 25, 1929 issue, followed by Prescott’s articles, beginning on December 3rd and concluding on March 4, 1930.
• 1930. The Adventist Pacific Press publishes The World’s Best Book: and The Best Book for the World by William Peter Pearce (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1930), which Wilkinson later calls “in its ultimate, is a plea for the American Revised Version.”
• 1930. B. G. Wilkinson publishes Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, supporting the King James Bible over against the English Revised and American Standard Versions. The book was published in June. Wilkinson asserts, “I did not publish my book until after the foregoing responsible agents of the Denomination [Wirth, Prescott, & Pearce] had published the other side of the question.”[xxvii]
• 1931 A committee led by Warren Eugene Howell writes a 123-page typewritten Review of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” by B. G. Wilkinson.[xxviii]
• 1931. Wilkinson prepares a “reply” to the “review” of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. In agreement with the request of the General Conference, Wilkinson chose not to publish it.[xxix]

The Evening Star, Saturday, November 3, 1928, p. 13

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated did not arise in a vacuum. In historical context, this book is traditionalist pushback against progressivism in general, and denominational promotion of the American Standard Version in particular. From the opposition point of view, Wilkinson’s book “was published in disregard of General Conference counsel, and over the plea of the executive officers that agitation of this question should cease.”[xxx] This seems disingenuous, however, when it is realized that the denominational promotion of one point of view was being vigorously pressed forward. Wilkinson claims he was unaware of any official restriction against providing the opposition viewpoint.[xxxi]

In addition, leading up to the writing of his book, Wilkinson would have been aware of Which Version by Mauro in 1924 and The Facts About Our Bible by Franke in 1925.[xxxii] According to Peter J. Thuesen, “Wilkinson echoed Mauro when he complained that the Revised Version had been ‘built almost entirely on the Vatican Manuscript, kept in the Pope’s library, and upon the Sinaiticus, found in a Catholic monastery.’”[xxxiii] Elmer Franke was a former Seventh-day Adventist who separated from them and organized the non-denominational People’s Christian Church in New York in 1916. Wilkinson would have been familiar with him. Franke was aware of Mauro, and cites him on pages 114-115 of his book. Benjamin Wilkinson does not mention Mauro by name, but twice quotes from a Presbyterian review of Which Version.[xxxiv] Neither of these writers take as forceful a position against the RV and ASV as Wilkinson, but do clearly set the Authorized Version in preference above them. For example, Franke writes:

“Yet it [RV/ASV] is far from being as trustworthy as the King James Version and can never take its place… The Revised Versions, both the 1881 edition and the American Revised Bible, while they show considerable scholarship, will never replace, and should never replace the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James… The Authorized or King James Bible as it is sometimes called is the one that stands ahead of all the other English Bibles and should be used in the family and pulpit while the scholar may derive much profit by using the late versions and the Hebrew and Greek text for critical study.”

Franke additionally connects codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to Emperor Constantine and “the most corrupt state of the Roman church.” While claiming the many changes in the revisions did not usually “materially change the sense,” he nevertheless thought at times the revisions “shock our sensibility as to why these changes were made.”[xxxv]

Wilkinson was acquainted with and could have been influenced by these books – but his work should more likely be recognized as primarily an objection and opposition to the denominational advance in favor of the ASV.

Wilkinson’s views on the Bible and translations

At times Wilkinson’s views on the Bible and translations have been misunderstood or misrepresented. He believed the Greek text behind the Revised and American Standard Versions was corrupt, and objected to the use and promotion of those translations. He did not, however, attribute inspiration to the Authorized (King James) Bible. He accepted the idea that some updates to Authorized Version (such as replacing archaic words and expressions) might be legitimately made. He favorably quotes the Herald and Presbyter review of Mauro’s Which Version in this regard.

“The friends and devotees of the King James Bible, naturally wished that certain retouches might be given the book which would replace words counted obsolete, bring about conformity to more modern rules of spelling and grammar, and correct what they considered a few plain and clear blemishes in the Received Text, so that its bitter opponents, who made use of these minor disadvantages to discredit the whole, might be answered.” (p. 100 [162])

“‘The Revisers had a wonderful opportunity. They might have made a few changes and removed a few archaic expressions, and made the Authorized Version the most acceptable and beautiful and wonderful book of all time to come. But they wished ruthlessly to meddle. Some of them wanted to change doctrine. Some of them did not know good English literature when they saw it… there were enough modernists among these revisers to change the words of Scripture itself so as to throw doubt on the Scripture.’ Herald and Presbyter (Presbyterian), July 16, 1924, p. 10.” (p. 150 [244])

Wilkinson opposed the use of other versions for congregational or authoritative use, but seemed to allow for their use for reference in Bible study. He writes, “Let the many versions be used as reference books, or books for study, but let us have a uniform standard version.” (p. 154 [251])

He accepted the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts as the “pure” Bible, denied direct inspiration for translations – yet believed accurate translations of those texts might be considered “truly the Word of God.”

