The following is excerpted from the book The King James Version Defended by Presbyterian scholar Edward F. Hills (1912-1981). 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 textual criticism, he completed his program at Harvard, earning the Th.D. in this field. Though largely ignored by professional textual critics and translators, Hills has encouraged thousands of pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and Bible teachers by his defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible and by his exposure of the unbelief underlying the theories of modern textual criticism. In 1956 he published The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts. Key chapters include "A Short History of Unbelief," "A Christian View of the Biblical Text," "The Facts of New Testament Textual Criticism," "Dean Burgon and the Traditional New Testament Text," and "The Textus Receptus and the King James Version." Hills devastated the Westcott-Text theories and exposed the rationalistic foundation of the entire modern version superstructure. Hills' book is available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. (609) 854-4452 --

When a believer begins to defend the King James Version, unbelievers immediately commence to bring up various questions and problems in the effort to put the believer down and silence him. Let us therefore consider some of these alleged difficulties.

(A) THE KING JAMES VERSION A VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus [Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 60]. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

The King James translators also placed variant readings in the margin, 37 of them according to Scrivener [Ibid., pp. 58-59]. To these 37 textual notes 16 more were added during the 17th and 18th centuries [Ibid., pp. 56-57], and all these variants still appear in the margins of British printings of the King James Version. In the special providence of God, however, the text of the King James Version has been kept pure. None of these variant readings has been interpolated into it. Of the original 37 variants some are introduced by such formulas as, "Many ancient copies add these words"; "Many Greek copies have"; "Or, as some copies read"; "Some read". Often, however, the reading is introduced simply by "Or", thus making it hard to tell whether a variant reading or an alternative translation is intended.

One of these variant readings is of special interest. After John 18:13 the Bishops' Bible (1568) had added the following words in italics, "And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." This was a conjectural emendation similar to one which had been suggested by Luther and to another which had been adopted by Beza in his Latin version on the authority of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). The purpose of it was to harmonize John 18:13 with Matt. 26:57, which states that the interrogation of Jesus took place at the house of Caiaphas rather than at the house of Annas. The King James translators, however, along with Erasmus and Calvin, solved the problem by translating John 18:24 in the pluperfect, "Now Annas HAD sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." This made it unnecessary to emend the text at John 18:13 after the manner of the Bishops' Bible. Hence the King James translators took this conjectural emendation out of the text and placed it in their margin, where it has retained its place unto this day [see The New Testament Octapla, edited by Luther A. Weigle, New York: Nelson, 1962].

Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate. One well known passage in which they did this was Luke 23:42, the prayer of the dying thief. Here the Greek New Testaments of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza have, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest IN Thy kingdom," with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. But all the English Bibles of that period (Tyndale, Great, Geneva, Bishops', Rheims, King James) have, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest INTO Thy kingdom," with the Latin Vulgate and also with Papyrus 75 and B.

At John 8:6 the King James translators followed the Bishops' Bible in adding the clause, "as though He heard them not." This clause is found in E G H K and many other manuscripts, in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of Stephanus. After 1769 it was placed in italics in the King James Version.

Similarly, at 1 John 2:23 the King James translators followed the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible in adding the clause, "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also," and in placing the clause in italics, thus indicating that it was not found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts or in the earlier editions of the Textus Receptus. Beza included it, however, in his later editions, and it is found in the Latin Vulgate and in Aleph and B. Hence modern versions have removed the italics and given the clause full status. The Bishops' Bible and the King James Version join this clause to the preceding by the word "but," taken from Wyclif. With customary scrupulosity the King James translators enclosed this "but" in brackets, thus indicating that it was not properly speaking part of the text but merely a help in translation.

(B) THE EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS COMPARED THEIR DIFFERENCES LISTED

The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully listed by Scrivener (1884) [Authorized Edition of the English Bible, pp. 56-60,242-63] and Hoskier (1890) [A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604, by H.C. Hoskier, London: David Nutt, 1890, Appendices B & C]. The following are some of the most important of these differences.

Luke 2:22

"their purification" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek manuscripts.

"her purification" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?).

Luke 17:36

"two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other left" -- Erasmus, Stephanus 1 2 3 omit this verse with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Stephanus 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir have it with D, Latin Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Syriac.

John 1:28

"Bethabara beyond Jordan" -- Erasmus, Stephanus 3 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir, Pi 1 13, Old Syriac, Sahidic.

"Bethany beyond Jordan" -- Stephanus 1 2, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 66 & 75 Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.

John 16:33

"shall have tribulation" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, D 69 many other Greek manuscripts, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate.

"have tribulation" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts.

Rom. 8:11

"by His Spirit that dwelleth in you" -- Beza, King James, Elzevir, Aleph A C, Coptic.

"because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including BD, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.

Rom. 12:11

"serving the Lord" -- Erasmus 1, Beza, King James, Elzevir, majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 46 Aleph A B, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.

"serving the time" -- Erasmus 2345, Stephanus, D G.

1 Tim. 1:4

"godly edifying" -- Erasmus, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.

"dispensation of God" -- Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts including Aleph A G.

