The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

by D.A. Carson

Have you ever heard something like this: “The King James Version is the best English translation there is”? Some even go so far as to suggest that it is the only inspired version, and that using another borders on heretical. Have you ever not been exactly sure what to think about this or how to address these arguments? For those in this situation, D.A. Carson provides a great starting point in this book.

This book is divided into two sections: The Textual Question and Non-textual Questions. The former is concerned with what is known as textual criticism. In addition to addressing the issue of textual criticism in regard to the King James Version, it also provides something of an introduction to the subject of textual criticism for those who have little experience in it. After building a case that addresses some general textual critical issues, he concludes this section with Fourteen Theses specific to the King James Version debate. These theses include such things as “The Byzantine text-type is demonstrably a secondary text”; “The Alexandrian text-type has better credentials than any other text-type now available”; “The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is logically and theologically fallacious”; and eleven others. Each thesis is explained in more detail (and the preceding chapters provide the framework you need for understanding technical terminology like “Byzantine,” “Alexandrian,” and “text-type”).

The non-textual questions section is very short, and is focused primarily on the questions of how to translate the Greek. It addresses those who argue that the King James is the “most literal” or “the best” translation on the merits of the translation (as opposed to the text that backs up the translation).

Overall, Carson does an excellent job of arguing why we should not marry ourselves to the KJV-Only doctrine. If you’ve ever questioned this or know others who have, this little book is a great starting point for better understanding the technicalities of the debate.