|
A HISTORY OF MY DEFENCE
OF THE KING JAMES VERSION
Edward F Hills
New Testament Textual Criticism at
Westminster 1935-8
I have been
interested in the problem of New Testament textual criticism since my high
school days in the 1920’s. At that time I began to read the commentaries of
Charles Hodge, books that were part of my Presbyterian heritage. I noticed
that Hodge would sometimes mention variant readings, most however, just to
show that he was knowledgeable, for he rarely departed from “the common
text” (textus receptus) and “our English version” (King James). Even
so, my curiosity was aroused, so that in 1931, when I was a sophomore at
Yale University I took down C R Gregory’s Canon and Text of the New
Testament from a library shelf and began to read. I was dismayed at the
large number of verses that, according to Gregory and his teachers Westcott
and Hort, must be rejected from the Word of God. Nor was I much comforted
by Gregory’s assurance that the necessary damage had been done and the rest
of the text had been placed on an unassailable basis. How could I be sure
of this? It seemed to me that the only way to gain assurance on this point
was to go to Westminster Seminary and study the subject under the tutelage
of Dr Machen, who preached in New Haven rather frequently in those days,
talking to Yale students at least twice.
Dr B B Warfield and the Providential
Preservation of the New Testament
When I began to
study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster (under Dr Stonehouse)
I found that the first day or so was mainly devoted to praising Dr B B
Warfield. He was lauded for being among the first to recognise the “epoch
making” importance of the theory of Westcott and Hort and for establishing
the Westcott and Hort tradition at Princeton Seminary, a tradition which
was now being faithfully perpetuated at Westminster Seminary. To me,
however, all this was very puzzling. Dr Warfield was a renowned defender of
the Reformed faith and of the Westminster Confession, yet in the department
of New Testament textual criticism he agreed entirely with liberals such as
Westcott, Hort and C R Gregory. He professed to agree with the statement of
the Westminster Confession that the Scriptures by God’s “singular care and
providence” had been “kept pure in all ages,” but it was obvious that this
providential preservation of the Scriptures was of no importance to Dr
Warfield when he actually began to deal with the problems of the New
Testament. When he engaged in New Testament textual criticism, Dr Warfield
ignored the providential preservation of the Scriptures and treated the
text of the New Testament as he would the text of any book or writing. “It
matters not whether the writing before us be a letter from a friend, or an
inscription from Carchemish, or a copy of a morning newspaper, or
Shakespeare, or Homer, or the Bible.”
I may be reading
into my student days some of my later thinking, but it seems to me that
even at that time I could see that the logic of Warfield’s naturalistic New
Testament textual criticism led steadily downward toward modernism and
unbelief. For if the providential preservation of the Scriptures was not
important for the study of the New Testament text, then it could not have
been important for the history of the New Testament text. And if it had not
been important for the history of the New Testament, then it must have been
non-existent. It could not have been a fact. And if the providential
preservation of the Scriptures was not a fact, why should the infallible
inspiration of the Scriptures be regarded as a fact? Why would God
infallibly inspire a book and then decline to preserve it providentially?
For example, why would God infallibly inspire the Gospel of Mark and then
permit (as Warfield thought possible) the ending of it (describing the
resurrection appearances of Christ) to be lost?
Why Dr Warfield was so Inconsistent:
His Scholastic Heritage
Why was Dr
Warfield so inconsistent in the realm of New Testament textual criticism?
Dr Van Til’s course in apologetics enabled me to supply the answer to this
question. Dr Warfield’s inconsistency was part of his scholastic
inheritance, an error which had been handed down to him from the
middle-ages. Let me explain.
During the
middle-ages the schoolmen tried to reconcile the philosophy of Aristotle
with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church by separating faith from
reason, and praying from thinking. While dealing with dogma, faith and
prayer were appropriate, but the study of philosophy was reason’s province.
So the medieval schoolmen contended, and soon this doctrine of the
separation of faith from reason became generally accepted throughout the
medieval Roman Catholic Church.