“The original Scriptures were written by direct inspiration of God. This can hardly be said of any translation.” (p. 157 [256])

“Since the Reformation, the Received Text, both in Hebrew and in Greek, has spread abroad throughout the world. Wherever it is accurately translated, regardless of whatever the language may be, it is a truly the Word of God, as our own Authorized Bible.” (p. 157 [257])

Conclusion

Influence

In the arena of the Bible versions debate, Wilkinson’s book – though described by Doug Kutilek as a book “unused and unknown” that “attracted almost no attention in its day” – has achieved a certain amount of lasting influence. Peter J. Thuesen writes, “…treatises by the Revised Version’s most colorful opponents—Burgon, Mauro, and Wilkinson—would enjoy a remarkable shelf-life as late twentieth-century Protestant conservatives reprinted them as virtual classics.”[xxxvi]

Among Seventh-day Adventists

Some Adventists continue to hold Wilkinson’s view, and keep his book in print or accessible on the World Wide Web. Others who might not altogether agree with Wilkinson still prefer the King James Bible over other translations.

In 1953, Benjamin’s son, Rowland Francis Wilkinson (1916-1980), wrote a booklet against the Revised Standard Version – The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible: Is it for Seventh-day Adventists? (Takoma Park, MD: by the author, 1953). Like his father, he did not object to updating of words and expressions, but rejected the Greek text used by the revisers and accepted the idea of a true line of manuscripts. He concluded, “There is only one Bible; namely, the one based on the original and inspired Hebrew for the Old Testament and on the original and inspired Greek for the New. The true representative of this in English is the King James Bible.”[xxxvii]

In 1982, Charles Case suggested that Seventh-day Adventist pastors should use the King James Version in the pulpit because it was the Bible of most people in the pew. Ministry editors conducted an informal survey on the subject in five Washington, DC area SDA churches. The vast majority of responses showed the KJV as the translation that members brought to meetings, and that they preferred be used in the pulpit. This article and survey – 52 years after Wilkinson’s book and 14 years after his death – may indicate his continued influence. However, it may speak also to the general conservatism of the rank-and-file church member.[xxxviii]

More recent Adventist books in this genre are:

• Modern Bible Translations Unmasked, Colin David Standish and Russell Roland Standish.  Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 1993
• The King James Bible and the Modern Versions, Vance Ferrell, Beersheba Springs, TN: Harvestime Books, 2003

Both of these books come out of what is sometimes called “historic Adventism” – an appellation applied to individuals and organizations who see their mission to preserve what they perceive as traditional beliefs and practices of the Seventh-day Adventists.[xxxix] Colin D. Standish (1933-2018) and Russell Roland Standish (1933-2008) were identical twin brothers born in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. Together they authored Modern Bible Translations Unmasked. Vance H. Ferrell (1933—) was born in Lemon Grove, San Diego County, California. Ferrell quotes Wilkinson’s book in his work. He also references Burgon, Mauro, Edward F. Hills, as well as more modern writers, including Samuel Gipp, G. A. Riplinger, and D. A. Waite. Ferrell’s Pilgrims Rest maintains the SDADefend website, which provides online access to Our Authorized Bible Vindicated and Answers to Objections by Wilkinson, The Bible in the Critic’s Den by Rowell, and King James Bible and the Modern Versions by Ferrell.