Heb. 9:1

Here Stephanus reads "first tabernacle," with the majority of the Greek manuscripts. Erasmus, Beza, Luther, Calvin omit "tabernacle" with Pap 46 Aleph B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. The King James Version omits "tabernacle" and regards "covenant" as implied.

James 2:18

"without thy works" -- Calvin, Beza (last 3 editions), King James Aleph A B, Latin Vulgate.

"by thy works" -- Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza 1565, majority of Greek manuscripts.

This comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are also very few. According to Hoskier, the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast!

The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God's special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum. But these disagreements were not eliminated altogether, for this would require not merely providential guidance but a miracle. In short, God chose to preserve the New Testament text providentially rather than miraculously, and this is why even the several editions of the Textus Receptus vary from each other slightly.

BUT WHAT DO WE DO IN THESE FEW PLACES IN WHICH THE SEVERAL EDITIONS OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS DISAGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER? WHICH TEXT DO WE FOLLOW? THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS EASY. WE ARE GUIDED BY THE COMMON FAITH. HENCE WE FAVOR THAT FORM OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS UPON WHICH MORE THAN ANY OTHER GOD, WORKING PROVIDENTIALLY, HAS PLACED THE STAMP OF HIS APPROVAL, NAMELY, THE KING JAMES VERSION, OR, MORE PRECISELY, THE GREEK TEXT UNDERLYING THE KING JAMES VERSION. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener, and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949. In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London by the Trinitarian Bible Society. We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students. For the sake of completeness, however, it would be well to place in the margin the variant readings of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs.

(C) THE KING JAMES OLD TESTAMENT VARIANT READINGS

Along side the text, called kethibh (written), the Jewish scribes had placed in the margin of their Old Testament manuscripts certain variant readings, which they called ken (read). Some of these ken appear in the margin of the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 100:3 the King James text gives the kethibh, "It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves," but the King James margin gives the ken, "It is He that hath made us, and His we are." And sometimes the ken is placed in the King James text (16 times, according to Scrivener). For example, in Micah 1:10 the King James text gives the ken, "in the house of Aphrah roll thyself in the dust." The Hebrew kethibh, however, is, "in the house of Aphrah I have rolled myself in the dust."

Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 24:6 the King James text reads, "O Jacob," with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James margin reads, "O God of Jacob," which is the reading of the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and also of Luther's German Bible. In Jer. 3:9 the King James margin reads "fame" (qal) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. And in Psalm 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, "they pierced my hands and my feet." The Hebrew text, on the other hand, reads, "like a lion my hands and my feet," a reading which makes no sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ.

(D) THE HEADINGS OF THE PSALMS - ARE THEY INSPIRED?

Many of the Psalms have headings. For example, "To the chief Musician, A Psalm and Song of David" (Psalm 65). The King James translators separated these headings and printed them in small type, each one above the Psalm to which it belonged. Some conservative scholars, such as J.A. Alexander (1850) [The Psalms, New York: Scribner, 180, Vol. 1, p. viii], have criticized the King James translators for doing this. These headings, they have insisted, should be regarded as the first verses of their respective Psalms. They give three reasons for this opinion: first, in the Hebrew Bible no distinction is made between the Psalms and their headings; second, the New Testament writers recognized these headings as true; third, each heading is part of the Psalm which it introduces and hence is inspired. This position, however, may go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. In any case, it is better to follow the leading of the King James translators and recognize the obvious difference between the heading of a Psalm and the Psalm itself.

The King James translators handled the subscriptions of the Pauline Epistles similarly, printing each one after its own epistle in small type. But this has never been a problem, since these subscriptions have never been regarded as inspired.

(E) MAXIMUM CERTAINTY VERSUS MAXIMUM UNCERTAINTY

God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided, making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text. Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. And, as we have just observed, the case is the same with the Old Testament text. Here it is hard at times to decide between the kethibh and the ken and between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate versions. Also there has been a controversy concerning the headings of the Psalms.

In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity. In biblical textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are still some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But the special providence of God has kept these uncertainties down to a minimum. Hence if we believe in the special providential preservation of the Scriptures and make this the leading principle of our biblical textual criticism, we obtain maximum certainty,. all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the certainty that we need. For WE ARE LED BY THE LOGIC OF FAITH TO THE MASORETIC HEBREW TEXT, TO THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUS RECEPTUS, AND TO THE KING JAMES VERSION.

But what if we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and deal with the text of the holy Bible in the same way in which we deal with the texts of other ancient books? If we do this, we are following the logic of unbelief, which leads to maximum uncertainty. When we handle the text of the holy Bible in this way, we are behaving as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the providential preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not an important fact, not important enough to be considered when dealing with the text of the holy Bible. But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is not important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired, why is i~ important to insist that Gospel is completely true? And if this is not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God?

In short, UNLESS WE FOLLOW THE LOGIC OF FAITH, WE CAN BE CERTAIN OF NOTHING CONCERNING THE BIBLE AND ITS TEXT. For example, if we make the Bodmer and Chester Beatty Papyri our chief reliance, how do we know that even older New Testament papyri of an entirely different character have not been destroyed by the recent damming of the Nile and the consequent flooding of the Egyptian sands?