The King James Version Defended! A Christian view of the New Testament Manuscripts, by Edward F. Hills, Th.D. The Christian Research Press, Iowa.
Since the year 1881, various Versions of the New Testament have appeared in the English language and laid claim to being superior to the Authorised Version, which has enjoyed the confidence of the people of God during the last three hundred years. Some of these, such as the Revised Version (1881), Weymouth Version (1903), Moffat’s Version (1913), and the Revised Standard Version (1946), have failed to replace the Authorised version in the affections of the Christian public despite their wide advertisement and the eminence of the scholars engaged in the work. At the present time, another translation is being made by an interdenominational committee established for this purpose by the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches. The general arguments against the Authorised Version, such as its archaic language etc., do not constitute the real objection which modern religionists have to it. Modern critical scholars would like to see it replaced by their own efforts because they allege that they possess a better Greek text than the one which lies at the back of the A.V. This Text, which is the one adopted at the Reformation, is called the Byzantine or Received Text (Textus Receptus). From 1831, the Textus Receptus has been subjected to relentless criticism and every endeavour made to find fault with it. Thus when the Revised Version was published in 1881, the Greek Text from which the translation was made was a new one compiled by Westcott and Hort, two English scholars, from whom the Text took its name. Sad to say, this Text found favour both in liberal and conservative circles despite the powerful attacks made on it by Dean Burgon (1813-1888) and others. Liberal critics have long since departed from the Westcott and Hort Text although conservatives have been inclined to retain it. Now, it appears that there is a tendency to go back to the Textus Receptus and this is a promising sign. Prof. M. C. Tenney, although a Westcott and Hort man himself, writes as follows in an article entitled Reversals of New Testament Criticism. “The most recent venture in the field of textual criticism, the creation of a larger critical text of the New Testament based on the Textus Receptus and including collations of all the major manuscripts, will doubtless show that the Westcott and Hort text was not infallible although it was undeniably the best up to its time.” It is evident that confidence in this latter text has declined very much indeed even in conservative circles when such a statement could be made.
The refreshing title given to his book shows that Dr Hills has no dubiety about the superiority of the Textus Receptus to other texts. We are not acquainted with Dr. Hill’s theological position, but he is evidently a firm believer in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, and a strenuous opponent of the modern critical methods which have so disastrously ruined the authority of the Word of God in the consciences of sinners. It appears, too, that Dr. Hills is a scholar of considerable ability. “It is evident,” says President R. B. Kuiper of Calvin Seminary, Grand Rapids in the Preface, “that Dr. Hills is entitled to a hearing because of his scholarship. I think it is no less evident that he deserves a respectful hearing because of his theological convictions.” Prof. F. F. Bruce of Sheffield University, who does not agree with Dr. Hills’ point of view says of him,—”a well-known textual critic and probably the most distinguished contemporary defender of the superiority of the Byzantine text-type.” † It is encouraging to read of one of Dr. Hills acknowledged ability being such a wholehearted defender of the King James Version.
It would be out of place in a magazine of this kind to enter into a detailed discussion of the reasons given by Dr. Hills for accepting the Textus Receptus, but some indication may be given of his views on a proper approach to the subject. These stem from two positions which he considers to be absolutely necessary for one to have a proper view of the text of the Bible. The first of these is belief in the divine inspiration and the consequent infallibility of the Word of God. Anyone who looks upon the Bible as a divine revelation cannot approach it as he would any other book written by a human author. The second position taken by Dr. Hills is that the Scriptures have been preserved by God in His providence so that the Church would always have the Word as a light to her feet and a lamp to her path. Both these positions are contained in the admirable statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in which the Scriptures are maintained to have been “immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.” ‡
Liberal scholars, of course, reject the doctrine of divine inspiration which makes God the author of His truth, and constitutes the Bible an infallible revelation of His mind. Conservative scholars, while accepting divine inspiration, have been lamentably weak on the second position concerning God’s singular care and providence in keeping the Scriptures pure in all ages. This reviewer was very pleased with Dr. Hills’ sharp criticism of Dr. B. B. Warfield on this aspect of the subject. Although Warfield was an evangelical scholar of great erudition, and an able opponent of Liberalism, he failed to show a similar consistency and firmness in the sphere of Textual Criticism. His view of God’s singular care was that copies of the Scriptures had been multiplied and scholars raised up to collect and collate the various manuscripts and give us the Word of God. In this way he looked upon critics such as Westcott and Hort as instruments of God’s singular care in keeping the text pure. He did not seem to see that the tendency of critical methods which looked upon the Bible as any other book, was not to preserve the Text but to destroy it, by making additions to and subtractions from it according to the subjective view of any particular critic.
In opposition to this, Dr. Hills maintains that (a) The purpose of the providential preservation of the New Testament is to preserve the infallibility of the inspired original text. (b) this providential preservation concentrated itself on the Greek New Testament Text. (c) This providential preservation operated within the sphere of the Greek Church. (d) This providential preservation operated through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. He then goes on to show in detail that the application of these principles should lead the scholar and student to the conclusion that the Text taken over by the Reformers is the genuine text which should be preserved in the Church of God, while the other texts should be rejected. The present writer would not subscribe to every conclusion to which Dr Hills comes, but his book is a great step in the right direction. It is refreshing to read a book which manifests such loyalty to the Authorised Version written by a man of scholarship who cannot be called an “obscurantist,” the contemptuous epithet generally applied to those who refuse to be mesmerised by the vagaries of the Higher Critics.
While the true Christian is not dependent upon the fluctuating opinions of men for his belief in the Scriptures—(this comes from the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit)—yet he cannot fail to be interested in attempts made to defend the Word of God against the inroads of unbelieving Criticism. Dr. Hills’ book is a fine attempt to do this and we look forward to further books from his able and well-informed pen.—Donald MacLean.
The Banner of Truth Trust’s latest book is “George Whitefield’s Journals.” Mr. Errol Hulse writes commending the book on behalf of the Trust somewhat as follows:—”Because of its unusual character and long absence from the market, we are writing to ask whether you would be able to give special attention in your reviews to this title. In many respects we regard this as a most important book. Whitefield is generally regarded as one of the greatest preachers ever in the English tongue. The Journals cover a detailed account of the first four years of his ministry, years of intense religious awakening and revival. We are of the conviction that nothing could be more profitable at the present time, than for Christians to become again aware of the fact that God has it in His power to revive His Church, as mightily as in Whitefield’s day. It is our fervent prayer that God will again use his servant, who though dead yet speaketh. We would be glad if you could draw the attention of your readers to the fact that the book is subsidised and is available for 15/- (600 pages).