Based on modern denominational articles, the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a whole (or at least its leadership) has rejected Wilkinson’s position.[xl] Articles reflect agreement with the modern evangelical positions on Bible versions. (Yes, in this sense, modern evangelicals who score “King James Onlyism” as heir to a cult teaching find themselves and the cult in agreement!) In 1995 Seventh-day Adventist theologian Alden Lloyd Thompson, professor of Biblical Studies at Walla Walla University, wrote B. G. Wilkinson’s Our Authorized Bible Vindicated: a Critique. The leadership tends to highlight that Ellen G. White “made use of the various English translations of the Holy Scriptures that were available in her day. She does not, however, comment directly on the relative merits of these versions, but it is clear from her practice that she recognized the desirability of making use of the best in all versions of the Bible.” It is further observed, for example:

“Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) also contains two renderings from the Bernard translation, and at least one from the Boothroyd Version. Education (1903) contains at least one rendering from the Rotherham translation.”[xli]

Among conservatives, evangelicals, and fundamentalists

It is common knowledge that Wilkinson’s writing was brought into the wider debate by J. J. Ray (God Wrote Only One Bible) and David Otis Fuller (Which Bible). However, the book may have exerted outside influence earlier. According to references in Adventist publications, the book was favorably reviewed in Christian Faith and Life (by Leland S. Keyser, February 1931) and The Christian Fundamentalist (the organ of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, edited by W. B. Riley).[xlii]

The manner in which Wilkinson’s book is presented evokes an intent to reach an audience broader than Seventh-day Adventists. Thuesen contends, “Wilkinson made no reference to his Seventh-day Adventist affiliation in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, concentrating instead on issues of broad evangelical appeal.”[xliii] Wilkinson quotes widely from multiple authors, but from Seventh-day Adventist sources in a limited way. He quotes only twice from Ellen G. White’s The Great Controversy (pp. 30 [42], 40 [61]). This is in great contrast to his Answers to Objections, which focuses much on Seventh-day Adventism, the denomination and its beliefs.[xliv]

An article in The Sligonian mentions the sending of books to England,[xlv] and that Benjamin Wilkinson had received letters of response from the Queen of England (Mary, wife of King George V); William Joynson-Hicks, Lord Brentford; Mr. Insskip (possibly Thomas Inskip); Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald, and David Lloyd George (former Prime Minister, but the senior member of the House of Commons in 1931). In “Why I Abide by the Authorised Version,” English Brethren pastor and editor William Hoste called Wilkinson’s book “a valuable work to which I avow myself in debt.”

This article also mentions that “‘The Christian Herald,’ one of the most important journals of the United States, has also sent a testimony to the credit of this unusual work.”[xlvi] The Christian Herald mentioned here probably is the one of which Daniel A. Poling (1884-1968) was editor at the time. It was a non-denominational Protestant periodical. Poling, a conservative evangelical, ardent prohibitionist, and an ordained minister of the United Brethren Church, served as editor from 1927 to 1966.[xlvii]

It is likely that many conservatives and fundamentalists of the 1930s found some spirit of agreement with Wilkinson’s traditionalism, anti-Catholicism, anti-communism, pro-Reformation stance, and his struggle against modernism – even though they were aware of his great denominational and theological divergence. Peter Thuesen describes this as “pragmatic alliances among like-minded Protestants.”

Wilkinson’s influence remains, but is waning in modern times. Many fundamentalist defenders and supporters of the King James Bible are uncomfortable citing the work of a Seventh-day Adventist – either leaving Wilkinson alone, or leaving him quietly unmentioned in the background.

Final thoughts

In my opinion, David O. Fuller erred in the way he used Wilkinson’s material. He did not fully disclose to his readers that he was including a Seventh-day Adventist resource. He exacerbated the error by including in Which Bible a chapter “About the Author of ‘Our Authorized Bible Vindicated’” (pp. 174-175) – without really giving much information about the author! On page 215, Which Bible leaves off a footnote referencing “E. G. White, Great Controversy, pp. 65, 66. 69.” On page 233, the entire quote that Wilkinson gave of Ellen G. White is left out of Which Bible. These examples insinuate an attempt to conceal the denominational affiliation of the author.[xlviii]

However, those who focus on Fuller’s use of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated usually fail to mention that Fuller’s trilogy includes writings of well over a dozen men. Bishop, Hills, Hoskier, Martin, Wilson, Wilkinson, and others in Which Bible (1970). Burgon, Gaussen, Philpot, and Which Version by Philip Mauro in True or False (1973). Brake, Burgon, Hills, and others in Counterfeit or Genuine (1975). A focused picture must include all the information.

All historical material gathered and opinions expressed by Benjamin Wilkinson are not automatically invalid just because he was a Seventh-day Adventist. His presentation of facts and opinion must ultimately be measured against and by the word of God. (And we must have the word of God preserved in order to judge Wilkinson’s writing.) That a Seventh-day Adventist favored the Authorized Version is no indictment against it. Assorted heretics use and defend the KJV, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, RSV, and many others. Some of them even create their own versions to replace the KJV!

