Violates Primal Laws of Evidence

The opening statement at the head of Chapter I is an extract from a journal named “The Herald and Presbyter.” This journal is not listed in Ayer’s “Directory of Newspapers and Periodicals.” And according to official information “The Herald and Presbyter” is no longer published, but was several years ago merged with another independent weekly called “The Presbyterian.”RABV 1.3

This introductory citation of Chapter I leads logically into a brief word upon the principles governing evidence in a work of this character. There are just two possible approaches. One is to seek all the available facts from reliable sources, whatever and wherever they are, drawing an unbiased conclusion therefrom. The other is to first take a position and then to seek for supporting evidence, ignoring or discounting all contrary testimony. If one is insistent upon finding supporting evidence, some magazine or book will usually provide the desired expressions. Extreme and radical statements from individual members of such a diversified group as Fundamentalists can usually be obtained on almost any point. But such isolated presentations do not fairly represent the view of Fundamentalism at large, any more than this volume in review represents the attitude of our denominational leadership generally.RABV 2.1

The quotation in question asserts that the Revised Version is the Bible of the Modernists, and is part of the movement away from the faith once delivered. But let us inquire into the attitude of leading Fundamentalist exponents. In the current issues of the “Sunday School Times,”—the outstanding Fundamentalist journal of America,—the “International Uniform Lessons” are presented with the King James and the American Standard versions in parallel columns at the head of the lesson study. The position of this journal on the equal value of these versions is the same as the official position of Seventh-day Adventists, and of practically all other Protestant denominations.RABV 2.2

Further, the well-known Dr. James M. Gray, Dean of the Moody Bible Institute, and Editor of the “Moody Bible Institute Monthly,” whose standing in the front ranks of Fundamentalism is well established, writing editorially in his journal, contributes this illuminating paragraph in response to an inquiry as to the reliability of the Revised Version:RABV 3.1

“Even an ordinary reader comparing these two versions, the King James and the Revised, can perceive that the changes though many, are comparatively unimportant. Sometimes an error in spelling has been corrected or a substitution has been made of one synonymous word for another, or a change of order in the wording of a phrase, but all this without any appreciable distinction of the sense. In other words, taking the changes altogether, they have not affected a single historical fact or essential doctrine of Christianity. And yet these scholars are said to have had in their hands for examination and comparison no less than 2,000 manuscripts of different books of the Old Testament and 3,000 manuscripts of different books of the New....RABV 3.2

“We now trust that we have satisfactorily answered the inquiry of our correspondent, and that he and our other readers may confidently believe that the sacred text in our hands in printer form is the eternal Word of God as He caused it to be written.”—“Moody Bible Institute Monthly, February. 1930. (Italics ours.)RABV 3.3

In a letter, dated January 20, 1931, accompanying a copy of the editorial, Dr. Gray adds, “I was unaware that Fundamentalists, as they are called, looked askance at the American Revised Version.”RABV 3.4

And Dr. Grant Stroh, the editor of one of the regular departments of that journal, writing officially for the Moody Bible Institute under date of Jan. 23, 1931 adds:RABV 3.5

“Here at the Institute we recommend the American Revision. We use both it and the Authorized. In most instances when changes are made the American Revision is the more accurate. we do not indorse the various irresponsible individual versions, such as the Moffat translation.”RABV 3.6

In instance after instance throughout the book the author violates the primal laws of evidence by taking statements out of their setting, and by the introduction of testimony of an extraneous nature, as will be seen hereafter. There are many half-truths stated, and unwarranted impressions are thus left in the mind of the uninformed reader. These charges will be abundantly proven in the pages which follow. The removal and use of a brief statement from it is context may conveniently serve a purpose, but it is an unsound and unscholarly procedure,—unless there be scrupulous and unbiased care exercised to see that it never violates the intent of the writer and the context of the excerpt.RABV 3.7

For example, the author quotes frequent and rather unfavorable comments from “A History of the Revised Version of the New Testament” by Samuel Hemphill. It seems but fair to state, however, that Mr. Hemphill’s book is an intimate record of the meetings of the Revision Committee in which he gives arguments and comments of its members, both favorable and unfavorable. The author of this book under review quotes often from Hemphill’s work, but confines himself to the unfavorable quotations. This does not fairly represent the general trend of Mr. Hemphill’s testimony.RABV 4.1