Why the AV: A Host of Reasons from William Hoste

I have been collecting information on the opposition to the Revised Version of the Bible (1870-1885). It is interesting how much came in the 20th century, when we might think it had been mostly forgotten by anyone except scholars. However, I have identified several works (short essays to book length) against the RV in the 1920s and 30s: (1924, Philip Mauro; 1925, William Aberhart, E. E. Franke; 1930, Benjamin Wilkinson). This time frame is intriguing. I remain uncertain as to the exact reason “why” of this time frame.

A good bit of the material is available online. Today I received in the mail Remember the Ancient Landmark: the Case Against The Revised Version 1881. This is a 1987 reprint (with a new preface and epilogue) of an essay by William Hoste (1860-1938), an English Plymouth Brethren editor and preacher, first written in 1931 under the title Why I Abide By the Authorised Version. Hoste was editor of The Believers Magazine, 1931-1938. He cannot fairly be called “King James Only,” but he seems sort of “Revised Version Never.” Here are some excerpts from the booklet.

“…the mass of changes and omissions in the New Testament, which, after 50 years [written 1931, rlv] , are still awaiting their justification.” (p. 10)

“All knew the Authorised contained archaisms (which practically everyone understood), and some ‘plain and clear’ blemishes. It was not necessary to alter the complexion of the whole to correct these…Unfortunately the R.V. of 1881, while professing to be a revision, was, as we shall see, based on a new, private and untested Greek Text by two of the Revisers – Drs. Westcott and Hort. It has been well remarked: ‘Not the Revisers’ least service is their showing how very seldom the A.V. is materially wrong’. But the Revision was a great ill to cure a lesser.” (pp. 11-12)

“No doubt little lists of niceties of translation can be made out by enthusiasts, but some bright colours in a bad picture do not prove it well designed or executed, nor do small advantages compensate for great losses.” (p. 13)

“A gardener, once hired by the present writer to tidy up his garden, dug up some weeds, and also his bed of lilies of the valley, the pride of the garden. It was fine digging, but poor gardening. Nothing has seemed too sacred for the Revision majority to ‘dig up’ in faithfulness to their few favourite manuscripts.” (p. 13)

“I believe the revision needed today is a revision of any confidence we may have allowed ourselves in the changes in the Greek text adopted by the R.V. That Revision is a pyramid on its apex, and even the apex is unsound.” (pp. 15-16)

The structure of the pamphlet is organized by nine reasons William Hoste gives for preferring the Authorised Version of the Bible.

1. The A. V. (though, of course, not perfect) was translated on more Reliable Principles
2. The Revision was Unnecessary
3. The Revision was not Generally Wanted
4. The Revisers Exceeded their Mandate
5. The Methods of the A. V. were more Reliable
6. The Manuscripts of the A.V. were more Reliable
7. The Margin of the A.V. is More Reliable
8. The Men of the A.V. were More Reliable
9. The Doctrine of the A.V. is More Reliable