If we descend to the lowest denominator, we might say colloquially that even a blind squirrel gathers some acorns, and a stopped clock is right twice a day. Benjamin George Wilkinson was a Seventh-day Adventist. That is a fact. He had good academic credentials. That is a fact. He wrote a book titled Our Authorized Bible Vindicated to support the traditional original language texts and the KJV, while censuring the American and English Revised Versions, as well as the Westcott and Hort Greek text. That is a fact. Much of how debaters present these facts depends on the presuppositions they have, the positions they hold, the points they want to make, and the impressions they wish to leave.

• Anti-KJVO comedians should drop the King-James-Only-is-a-Seventh-day-Adventist-doctrine routine from their act. It is a joke, but it is not funny. Having been made aware of earlier believers who considered the Authorized Version was the only valid English Bible,[xlix] and knowing that Wilkinson’s view is not a representative view of Seventh-day Adventists, to continue to beat this dead horse is as great a fraud as the “The Great ‘Which Bible’ Fraud” and as incredible an error as “Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors.”[l]
• Discussion of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated should focus on the accuracy of the facts presented by Wilkinson and the logic of the deductions made therefrom. To be clear, writers have challenged what they believe are errors of facts in this book. However, those that did so, with whom I am familiar, have tainted their process by continuing to default to the guilt-by-association ad hominem argument – as well as making errors of their own in the rush to condemn Wilkinson.[li]
• The book’s history and status in the English Bible versions debate makes it a necessary resource for anyone researching the subject. However, it should not be a stand by go-to for beginners. Whatever good may be found in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated can be found in other sources. Sending it to serve on the front line is not worth the annoyance of the ad hominem accusations and associations. Rather, use other sources instead. The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills might be a good start.

