What do you think?
Rate this book
The King James Version Defended
From the back Bible in English has fallen on hard times. Not only do some feminists see it as a format from which to transform Ancient Near Eastern, patriarchal religions into modern, 20th century paradigms of egalitarianism, but the American Bible publishing industry has reduced it to a commodity, hoping to maximize gains by imposing a marketing-manufactured consensus on conservative evangelicals, calling it the beginning of a "new tradition." Edward F. Hills in his work The King James Version Defended represents a sober and compelling argument for the "old tradition." As a well-trained classicist and an internationally recognized New Testament text critic, he analyzes the problems of both modern language translations and current New Testament text criticism methodology. With the sometimes widespread and uncritical acceptance of such translations as the New International Version by pastors as well as laymen, this defense of the historic, English Protestant Bible should be read by all who share an interest in these areas.Edward Freer Hills was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Yale University. He also earned the Th.B. degree from Westminster Theological Seminary and the Th.M. degree from Columbia Theological Seminary. After doing doctoral work at the University of Chicago in New Testament text criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. He is also the author of Believing Bible Study.Hills' book has the following nine Three-fold Revelation of HimselfA Short History of UnbeliefA Short History of ModernismA Christian View of the Biblical TextThe Facts of New Testament Textual CriticismDean Burgeon and the Traditional New Testament TextThe Traditional New Testament TextThe Textus Receptus and the King James VersionChrist's Holy War with Satan
280 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 4, 2019
I first want to start off saying the title of this book is very misleading. The original title of this work is: “Text and Time: A Reformed Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism”.
With so much enlightenment natural textual criticism being done today, this book is more relevant than when it was first published. Modern textual scholars treat the Bible like any other secular ancient book.
Edward Hills’ work gives a case to view the Bible and textual criticism with the presuppositional Christian Worldview that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God and has been kept pure and preserved through all ages. I love how the book is introduced: with God’s Three-Fold revelation of Himself, divine authority, God being a covenant keeping God to His people, a short history of unbelief, modernism and German liberalism creeping into the church. This is all before even diving into text criticism and there’s much more!
Hills’ purpose of spending quality time on all these issues is to show the reader how Westcott and Hort’s modern scientific method of textual criticism came about. Unfortunately it is a method that fails and has influenced the church and the way we treat our Bibles today.
Hills’ then goes into Christian view of the Biblical Text with excellent with primary sources outlining New Testament textual criticism and the errors of the Critical Text. He then gives the case for the Textus Receptus (the Reformation Text) is the providential preserved text of the Greek NT.
It is not until the latter end of the book that Hills argues for the KJV being the most faithful English Bible translation because of the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
This is not KJVO. KJVO is cultic and anti-Confessional. This position has nothing to do with an English translation but dealing with the question has God providentially preserved his Word through the history of the Church? Or have we lost the Word of God and still trying to find it because He has not providentially preserved it?
“If the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament of Scripture is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture must also be a true doctrine.”
“The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrine of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.”
- Edward Hills
With so much enlightenment natural textual criticism being done today, this book is more relevant than when it was first published. Modern textual scholars treat the Bible like any other secular ancient book.
Edward Hills’ work gives a case to view the Bible and textual criticism with the presuppositional Christian Worldview that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God and has been kept pure and preserved through all ages. I love how the book is introduced: with God’s Three-Fold revelation of Himself, divine authority, God being a covenant keeping God to His people, a short history of unbelief, modernism and German liberalism creeping into the church. This is all before even diving into text criticism and there’s much more!
Hills’ purpose of spending quality time on all these issues is to show the reader how Westcott and Hort’s modern scientific method of textual criticism came about. Unfortunately it is a method that fails and has influenced the church and the way we treat our Bibles today.
Hills’ then goes into Christian view of the Biblical Text with excellent with primary sources outlining New Testament textual criticism and the errors of the Critical Text. He then gives the case for the Textus Receptus (the Reformation Text) is the providential preserved text of the Greek NT.
It is not until the latter end of the book that Hills argues for the KJV being the most faithful English Bible translation because of the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
This is not KJVO. KJVO is cultic and anti-Confessional. This position has nothing to do with an English translation but dealing with the question has God providentially preserved his Word through the history of the Church? Or have we lost the Word of God and still trying to find it because He has not providentially preserved it?
“If the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament of Scripture is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture must also be a true doctrine.”
“The consistently Christian method interprets the materials of New Testament textual criticism in accordance with the doctrine of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures. The naturalistic method interprets these same materials in accordance with its own doctrine that the New Testament is nothing more than a human book.”
