The
KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED
Edward
F. Hills
Although this
book has been around for a while (my copy was published in 1973) it remains a
classic. If you are looking for a single volume to give you a panoramic overview
of the history of the Biblical text, the issues we face today, and a thorough
defense of the Received Text underlying traditional translations of the Greek
New Testament, this book is hard to beat. The author, Edward F. Hills was
somewhat unique in that he paid his academic dues, studying textual criticism in
the sanctuaries of unbelief before exposing it for what it is. He knows whereof
he speaks.
The title
however, is somewhat misleading. This is not so much a defense of a specific
translation as it is the defense of a specific Greek text, the traditional text,
also known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus in Latin) of the Greek New
Testament. Since, at the time he wrote, the King James Version was, for all
practical purposes, the only English translation based on the Received Text,
Hills wrote in its defense. The book does not, however, go into a defense of the
excellence of that translation, as much as it deals with textual matters and
defends the text that underlies this translation.
The first one
third of the book is actually introduction. Hills obviously believes that an
extensive introduction is required to prepare his audience for his defense of
the Received Text (Textus Receptus.) At
the outset he makes a critical distinction. He sets forth the Scriptural
doctrines of inspiration and preservation, that is that the text of Scripture is
both inspired by God and has been providentially preserved by God, so that we
today have the very word of God. He then states that there are two kinds of
textual criticism. The first, which he terms the “consistently Christian” is
by those who believe the above doctrines and handle the text accordingly. The
second he terms the “naturalistic” method, by those who treat the text of
Scripture as just another book. (Note: This is of course exactly what B.B.
Warfield did at Princeton Seminary to get us where we are today.) Hills of
course is committed to the first kind of textual criticism, and to defending the
Received Text as the very inspired and preserved word of God.
Hills continues his introduction by reviewing first of all the threefold nature of God’s revelation of himself, through creation, Scripture, and by his Son, Jesus Christ. He follows this with what he calls “A Short History of Unbelief,” where he takes on a brief intellectual journey through the unbelieving thought of heathenism, pagan philosophy, Medieval Roman Catholicism, Islam, and Scholasticism. He then contrasts all that with the doctrines of the Protestant reformers and the creeds of the Great protestant Reformation. In a succeeding chapter, in a similar fashion, he gives us “A Short History of Unbelief,” that is a history of apostasy from the standards of the Reformation into the unbelief of Materialism, Enlightenment Philosophy, Modernism and higher criticism.
In the fourth chapter Hills deals with a Christian view of textual criticism. He reasserts the Biblical doctrine that promises the preservation of the text and then shows how God has providentially through history fulfilled his promises and preserved the texts of both the Old and the New Testament. The fifth chapter deals with the “The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism.” Here Hills lays out the state of things, as he discusses the state of text, including the number and types of texts still extant, and reviews some of the more crucial variant readings encountered.
The sixth chapter is titled, “Dean Burgon and the Traditional New testament Text.” Dean Burgon was a nineteenth century Anglican who was a the most eminent defender of the Received Text in his day. A scholar without peer, with historical accuracy, and devastating logic, he defended the word of God from the naturalistic critics of his day. His uncompromising defense of God’s word and particularly his irrefutable refutations of the arguments of the leading textual critics of his day, such as Westcott and Hort, made him in his day one of the great champions of the Scriptures. Hills deals here particularly with the omissions from God’s word in the critical text, such as the last twelve verses of Mark, and the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), etc. He traces Burgon’s defense of these passages as he vindicates the traditional text against its modern critics.
In chapter seven
he presents his own thorough and comprehensive defense of the traditional text.
In chapter eight he defends the King James Version against its modern
competitors, dealing again with variant readings, comparing it with contemporary
translations, and especially comparing their creation, by godly men of faith on
the one hand and naturalistic skeptics on the other.
For an
introductory primer on textual criticism and an overview to guide the Christian
as to “which Bible” he ought to use, this book is hard to beat. It should
one of the first, if the not the first book to be read on the subject. Burgon is
more technical and comprehensive; Letis is more scholarly; but for a plain book
speaking directly to the layman this little volume is without peer. Get it and
read it. You will be a better defender of the faith for having read it.