---

[i] Or possibly Johnstone, or Johnson.
[ii] “The Death of Mrs. Wilkinson,” Columbia Union Visitor, June 19, 1912, p. 2.
[iii] Often missed is the baby who died with his mother. He was buried in the casket with her, is simply listed as “Baby” on her tombstone, but is identified as Horace in Maude’s obituary in the College View Gazette (Friday, June 7, 1912, p. 1) and the Columbia Union Visitor, June 19, 1912, p. 2.
[iv] “Obituaries,” Columbia Union Visitor, April 13, 1961, p. 11.
[v] “Former President of Columbia Union Dies,” Columbia Union Visitor, March 21, 1968, p. 6.
[vi] Battle Creek College is now Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan.
[vii] “Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, Educator, Dies at 95,” The Evening Star, Saturday, January 27, 1968, p. 11.
[viii] https://www.adventistarchives.org/wau-presidents
[ix] Much of this information is gleaned from the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, Revised Edition, 1976, page 1609, as well as Wilkinson’s obituaries in the Columbia Union Visitor, Review and Herald, and the Washington, DC Evening Star.
[x] The 1919 Bible Conference and its Significance for Seventh-day Adventist History and Theology, Michael W. Campbell, Andrews University, PhD Dissertation, 2008, p. 113.
[xi] From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: a Layman’s Guide to How We Got our Bible, James B. Williams, editor. Greenville, SC: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999, p. 6.
[xii] This is a flagrant exaggeration. In my search of Wilkinson’s book, I found these texts to be only a small part of the whole. Hebrews 9:27 is mentioned on two places. The first is in reference to the translation rules in reference to the use of the definite article “the” (p. 60). Wilkinson may have had “soul sleep” in the back of his mind, but he does not mention it explicitly (pp. 128-29). Regarding Acts 13:42, on p. 58 Wilkinson compares this verse in the KJV, Jesuit Version (1582), and American Revised (1901), simply commenting – “From the King James, it is clear that the Sabbath was the day on which the Jews worshipped.” He does not mention the Gentiles. He does, however, mention the Gentiles in regard to this on page 122. These mentions are a small portion of the entire book, though Kutilek claims that Wilkinson in particular objects to the Revised Version “because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts.” Additionally, it must be remembered that other Seventh-day Adventists were using and promoting the American Standard translation of 1901, so the versions issue was not a matter of Adventists for the KJV versus others against the KJV.
[xiii] “The Unlearned Men: The True Genealogy and Genesis of King-James-Version-Onlyism,” Christian Answers, Vol. 2, No. 4, [n.d., circa 1997], p. 1.
[xiv] Much of the earlier part of the video is introductory. The main discussion tying “King James Only” to Seventh-day Adventism begins about 35:30. See CAnswersTV on YouTube. Gary Hudson, then an anti-KJV Onlyist, is now an apostate and unbeliever.
[xv] Posted October 22, 2020.
[xvi] For example, most evangelical text critics will defend the scholarship of Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, regardless of their faith or practice, or lack of it.
[xvii] “Hills held excellent academic credentials: B.A., Yale University; Th.B., Westminster Theological Seminary; Th.M., Columbia Theological Seminary; doctoral studies in the University of Chicago in textual criticism; Th.D., Harvard University...However, despite his excellent credentials, his subsequent adoption of an essentially King James Only position disqualified him from being a credible textual critic...” King James Onlyism: A New Sect, James D. Price. By the author, 2006, p. 265. We might compare this to drumming out of the corp of highly-qualified doctors and researchers in the medical field when they did not carry the Covid water for the likes of Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins. “Dr. ABC holds excellent academic credentials...However, despite his excellent credentials, his subsequent adoption of the Covid-came-out-of-the-Wuhan-Lab-instead-of-the-wet-market position disqualified him from giving any credible advice...”
[xviii] For examples, see “Response from Elder A. G. Daniells,” A. G. Daniells, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, April 17, 1919, p. 5ff. (reference to William B. Riley and The Menace to Modernism) and “Valuable to Workers,” Lee S. Wheeler, Atlantic Union Gleaner, March 8, 1911, p. 8 (reference to higher criticism and The Fundamentals series).
[xix] It appears the conference was limited and selective, not open to the rank-and-file Adventists. Campbell speaks of the General Conference “limiting such a conference to a select group.” See Campbell, pages xii, 72-73, 249.
[xx] “Abstract,” The 1919 Bible Conference and its Significance for Seventh-day Adventist History and Theology, Michael W. Campbell, Andrews University, PhD Dissertation, 2008.
[xxi] https://asitreads.com/adventist-timeline-of-change/ | Some Adventist defense of the Revised Version is made as early as 1881 in The Signs of the Times, July 21, 1881. Pages 318-319 present an editorial piece on “The Revised Version.” Since the author is not identified, it is probably written by the editor, Joseph Harvey Waggoner (1820-1889). The writer claims “the revision has corrected some prominent errors of the old,” in which he includes removing the doxology from the Model Prayer, the “Great Confession” of the eunuch, and “the three heavenly witnesses.” After outlining his points, the writer concludes, “Such reasons as these are sufficient to show that a revision was necessary, or at least may prove useful.” In September 1902, the Signs gave out an editorial policy that if “the Common (King James) Version, the Revised Version, or the American Standard Revised Version is used, quotations will not be designated in reference” (The Signs of the Times, September 24, 1902, p. 16/624). That is, any Bible quotation that did not identify the source version meant it was from one of those three; they would not distinguish them with a label. Milton C. Wilcox was the editor at the time.
[xxii] “My Preferred Version” in “The Field Says --- Through Our Letter Bag” column, The Ministry, August 1928, Vol. 1, No. 8, p. 31.
