Negative Positive
Title: Too much commentary, not enough sound history
Review: The text fails to substantiate the thesis of the title (What revolution? The KJV was a translation meant to stop puritanical influences in the Church of England and gained acceptance only after the failure of the puritan revolution), relying quite a bit on the author's own opinions and prejudices. The author states that Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Laud was trying to drag England back to Romanism(?!?) when he was actually just trying to enforce the use of the Book of Common Prayer and KJV of the Bible. This is bad history based off of poor scholarship. If you want to read a much better (less imaginative, more fact based) text on the Authorized Version of the 1611 Bible and its place in English Church history, read McGrath's "In the Beginning."
Is the review positive or negative? 