The Protestant
Reformers were fully occupied with other matters. Hence they spent but
little time combating this medieval Roman Catholic error of the separation
of faith and reason. Hence this false scholastic doctrine survived the
Reformation and soon became embedded in the thinking of conservative
Protestants everywhere. In the 18th century, Butler and Paley built their
apologetic systems on this false principle of the separation of faith and
reason, and in the 19th century, at Princeton and other conservative
theological seminaries, this scholastic principle even governed the
curriculum and the way in which several subjects were taught. Systematic
theology, practical theology and homiletics were placed in one box labeled
FAITH. All the other subjects, including New Testament textual criticism,
biblical introduction, apologetics and philosophy, were placed in another
box labeled REASON.
We see now why
Dr Warfield was so inconsistent. We see why he felt himself at liberty to
adopt the naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort, and did not perceive
that in so doing he was contradicting the Westminster Confession and even
his own teaching in the realm of systematic theology. The reason was that
Dr Warfield kept these subjects in separate boxes. Like an authentic,
medieval scholastic, he kept his systematic theology and the Westminster
Confession in his FAITH box and his New Testament textual criticism in his
REASON box. Since he never tried to mingle the contents of these two boxes,
he was never fully aware of the discrepancies in his thinking.
Dean Burgon: His Emphasis on the
Providential Preservation of Scripture
When I began to
study New Testament textual criticism at Westminster in 1935, I noticed
another thing. Almost as much time was spent in disparaging Dean Burgon as
in praising Dr Warfield. This again aroused my curiosity. Who was this Dean
Burgon? Upon investigation, I found that he had been a British scholar that
had not fitted into the usual scholastic mold. He had not kept his theology
and his New Testament textual criticism in two separate boxes, but had
actually dared to make his theology the guiding principle of his New
Testament textual criticism. For this he was pronounced “unscholarly.”
Actually, he was merely following the logic of faith. He believed that the
New Testament was the infallibly inspired Word of God. Hence it had been
preserved down through the ages by God’s special providence, not secretly
in holes and caves and on forgotten library shelves but publicly in the
usage of God’s Church. Hence the text found in the vast majority of the New
Testament manuscripts is the true text because this is the text that has
been used by God’s Church. As soon as I began to read Burgon’s works, I was
impressed by this logic of faith and also by the learned arguments by which
Burgon refuted the contention of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott, Hort,
etc. Finally after some years of hesitation, I definitely committed myself
to his view in 1952.
But there are
problems connected with Burgon’s view. Burgon was a high Anglican who
emphasised the role of bishops in the history of the Church. He believed
that the New Testament text had been preserved mainly by the bishops of the
ancient and medieval Church. Hence he defended the text found in the
majority of the New Testament manuscripts, but he would not defend the
printed Textus Receptus because it had not been produced by bishops.
He would, however, defend the King James Version because this had been
produced by bishops. Here he was inconsistent because the King James
Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus.
We solve this
problem by substituting the biblical doctrine of the universal priesthood
of believers for Burgon’s high Anglicanism. Just as the Old Testament text
was preserved by the Old Testament priests, so the New Testament text was
preserved by the universal priesthood of believers, that is by true
believers in every walk of life. And this providential preservation did not
cease with the invention of printing. Hence the true text is found not only
in the text of the majority of the New Testament manuscripts but more
especially in the Textus Receptus and in faithful translations of
the Textus Receptus, such as the King James Version. In short, the
Textus Receptus represents the God-guided revision of the majority
text.
Burgon mingled
his faith with his New Testament textual criticism, urging the providential
preservation of the Scriptures as the chief argument in favour of the
traditional (majority) New Testament text. It was for this breach of
etiquette that he was regarded as not truly scholarly. But isn’t it
possible to escape this stigma and still do a good job of defending the
majority text? Isn’t it possible to drop Burgon’s emphasis on the special,
providential preservation of Scripture and rely solely on more accurate
arguments? Hodges, Pickering and Van Bruggen seem to think this is
possible, but in so thinking they are badly mistaken. The same thing must
be said of them that has just been said of Dr Warfield. In spite of their
good intentions, their thinking is pointed toward modernism and unbelief.