- Edward Hills
February 4, 2017
Van Tillianism applied to Bible Textual Criticism equal this great book.
May 3, 2019
Before reading this book I was not aware of the argument or disagreements over the differences of the Greek New Testament. The Byzantine (related to the majority) texts vs the Alexandrian (critical) texts vs other Western texts. And I did not know the King James Version was translated from a different set of manuscripts (those that made up the Textus Receptus or “Received Text”) than almost every modern translation we have today.
Dr. Hills is clear and precise in his presentation of setting forth a defense of the King James Version of the Bible, as the superior in the English language (quick note: this is not to be misrepresented as or confused with “King James Onlyism”; much more to be said here, but time nor space allow it). However you view it, I recommend, at some point, all Christians read and study this history for themselves, in prayer, as a very worthy subject to devote time and effort to. To the glory and praise of our Lord in Heaven.
Dr. Hills is clear and precise in his presentation of setting forth a defense of the King James Version of the Bible, as the superior in the English language (quick note: this is not to be misrepresented as or confused with “King James Onlyism”; much more to be said here, but time nor space allow it). However you view it, I recommend, at some point, all Christians read and study this history for themselves, in prayer, as a very worthy subject to devote time and effort to. To the glory and praise of our Lord in Heaven.
June 30, 2017
This is the best book I've seen yet on the subject. Using rock-solid Scriptural and historical arguments, Hills expounds the underlying premise of both views: the Divine providential preservation view, and the modern naturalistic view. He shows how the ideology of one view is rooted in the Christian faith and can be defended historically, whereas the other view is rooted in modern naturalistic unbelief, championed by heretical modernists, and is a relatively new phenomena. It is of note that Hills was highly educated, and he was a bonafide textual critic. He studied under J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, R. B. Kuiper and Cornelius Van 'Til.
The book can be downloaded free in txt, kindle, and pdf formats here: https://archive.org/details/TheKingJa...
The book can be downloaded free in txt, kindle, and pdf formats here: https://archive.org/details/TheKingJa...
Want to Read
March 20, 2023"I’ve mentioned a few times that I regard the King James Version as the best translation into English, and those of you who are interested in pursuing this subject I’ve promised to give you some information on this. This book by Doctor Edward F. Hills, HILLS, Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended is a good, popular treatment of the subject...it goes into the manuscripts and why it is that the King James is the most accurate." ~ RJ Rushdoony, "Ministry of Vengeance".
April 8, 2024
I agree with his basic premises and conclusions, but I felt like this was too ambitious of an attempt. Often I felt like the author didn't prove his smaller points and returned to "but remember, God's providence" somewhat clumsily. Also some weird throwaway comments were made like his disagreements with Einstein's theories of relativity. But overall, I think this is a helpful resource to understand generally what the differences are between the TR and CT views of the Scriptures. Also good for examining evidences of certain controversial verses.
May 31, 2016
Dr. Hills loves God and His word — that much is clear. If sincerity were accuracy and passion were logic, Dr. Hills would John Calvin crossed with Thomas Aquinas.
Dr. Robinson summarizes well my disagreements:
"I would not consider anyone whose primary agenda was the defense of KJV exclusivity or primacy to be in any manner a forerunner of the Byzantine-priority or majority text position, but rather to reflect a more recent and less-than-scholarly development. This is the situation with Hills, who — regardless of all his former training and apparently favorable comments regarding the Byzantine or majority text — is never willing absolutely to reject any KJV reading derived from a minority of Greek manuscripts (or even no Greek manuscripts whatever!). Through scholastic sophistry similar to that applied by most other KJVOs, Hills ultimately defends every aspect of the KJV and its underlying text, regardless of where the factual data might point. Like most other KJVOs, Hills also ignores the methodological dichotomy whereby he on the one hand claims Byzantine superiority while on the other hand he denies such in favor of minority or unsupported readings — this demonstrates a KJVO mentality quite clearly. Burgon and Miller, on the other hand, freely critiqued certain translational and textual aspects of the KJV, even while urging its retention for Anglican Church use until such time as various textual and translational matters were more firmly decided (conservative textual criticism in the 19th century was very much undetermined and in flux). Scrivener was even more bold, openly departing much more from the KJV and its underlying text, but not always in the Byzantine direction. Scrivener basically allowed for the originality of various non-Byzantine minority readings taken from other texttypes; such was not the case with Burgon or Miller. Similarly, S. W. Whitney in the 19th century also defended the Byzantine reading in most cases (more so than Scrivener), but here and there even Whitney chose to abandon the Byzantine reading for one found in minority texttypes. In this light, the real forerunners of the current majority text or Byzantine-priority position remain Burgon and Miller and (in his earliest work) J. A. Scholz."
