HAROLD L WILMINGTON
AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
By Russell Earl
Kelly, PHD
October 12, 2019
From his own writings, it is extremely evident that Harold L
Wilmington (d1918) of Liberty University (Wilmington’s Guide to the Bible)
was NOT a supporter in the preserved Textus Receptus and King James Bible. This
fact is evident within the text of Guide and textual criticism is oddly not
mentioned once. This is also the
teaching of Liberty University which championed Wilmington as a great teacher.
On page 680 of the 30th Anniversary Edition, Wilmington
wrote, “Even though the original books are lost, there is overwhelming
evidence our translated Bibles today represent amazing copies of the first
manuscripts themselves. “Wilmington is NOT referring to either the Greek Textus
Receptus or the King James Version or their category! In fact, exactly the opposite
is true. “The favorable comparison of all these manuscripts. Various scholars have estimated how reliable the
text of the New Testament is:
Westcott and Hort have
estimated it is 98.33% pure.
Ezra Abbott rates it 99.75% pure.
A. T. Robertson rates it 99.9%
pure.”
In case you are not aware, these three are avowed supporters
of modern textual criticism and sworn enemies of God’s ability to preserve His
Word through the Textus Receptus and King James Version! No KJV-only advocate would ever quote Westcott
and Hort to support their position. Westcott and Hort swore to destroy the King
James Bible early in life and A. T. Robertson was a disciple of B. B. Warfield.
When they speak of 98.33, 99.75 and 99.9% purity, they are referring to the “corrected”
Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society Greek texts behind modern versions which
have removed 25% of the Textus Receptus.
Behind the first title page Wilmington lists a total of
eight (8) versions quoted in the book: KJV, NKJ, NAS, NIV, NLT, RSV, AMP and
the ESV. This is proof positive that
Wilmington was not a KJV-only advocate.
From pages 673-675, Wilmington lists famous supporters of
inspiration and inerrancy. The problem with this list is that is makes no
effort to distinguish between those who supported the traditional text, Jerome’s
changed Latin Vulgate or the modern drastically changed texts. Jerome (d420)
used questionable texts to re-write the original Latin Bible which had been
based upon the traditional text. Augustine (d430) was influenced by Jerome and
interpreted the Bible allegorically. Harold Lindsell, Gleason Archer, Paul
Feinberg and Millard Erickson are/were not KJV-only advocates.
From pages 675-678, Wilmington quotes the 1978 International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy signed by Liberty University. “The Bible”[verson?]
is I: authoritative; II: supreme authority over the church; III: revelation by
God; VI: the origin of
Scripture is divine; IX: guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance of all
matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write; we deny that these authors introduced distortion
or falsehood into God’s Word; XI: it is infallible, it is reliable in all the
mattes it addresses; XII: the Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free
from all falsehood, falsehood or deceit; III: complete truthfulness; XIV: no
errors or discrepancies; XVI: the Church has historically taught
inerrancy; XVII; the Holy Spirit assures
truthfulness and XIX: We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility
and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of
the Christian faith.
However (and this is very important), while KJV-only
advocates apply these qualities to the Textus Receptus and KJV, Wilmington and
Liberty only apply them to the original autographs which no longer exist. If
they only apply to the original autographs, the statements are meaningless.
Article V: “We affirm that [only] the
whole of Scripture, and all its parts, down to the very words of the original.
Were given by divine inspiration.”
Article X: “We affirm that
inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of
Scripture which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts
with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of
Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the
original. “
Again, when Wilmington wrote on
page 680, “Even though the original books are lost, there is overwhelming
evidence our translated Bibles today represent amazing copies of the
first manuscripts themselves,” Wilmington was NOT referring to either the Greek
Textus Receptus or the King James Version or their category! In fact, exactly
the opposite is true. Article X only affirms “that copies and translations of
Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the
original. “ In context, “amazing copies of the first manuscripts” are found
in “our translated Bibles today” only refers to the RSV, NAS, NIV and other
Westcott-Hort-related versions and “first manuscripts” refers to Vaticanus B
and Sinaiticus A.
Therefore, “The favorable comparison of all these
manuscripts” refers to the genre of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A.” Wilmington’s
“Various scholars have estimated how reliable the text of the New Testament is”
are opponents of the Textus Receptus and KJV-only.
“Westcott and Hort have estimated
it is 98.33% pure.
Ezra Abbott rates it 99.75% pure.
A. T. Robertson rates it 99.9%
pure.”
These statistics only result AFTER removing 15% of the
KJV-based Textus Receptus. This statistic is found in the forewords of New King
James Bibles.
KJV-only supporters do not need the critical-method statistics
using unverified documents which were never mass produced by the early
church. God in His Word promised that
His word would be preserved forever and would not require man to restore it.
The fact that man admits to a need to restore an (un-lost) Word proves they do
not believe what God’s Word says about itself. We believe the original
autographs have always been faithfully copied and preserved by early Christians
and by the Greek Orthodox Church. At first called the Traditional Text, later
the Textus Receptus, it was the source of the earliest Latin, Aramaic, French,
German, Russian and Gothic Bibles.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
Russkellyphd@yahoo.com
