Omar Henry’s Reviews > The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism > Status Update

The author deals with another author who, in his view, has the most convincing defence for the Byzantine text-type, which he calls the “majority text.“ He essentially argues that the way textual-criticism is done today makes it the case that one must count the majority readings for a specific set of manuscripts rather than appeal to text-types, because they’re not neatly distinguished from each other.

The author’s arguments are logically and philosophically sound and really show how inconsistent and one-sided many of the arguments for the KJV and TR are. He’s not writing of the KJV completely, he’s simply asking for consistency and realism as the title of the book suggests.

D.A. Carson enters the heart of the debate relative to the KJV. He begins in Chapter 7 with 14 theses that he affirms. He starts off my affirming that there was no Byzantine text-type prior to 350 A.D. If there was, then why can't it be found? Allusions in church fathers are seen in other text-types (the Western text-type in particular). I can't parse out the details of his argument here.

D.A. Carson introduces us to the internal and external criteria for choosing certain manuscripts over others, as well as an introduction into the origins of the Textus Receptus. Chapter 5 is the densest part of the book so far, especially pages 36-37.

Three chapters in and boy, what a lucid introduction! He deals with how the NT was circulated; causes for errors in the manuscript tradition, and text-types— the different buckets of New Testament Greek manuscripts.

So far so good. D.A.Carson has dealt with the introductory matters so far (aim, purpose, scope etc.). From this point onwards, he deals with the actual content of his book.