# D.A. Carson's "King James Only Debate"



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 21, 2011)

Hi:

Out of curiosity I ordered D.A. Carson's book on the KJV Debate for my Kindle, and, even though it is intended for popular audiences, I was a bit surprised at some of the bold statements he makes.

In his book he formulates 14 Thesis'. The first thesis brought up a question in my mind:



> Thesis 1: _There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century._ This point may be established by: (1) determining if there are any Greek manuscripts of pre-A.D. 350 date which reflect the Byzantine text-type; (2) examining pre-A.D. 350 versions for the same information; (3) reading the New Testament quotations found in the writings of the pre-A.D. 350 church fathers to discover if the biblical passages they quote approximate any particular text-type. In each case the evidence is uniform: the mature Byzantine text-type appears nowhere before the fourth century.


I think that all three of these points can be disputed to a degree, but what raises a question in my mind is his point #3. Is he aware of Dr. Burgon's extensive work on the Early Church Fathers? (_The Traditional Text_, New York: Cosimo, 118-122). And how Dr. Burgon shows that the majority of quotes used by the Early Church Fathers were Byzantine in nature?

I have heard that Dr. Kenyon argued that Dr. Burgon did not use critical editions of the Early Fathers, but that sounds to me more like an adhominen argument rather than substantial criticism. Did Dr. Kenyon know exactly what texts Dr. Burgon actually used? Where did he get such information from?

So, my question is: Does anybody know of any substantial argument that has debunked Dr. Burgon's statements? If so, then where can I find them?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 21, 2011)

*A Collection of Items by M. Robinson*

From my never ending collection of items that may or may not be useful to some:

View attachment 2045




AMR


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 21, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> s he aware of Dr. Burgon's extensive work on the Early Church Fathers?



Doesn't he reference the work of Burgon at the end of the book (perhaps in an appendix). I know he references and interacts with Letis, but I thought he did the same with Burgon (I don't have the book in front of me at present).


----------



## MW (Mar 21, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> So, my question is: Does anybody know of any substantial argument that has debunked Dr. Burgon's statements? If so, then where can I find them?


 
Given the current commitment to an eclectic text, the adjective "mature" in Dr. Carson's statement probably helps his cause. The mature text is its concrete form which it has developed into. Much of Burgon's work shows some deviation with the final form of the Byzantine text but with a definite leaning towards the Byzantine text type in contrast to other types.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 24, 2011)

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Carson, however in this case I think he is simply following the accepted academic certainty that the Alexandrian type texts are superior. I personally disagree. It is also interseting to note that only one major group of Christians still adheres strictly to the Byzantine text types, the Greek Orthodox church. Interesting because they have always spoken Greek and the bible was written in Greek. Makes you say, Hmmmmm.


----------