[xxiii] Society and Church pages in The Evening Star, Saturday, November 10, 1928, p. 14. The next Sunday Wilkinson lectured on “The American Revised Bible Declares War on Our Mother’s Bible” (Evening Star, Nov. 17, 1928, p. 14). Wilkinson often lectured at the Arcadia on Sunday nights on a variety of subjects – Antichrist, Daniel & Revelation, Mohammedanism, Prophecy, the Sabbath, Spiritism/Spiritualism, Sunday Blue Laws, etc. The lectures usually had a connection to prophecy and the time was shared with a musical program, and another speaker on health and medical issues.
[xxiv] Our Authorized Bible: Answers to Objections, pp. viii, 187.
[xxv] https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=E9ZU
[xxvi] “The King James and Revised Versions,” William G. Wirth, Signs of the Times, November 12, 1929, p. 6.
[xxvii] Our Authorized Bible: Answers to Objections, p. 187.
[xxviii] https://encyclopedia.adventist.org/article?id=29IJ | “A review of Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by BG Wilkinson” | Wilkinson writes, “Their document purports to be a review, not a reply. They should, therefore, have reviewed all my chapters and leading points; but they did not. Therefore, their document is not a review, it is a reply; yet not a fair, square reply; it is notably an attempt to refute such parts of my book as they consider weak; it is a defense of the Revisers, and an exaltation of the RV and a disparagement of the AV.” Our Authorized Bible: Answers to Objections, p. vii.
[xxix] “Preface,” Our Authorized Bible: Answers to Objections, p. iii.
[xxx] A Review of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” by B. G. Wilkinson, p. 1.
[xxxi] “A letter from Elder McElhany to the field July 27, 1930. A copy of this was not sent to me and I learned of it later only incidentally. His statement in this letter was the first knowledge I had of the action passed by the Minority Committee of the General Conference, March 20, 1930. I did not know that I war was going contrary to this action when I published my book; for I did not know that any action of any kind pertaining to the Versions had been passed by this body.” Answers to Objections.
[xxxii]The Facts About Our Bible: Its Historicity, Inerrancy and Inspiration, from a Fundamentalist Viewpoint, Elmer Ellsworth Franke, New York, NY: The People’s Christian Bulletin, 1925.
[xxxiii] In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible, Peter Johannes Thuesen, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 62. Note that “Catholic” there is used generically, in the sense that “Roman Catholic” and “Greek Orthodox” were initially one body.
[xxxiv] Wilkinson quotes from the review of Which Version in The Herald and Presbyter (Cincinnati, Ohio, Vol. XCV, No. 29, July 16, 1924, p. 10) on pages 7 and 150 [1 and 244].
[xxxv] Franke, pp. 114, 118.
[xxxvi] In Discordance with the Scriptures, Thuesen, p. 65.
[xxxvii] The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Rowland Wilkinson, 2007 reprint, p. 31.
[xxxviii] Case did not suggest the pulpit use of the King James Bible was a theological matter, but rather a practical matter. “Use the Bible Your People Use,” Charles C. Case, “Viewpoint” column in Ministry, October 1982, Vol. 55, No. 10, p. 7.
[xxxix] These historic views are not about Bible versions, but doctrines such as Christology and eschatology. However, there seems to be some correspondence between these views and their Bibliology.
[xl] See, for examples, “The Bible Versions Debate,” Steven Thompson, Adventist Review, July 23, 1998, p. 24; “Is Your Bible Still The King’s Speech,” Alden Thompson, Gleaner, December 2017, p. 9. In fact, the majority in leadership had already effectively rejected Wilkinson’s position by the 1920s and 1930s.
[xli] https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-versions-html/
[xlii] Columbia Union Visitor, Vol. 35, No. 46, November 27, 1930, p. 2 and The Sligonian, Vol. 16, No. 23, February 26, 1931, p. 1.
[xliii] In Discordance with the Scriptures, Thuesen, p. 65.
[xliv] Of course, part of this is related to the reason for his reply, or answer to objections.
[xlv] It is not clear to me whether “Many copies were sent to England” means in a promotional way, or just that many orders for the book had come in from England.
[xlvi] “B. G. Wilkinson Gets Message from the Queen,” The Sligonian, Vol. 16 No. 20, February 5, 1931, pp. 1, 3. I have not located the relevant copies of Christian Faith and Life, The Christian Fundamentalist, or The Christian Herald to see firsthand what the reviewers said about Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.
[xlvii] With Henry Thomas, in 1954 (over 20 years after any comment he may have made about Wilkinson’s book) Daniel Poling edited The Glory and Wonder of the Bible (New York, NY: Thomas Crowell, 1954). This is not a book about Bible versions, but the “Introduction” positively gushes over the King James Bible in its description of it as the version on which the book is based. “It is the only English translation which preserves the simplicity, the melody, the directness, and the vigor of our language at its colorful best…This, then, is the language in which we shall try to bring to you the accumulated wisdom of the past for guidance of today” (p. vii).
[xlviii] However, some writers have overplayed their hand on this issue. In a footnote in his book, James D. Price writes, “Gary Hudson pointed out that David Otis Fuller reproduced this and other quotations from Ellen G. White, but he removed Wilkinson’s footnotes that identified the source as the founder of Adventism” (p. 174). To the best of my ability, I have located only two quotes of Ellen White used by Wilkinson originally in his book. Hudson’s statement “this and other quotations” seems intent on giving the impression that there were a great many White footnotes that Fuller removed. Price also seems to intend that impression on page 5 in his “Introduction.”
[xlix] For some examples, see here, here, here, here, and here.
[l] “The Great ‘Which Bible?’ Fraud,,” Gary Hudson, Doug Kutilek, Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1990) and “Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors,” Doug Kutilek, Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Fall 1990).
[li] Compare “Wilkinson’s Incredible Errors” by Doug Kutilek and “Doug Kutilek’s Incredible Errors” by Thomas Ross.