Saturday, September 24, 2011

How anti-KJVOnyists pussyfoot around E. F. Hills

One seemingly rather effective critic of KJVOnlyism has been Doug Kutilek, who appears relentless in his attacks on various aspects of the issues around the KJV Bible. 

In an article on the "genealogy of KJV-Onlyism" The Bloodline of History, Kutilek attacks just about every historical advocate for the KJV as either a charlatan, a fraud or a dupe.   For instance, he violently attacks the following list of authors as follows:

Benjamin Wilkinson (1930, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated) - "Wilkinson attacked ...Westcott and Hort personally (fallacious ad hominem). He also opposed the RV (1881)...because it robbed [Seventh Day] Adventism of 2 favorite proof-texts (Sabbath keeping, Acts 13:42, 'Soul-sleep', Heb. 9:27). Wilkinson was the first to misapply Ps. 12:6-7 to the KJV... Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin (= Byz. text-type).

J.J. Ray (1955, God Only Wrote One Bible) -  "Ray heavily plagarized, without acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book..."

David Otis Fuller (1970 Which Bible?, 1975 Counterfeit or Genuine) - "almost half the pages [of Which Bible?] were taken from Wilkinson, with some editing to conceal Wilkinson's cult affiliation.  Fuller knew well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately concealed that fact..."Fraud"...knowingly misrepresented the views of Spurgeon re: the TR, KJV, & RV, ...misrepresented R. D. Wilson re: the RV.  Fuller also dragged Anglican priest [Dean] John Burgon founding the Dean Burgon Society.  ...ready and willing to conceal, ...distort, and invoke, deceive his readers...Fuller's blatant dishonesty and disregard for truth...the vast majority of this highly destructive controversy is a direct result of Fuller's deceptive and inflammatory book."

Peter S. Ruckman (1964 The Bible Babel, 1970 Christian's Handbook, etc.) - "passes for a Baptist preacher, ... All of his writings are characterized by the most vehement vilification and denunciation of everyone and anyone...torrent of errors flood each work... his "hermeneutical" approach... is so nonsensical, ...first propagated the erroneous idea that the KJV has no copyright...

Gail Riplinger ( New Age Bible Versions) - "Now, women are getting in on the KJV-Onlyism act, profiting from the gullible multitude seduced...perverse propaganda... "too much" for even some fellow KJV-Onlyites to swallow..."
"D. A. Waite, who now does a great deal of his own misleading, ..."

Now Contrast this harsh treatment with how Kutilek treats E. F. Hills:

Edward F. Hills (1956 The KJV Defended, 1967 Believing Bible Study) -  "The theme of Hills' work is the defense of, not just the Byzantine text-type ..., but the defense of the Textus Receptus [TR], including the unique (i.e., unsupported) readings... by Erasmus. On the whole, Hills' writings are much better-informed and more accurate than nearly all of the KJV-Only literature, though he writes as one blinded to evidence by his presuppositions. ..."
 With an intro like that, every uncommitted reader is likely to go out and buy Hills' books.   Its as if  Kutilek wanted to restrict the education of the public and promote certain lines of argument on BOTH sides of the issue, in the process steering everyone away from 9 out of 10 KJV defenders.   That this isn't just a guess, is shown by Kutilek's obsession with monetary issues:
Wilkinson: "a book which attracted almost no attention in its day...
"J. J. Ray's book has gone through numerous printings, with total copies numbering perhaps in the tens of thousands. ...
D. O. Fuller: "in its 5th edition by 1975 ... has had a very extensive influence in shaping much of the current debate and disseminating much of the misinformation that characterizes KJV-Onlyism today.Ruckman has "single-handedly has injected more misinformation into the controversy than all other writers combined."
Riplinger: "profiting from the gullible multitude" 

Clearly Kutilek is shouting essentially "Don't Buy!" any of these authors' works. While in comparison to this treatment, Kutilek has rained down a golden handshake ranging from neutrality to praise upon E. F. Hills. Why?

Let me suggest its the same old 'Old Boy' network operating again. 

Anyone who has examined, or even looked at the covers of E. F. Hills' work, is immediately struck by the near-childish, patronizing and patriarchical tone of the books.  Its as if they were deliberately written for children or teens, or near-idiots:

As much as I enjoyed the contents of these two books, they can hardly appeal in appearance or format to anyone over 18 years of age.  Serious scholars will think they are actually some kind of joke.

This is where Kutilek would like to direct sincere inquirers concerning the complex textual issues of the Byzantine text-type vs. the Alexandrian!   This is Jesuit counter-productivity at its best.

Where serious debaters should be directing people, is to Dr. Maurice Robinson's excellent article on Byzantine Priority, or the very balanced introduction to the modern debate edited by D. A. Black, Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, or even Sturz, The Byzantine Text-type.  Other useful titles would be the books and articles by G.D. Fee, or E. J. Epp.  The thorough research by James Snapp Jr. on Mark's Ending, or any of the recent publications on the papyri, such as those by Royse, Jongkind, or Hernandez would be intelligent suggestions.

Its clear that polemicists like   Kutilek have no real interest in assisting readers to learn enough useful information, to make any kind of informed decision on the 'KJV' issues.

The Dean


  1. I don't cut Doug Kutilek any slack in my review of one of his best-known articles, but not because I don't want people to read his works. I'm an avid reader of Kutilek and find most of what he writes to be informative. It is only on the subject of KJV that he seems to let his presuppositions blind him to the evidence . . .

  2. Reading through this post again, I caught something I'd missed. Kutilek is anti-KJVO, and focuses his writings on the subject of textual criticism to point out the follies of that specific position--of which TR-only is really a subset. But of the authors you note which he doesn't mention, none of them are actually KJVO or TRO--so it's no wonder he ignores them.