Book Review - The Doctrine of Scripture
The Doctrine of Scripture: As It Relates to the Transmission and Preservation of the Text by Jason Harris is published by InFocus Ministries in Australia. I’m excited to recommend this new book to our readers here in the United States as I believe this book can go a long way toward helping those confused or entangled by King James Onlyism. Jason is a long-time SI member, and that is one reason why I am enthusiastic about this book. Another reason is more selfish: I was privileged to write the foreword to this book.
For the record, I am even more pleased with the final product than the pre-published copy I first read several months ago. I stand by my statements in the foreword (included below) and share additional thoughts on the book in the review below.
My foreword
Another book on the King James Only debate? Much ink has been spilled and many passions expended in what may be the ugliest intramural debate plaguing conservative, Bible-believing churches today. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, Baptists and Presbyterians, Reformed and charismatic—all have been affected to a greater or lesser extent by those arguing for or against the King James or New King James Versions of the Bible. With each new book it seems the debate becomes more and more caustic, each group castigating the other in ever more forceful terminology.
Jason Harris enters the fray with the right blend of humility and tenacity, and turns the attention of all to the true center of the debate: the doctrine of Scripture. What makes this debate so passionate is that it centers on the very nature of Scripture. Rather than focus on technical facts and ancient manuscript copying practices, Harris takes us back to what Scripture says about itself: its inspiration, preservation and accessibility. In doing so, he demonstrates how those upholding the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus behind it, base their position not on sound exegesis of the Scripture, but on tenuous assumptions read into the text.
Harris’s pen is lucid and his grasp of the King James Only debate as a whole is masterful. He focuses his work on TR-only position which represents the very best of King James Only reasoning. He interacts with the exegesis of key TR-only proponents and marshals compelling evidence demonstrating their failure to measure up to Scripture’s own teaching about itself. And after explicating the doctrine of Scripture, Harris draws important conclusions which should protect the reader from making simplistic assumptions in a quest for textual certainty that goes beyond what Scripture teaches we should expect.
Harris wants us to be confident that we do have the inspired Scripture translated accurately in our English Bibles. He wants such confidence to be rooted to a Scriptural understanding of the Doctrine of Scripture rather than in the “supernatural-guidance” of a group of sixteenth-Century translators. Assuming that such a group of men made no mistakes is to expect something Scripture doesn’t teach, and ignore what it does. Harris is to be commended for such a clear, lucid defense of the historic doctrine of Scripture. I hope his book is received well and helps laymen and pastors everywhere to begin to rethink the basis for why they think as they do when it comes to the King James Only debate. [pp. 9-10]
Additional thoughts
After re-reading this book and seeing the published version, I am more optimistic than ever about its promise to provide clarity to the King James Only debate. Jason Harris’s book has a few characteristics which together make it a unique contribution to this debate.
First, his book focuses on the alleged doctrine of the verbal, plenary accessibility of Scripture. This is where the root of the KJV and TR preference lies for many people. The argument is not so much based on texts and manuscripts as it is on what allegedly the Bible teaches—that the very words of Scripture (all of them down to the letters) would be generally accessible to believers down through the ages. Harris spends most of his time marshalling a Scriptural rebuttal to these claims and also demonstrates the difficulties such a position has when it comes to the history of the text as we know it.
Second, this volume carefully builds a theology of the transmission and preservation of Scripture. Such a careful, exegetically-based explication of the doctrine of Scripture has been lacking in this debate. And such a gap has often been used by KJV-only proponents to their advantage. It is KJV-only books which start with a Scriptural position and then look at the evidence, with the “anti-KJV” books starting with history and evidence and then moving to the Scriptural arguments. This book is different and starts where the debate starts for most of the sincere beleivers who get swept up into it—it starts on Scripture’s teaching about the very nature and preservation of Scripture.
Finally, Harris keeps a very irenic tone throughout. He is careful not to overstate his case and exaggerate the claims of his opponents. This is especially difficult to do when it comes to this heated debate, but Jason pulls this off well. Additionally, he backs up his book with the inclusion of a vast array of footnotes documenting the claims he is arguing against. I appreciate how he does not direct his argument toward the Riplingers and Ruckmans of this debate. He focuses on the TR-only position and the more careful wing of KJV-onlyism, men like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, Charles Surret, and the like. Harris has read widely in the KJV only literature, and his treatment avoids broadbrushing and generalizations that tend to give KJV-only propoents an easy out. It’s easy to dismiss a book as not being directed to their particular position, or to claim the author makes egregious errors and lumps their position in with that of heretical views. Harris’s book is not open to such charges. He directs his case against the very best arguments of KJV-onlyism.
Had I been exposed to such a book I would have been inoculated to the pull of the KJV-only persuasion. As it happened, I was swept up in a TR-only view that made it seem like we had the corner on truth and everyone else was compromising. By God’s grace I came to understand that Scripture does not support such a view of the transmission of the text.
Jason Harris is to be thanked for giving us a tool to recommend to those thinking through this issue from within, and to help the ones who are being pressured to join the KJV-only position. I highly recommend The Doctrine of Scripture and hope it makes its way into the hands of anyone struggling with this issue who will yet be open-minded enough to study out the issue from both sides.
About the author
Jason Harris has a passion for communicating God’s word and has spoken at conferences and retreats throughout Australia and around the world. Jason has been involved with Worship Music since 1996 and InFocus since 2005. Jason has degrees in theology, music, and accounting and is currently a research student and lecturer in the School of Business at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia.
Disclaimer
This book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
Bob Hayton Bio
Bob Hayton has a BA in Pastoral Theology with a Greek emphasis and a MA in Bible from Fairhaven Baptist College and Seminary in Chesterton, IN. He is a happily married father of seven who resides in St. Paul, MN. Since 2005, he has been blogging theology at FundamentallyReformed.com, where he has also published over 190 book reviews. He can also be found occasionally at KJVOnlyDebate.com.
- 40 views
Normally, I would say that the best way to research a field is to gather the resources and then throw out everything that isn’t in the top tier of scholarly research. So, that means that normally I would tell people not to read this book, based simply on the lack of scholarly standing of both author and publisher.
The KJVO debate is different, though. It occurs exclusively in regions of Christianity that don’t interact with the scholarly sphere. It bypasses scholarly debate entirely and perpetuates itself entirely through self-published books, pamphlets, and websites, as well as (often) self-proclaimed preachers. So, I suppose if you want to enter the debate, you yourself have to forego some scholarly protocols. After all, reputable publishers like Oxford probably don’t even know this stuff exists and reputable scholars come from segments of Christianity where this isn’t an issue.
I do wonder, though, whether these books do that much. It seems to me that the problem is information control. Extremism is bred in isolation; it is nurtured by homogeneity. If you could somehow just get people to interact more widely, most of the extreme views would disappear on their own.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Good thoughts Charlie. There is an innate distrust of scholarship and a conspiracy-theory mindset in people ready to find a Satanic deception with regard to this issue. That factors in as well.
With this book, it approaches the issue from the realm of what Scripture says about itself - and taking that approach will hopefully gain a hearing from some. But I agree that information control, ignorance, and isolation from scholarship makes this particular issue so difficult to address.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Dave Barnhart
[Charlie]Normally, I would say that the best way to research a field is to gather the resources and then throw out everything that isn’t in the top tier of scholarly research. So, that means that normally I would tell people not to read this book, based simply on the lack of scholarly standing of both author and publisher.
The KJVO debate is different, though. It occurs exclusively in regions of Christianity that don’t interact with the scholarly sphere. It bypasses scholarly debate entirely and perpetuates itself entirely through self-published books, pamphlets, and websites, as well as (often) self-proclaimed preachers. So, I suppose if you want to enter the debate, you yourself have to forego some scholarly protocols. After all, reputable publishers like Oxford probably don’t even know this stuff exists and reputable scholars come from segments of Christianity where this isn’t an issue.
I do wonder, though, whether these books do that much. It seems to me that the problem is information control. Extremism is bred in isolation; it is nurtured by homogeneity. If you could somehow just get people to interact more widely, most of the extreme views would disappear on their own.
While it is true that many of scholars are not involved in this issue, D. A. Carson wrote a wonderful book on the issue back in 1979 titled, The King James Only Debate: a plea for realism. It is a helpful book from a godly and gifted teacher.
White’s book The King James Only Controversy steered me out of the KJVO camp.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I liked Carson’s book and White’s. What really got me thinking was actually E.F. Hills’ book The King James Version Defended, he didn’t wish away the few errors in the Textus Receptus and the King James, but rather identified them and concluded “maximum certainty” was better than “maximum uncertainty.” For me, his book caused deep questions that I eventually followed out of the KJV only movement.
One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims of the King James Version edited by Kevin Bauder and Roy Beacham (published by Kregel) is probably the best single book on the topic. But the book I reviewed above is unique in that it develops a full orbed doctrine of Scripture and starts with that before looking at evidence and historical/textual matters. His appendix on the doctrine of the deity of Christ in the NIV is really good as well.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Dave:
If you’re happy with the KJV, then continue using it and God bless. It is a fine translation. I don’t believe this should be a burning issue in our churches, unless you have to answer the “God re-inspired the KJV” folks. No need to make this issue so divisive.
My Pastor would side with you on this one. I personally prefer the ESV, but preach from the KJV in church because that is our translation. It isn’t a big deal to me. It shouldn’t be a do or die proposition for other Christians either.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Dave Gilbert]the “King James” ( the only surviving Reformation-era Bible currently still in print today )
Clearly you mean “in English.” A quick look at Amazon.de shows plenty of Luther Bibles available.
I speak both languages and have compared Luther with the KJV and find they often say things a little differently from one another as well, and for your information, the Luther predates the KJV.
Just something else for you to think about.
I love and use the KJV as my main Bible as well, but to think it’s the standard where all others aren’t, well, I can’t agree.
Dave Barnhart
Dave Gilbert,
The Geneva Bible 1560 is still in print, I have a copy of it. I also have a Matthew’s 1537 reprint (still in print) and a Tyndale 1535 New Testmament (still in print). All of these are available at christianbook.com / Hendrickson Publishers.
None of them are exactly the same - and you could hardly read Matthew’s or Tyndale’s due to how much English has change in its orthography (print and spelling) since that time.
The Dutch Estates-General translation is still available and that was really the crowning achievement of the Reformation coming at 1637 toward it’s end.
The Luther Bible doesn’t have 1 John 5:7, by the way. And the Geneva Bible is quite different at Rev. 16:5 from the King James Version. The KJV itself is quite different now, compared to 1611. The one you use is either from a textual stream originating in 1762 or 1769 - there are two basic streams of KJVs today with multitudes of variations among them. Small inconsistencies and minor differences, but different and thus contradictory nonetheless.
What did people do before 1611? They had several English Bibles available, and after 1611 it took about 80 years or so before the KJV took pride of place away from the Geneva Bible which fizzled for lack of sales and government civil wars and what have you (big fire in London too).
The American Baptists in the 1800s printed at least two of their own revisions. Noah Webster also created a Bible in the 1800s. There were editions and revisions, but none very popular. Then in the mid-late 1800s, there was a romantic movement that looked at previous eras as “golden ages” and this directly influenced how people began to think about the Elizabethan English in the KJV and they put it on a pedestal - even as scholars saw and knew all along that there were real deficiencies.
All this being said, I don’t defend many of the translations available today. But holding onto the revered KJV for so long is partly to blame for this mess. Resisting a new universal translation led to everyone trying to put forth a usable translation.
A lot of what you have said amounts to a wishful-thinking view of history. I wish it was all settled in 1611 too. And then we could get on with it. But it wasn’t settled, and the KJV has real deficiencies and hence we have this debate still today.
A question would be what do you expect people who speak other languages to use for God’s Word? And what about those areas that have no translation in their language at all?
The KJV is a good translation, but so are other modern translations. The variance in the Greek manuscripts has been preserved by God. We can pretend it doesn’t exist, sweep it under the rug, blame it on the devil and pretend like we have a definitive, settled-on, English Bible, or we can be people of the truth, and grapple with the evidence we have.
In 1789, Dr. John Symonds said the following: “But is error ever so valuable an inheritance that it ought never to be relinquished?” I think it is pertinent to this debate. Yes we were given a literary masterpiece and a beautiful translation in the KJV - but do we need to continue to perpetuate its flaws, just because by doing so we can have a “standard”?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Discussion