For if the providential preservation of the holy Scriptures is unimportant
for the defence of the New Testament text, then it must be unimportant for
the history of the New Testament text and hence non-existent and not a
fact. And if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not a fact,
why should we suppose that the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures is
a fact? For inspiration and preservation go together.
Hodges and
Pickering try to substitute their theory of statistical probability for
Burgon’s doctrine of the special providential preservation of the
Scriptures. According to these two scholars, statistical probability shows
that whenever the transmission of an ancient book has been normal, the best
text is found in the majority of the manuscripts. The transmission of the
New Testament text has been normal. Hence the text found in the majority of
the New Testament manuscripts is the best New Testament text.
In advancing
this argument, however, Hodges and Pickering contradict themselves. For
they both claim to believe in the providential preservation of the
Scriptures, and if this providential preservation is a fact, then something
is true of the New Testament which is not true of the transmission of other
ancient books. Hence the transmission of the New Testament cannot have been
normal. And even from a naturalistic point of view their argument is
faulty. For the New Testament is a religious book, and the transmission of
a religious book is never normal because it is transmitted mainly by
believers who do not regard it as a normal book.
Scholasticism Versus the Logic of
Faith
Conservative
theological seminaries organised on the scholastic model, separating faith
and reason, inevitably become modernistic and unbelieving. The area
allotted to reason is steadily enlarged and that remaining for faith
correspondingly decreased. The box labeled FAITH is emptied, while REASON’S
box is crammed full. This process of deterioration cannot be avoided
because as soon as we give reason an equal place with faith in our thinking
we have no true faith at all. God is the Supreme Reality, the source of all
things real, and therefore, we must believe on Him as such. We must allow
nothing else to be as real as God. If we found even a part of our thinking
on a set of rational principles which are independent of God, then we are
no longer believing but doubting.
We see,
therefore, that if Westminster Seminary is to preserve itself from
modernism, it must purge itself from all remnants of scholasticism. It must
rid itself completely from every tendency to separate reason from faith.
And especially must it do this in the department of New Testament textual
criticism. In this area particularly it must put away the naturalistic
theories of Westcott and Hort and others like them and follow the logic of
faith which runs like this: Because the Gospel is true and necessary for
the salvation of souls, the Bible which contains this Gospel was infallibly
inspired and has been preserved by God’s special providence, not secretly
in holes and caves, but publicly in the usage of God’s Church.
Moreover, this
special providence did not cease with the invention of printing. Therefore,
the true New Testament text is found today in the majority of the Greek New
Testament manuscripts, in the Textus Receptus, and in the King James
Version and other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus. And
therefore also this same preserving providence is operating today through
the agency of all true believers, however humble, who retain and defend the
King James Version.
Dr Edward
Freer Hills (1912-81) was a distinguished Latin and Phi Beta Kappa graduate
of Yale University. He earned his theological degrees from Westminster
Theological Seminary (BTh), Columbia Theological Seminary (ThM), and
Harvard Divinity School (ThD). He also did doctoral work at the University
of Chicago on New Testament textual criticism, and authored The King James
Version Defended, and Believing Bible Study, both of which may be ordered
from The Christian Research Press, P O Box 13023, Des Moines, Iowa
50310-0023, USA. The above article is printed by permission of Mrs Edward F
Hills. She wrote in a kind letter (Oct 28 ’97), “It is indeed very
encouraging to learn that a Presbyterian College is a strong supporter of
the KJV. Dr. Hills’ book, The King James Version Defended, will furnish
your students with the facts they will need for its defense. It may
interest you to know that Dr. Hills and Dr. (Carl) McIntire were classmates
at Westminster Seminary. For years we profited from the Christian Beacon
and were saddened to see it out of print.”
- Published in
The Burning Bush,
Volume 4 Number 2 (July 1998)
Top
/ Back
|