Dr. Robinson summarizes well my disagreements:
"I would not consider anyone whose primary agenda was the defense of KJV exclusivity or primacy to be in any manner a forerunner of the Byzantine-priority or majority text position, but rather to reflect a more recent and less-than-scholarly development. This is the situation with Hills, who — regardless of all his former training and apparently favorable comments regarding the Byzantine or majority text — is never willing absolutely to reject any KJV reading derived from a minority of Greek manuscripts (or even no Greek manuscripts whatever!). Through scholastic sophistry similar to that applied by most other KJVOs, Hills ultimately defends every aspect of the KJV and its underlying text, regardless of where the factual data might point. Like most other KJVOs, Hills also ignores the methodological dichotomy whereby he on the one hand claims Byzantine superiority while on the other hand he denies such in favor of minority or unsupported readings — this demonstrates a KJVO mentality quite clearly. Burgon and Miller, on the other hand, freely critiqued certain translational and textual aspects of the KJV, even while urging its retention for Anglican Church use until such time as various textual and translational matters were more firmly decided (conservative textual criticism in the 19th century was very much undetermined and in flux). Scrivener was even more bold, openly departing much more from the KJV and its underlying text, but not always in the Byzantine direction. Scrivener basically allowed for the originality of various non-Byzantine minority readings taken from other texttypes; such was not the case with Burgon or Miller. Similarly, S. W. Whitney in the 19th century also defended the Byzantine reading in most cases (more so than Scrivener), but here and there even Whitney chose to abandon the Byzantine reading for one found in minority texttypes. In this light, the real forerunners of the current majority text or Byzantine-priority position remain Burgon and Miller and (in his earliest work) J. A. Scholz."
September 23, 2023
I really enjoyed reading a book which looks at the manuscript evidence from the point of view of biblical faith rather than criticism and the arguments of scholars. Hills gives very good reasons from Scripture itself for accepting the textus receptus over against the modern critical Greek texts.
I did not give this five stars because although Hills states clearly that all Scripture is for all of life - whether we look at science, politics, economics or whatever - he strays into some unusual thought processes (particularly in regard to the motion of the earth) which marred his final chapters
I did not give this five stars because although Hills states clearly that all Scripture is for all of life - whether we look at science, politics, economics or whatever - he strays into some unusual thought processes (particularly in regard to the motion of the earth) which marred his final chapters
Want to Read
January 3, 2023Read for free here. Recommended by Pastor F.
August 17, 2024
Fantastic analysis of naturalistic methods of Textual Criticism. Some dated references here and there but otherwise great.
December 28, 2020
Le titre n'est pas vraiment représentatif du contenu. Il s'agit plutôt d'une défense du Textus Receptus. Et en cela c'est une très bonne introduction.
August 9, 2023
So far I've read the first two chapters and am disappointed: very little, so far, defending either the KJV or the Majority/Byzantine/Ecclesiastical text of the NT. I have hopes that later chapters will be much better.
April 4, 2015
The book was interesting. It dealt a lot with modern science and modern thought to demonstrate the unbelieving foundation of modern textual criticism and modern translations. Several of the arguments for the Majority text were persuasive. Not convinced that this then means we need to retain the KJV though I did like the idea it was written intentionally as Biblical English and not spoken English. A few of his responses to critics weren't really an answer especially his interaction with the fact the vast majority of variants are of minor significance. Lastly, I don't buy his argument for the shift in the Old Covenant to New Covenant in relationship to the preservation of the text. Preservation of text by priest to individuals since the New Covenant we are all priests. My final thought on the matter is that no matter how hard he pushes against modern thought, he is thoroughly entrenched in modern concerns of certainty and autonomy.
April 9, 2013
This is a bit of a mix. It raises the important questions but has a rather idealized view of. the TR , it's compilation and transmission. Hence, the 3 rather than 4 stars. It nonetheless raises questions around the naturalistic assumptions behind much text criticism, and calls us to look for divine preservation of the text in the church.
December 26, 2016
A thorough, scholarly, and convincing treatment regarding the superiority of the KJV over other English translations of the Bible. (The reader can save time and safely skip the first, second, and last chapters as they have little to do with the actual theme of the book.)
February 1, 2016
Dr. Hills integrated textual criticism with his "logic of faith" and still came to defense of the King James Version of the Bible.
November 15, 2016
An important book for anyone interested in the traditional text of the Bible and the KJV.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews