The Christian Biographies for Young Readers series introduces children to key figures from church history. Author Simonetta Carr offers a compelling and beautifully illustrated historical account of the life of each Christian figure profiled in the series. To date, the series includes volumes on Church fathers (Irenaeus, Augustine of Hippo, Athanasius, Anselm of Canterbury), Reformation leaders (John Calvin, Martin Luther, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John Knox), Reformation era heroines (Lady Jane Grey and Marie Durand), and Puritan notables (John Owen and Jonathan Edwards). The latest volume adds John Newton, to this last category.
John Newton has quite the life story! Kids will be intrigued by his adventures as a sailor, conscripted British Navy-man, and even would-be slave trader. Newton’s pre-conversion days read a little like Gulliver’s travels, but he ends up committing himself to Christ as a result of a brush with death in a near shipwreck.
Newton is best remembered, of course, for his incredibly famous hymn “Amazing Grace”. And this book also highlights his friendship with fellow hymn-writer William Cowper. What is not so widely known about Newton was his influence in the abolition of the slave trade. Carr details how William Wilberforce was influenced by Newton both personally and professionally. Newton was called on as a special witness by British Parliament two times in the years leading up to the eventual end of the slave trade in Great Britain.
Having read many of her works, I appreciate Simonetta Carr’s attention to detail and focus on historical accuracy — evident in this latest book as well. And this book is chuck full of photographs, beautiful illustrations, maps and more. Two of Newton’s letters to his young niece are included, as is a picture of an original handwritten leaf from his Olney Hymns.
The book will introduce young readers to the legacy of John Newton, but it educates and enlightens older readers as well. For instance, did you know that “Amazing Grace” was written to accompany a New Year’s message on the text 1 Chronicles 17:16-17 where David says “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is mine house, that thou has brought me hitherto?” (p. 56). I was particularly moved by the emphasis she placed on Newton’s own simple epitaph he wanted for his memorial:
John Newton clerk. Once an infidel and libertine, a servant of slaves in Africa, was by the rich mercy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned and appointed to preach the faith he had long labored to destroy. (p. 54)
This book deserves a place in church or school libraries, and would make a great addition to your coffee table or personal bookcase. If you haven’t picked up a title in the Christian Biographies for Young Readers series, now would be a good time. You won’t be disappointed with John Newton. I highly recommend it.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Reformation Heritage Books. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
If you are looking for a great read this summer, you should check out Oswald by Edoardo Albert. This is the second book in “The Northumbrian Thrones” series. The books follow the rise and fall of key British kings from the seventh century.
In the first book, Edwin becomes High King of Northumbria and embraces Christianity. In this book, Oswald returns from exile to claim his crown. The history behind this fiction is well researched. The names and spirit of the book are authentic, and the characters developed masterfully.
Check out my review of Edwin (book 1). I’ll be reviewing Oswald later this month. I’m looking forward to following another thrilling journey of a Christian king from the seventh century.
Here’s an excerpt from my review of Edwin which illustrates what you’ll find in this book too:
Edoardo Albert, writer and historian in his own right, tells the story of Edwin with as much power as any scop or bard from times past. Edwin is a fictional account yet most of its key plotlines and characters are historical. The book is the first in a trilogy called The Northumbrian Thrones.
The tale is fast paced and moving. Albert adds such historical detail that he makes you believe you are there….
The history of medeival Britain has long fascinated me and so I thoroughly enjoyed this book. If you enjoy fantasy fiction in the vein of J.R.R. Tolkien, Terry Brooks, or Stephen Lawhead, this book will delight. Learning that it is mostly true to life will surprise you as it did me. I encourage you to give it a try.
Pick up a copy of this book from any of the following retailers:
50 years ago this August, the NIV translation was commissioned and the Committee on Bible Translation was born. After years of labor from a broad group of Evangelical scholars, the New Testament would be published in 1973 followed by the entire NIV Bible in 1978.
By all accounts, the NIV was an incredible success. It filled a need and provided a faithfully translated, widely available, and clearly understandable Bible in modern English. It was a major milestone in the history of Evangelicalism and most of us would agree that its impact was positive on the wider church. Even its critics, for the most part, respect the NIV in its mission and goal. Who doesn’t want to bring God’s Word to people in an understandable translation?
Over the summer, Zondervan will be releasing new resources marking the upcoming 50th Anniversary of what is really the birth of the NIV. Today I wanted to share a couple interesting articles and a video.
The following two articles showcase what a sacrifice was involved in bringing the NIV to completion. From unsuccessful pledge drives to an eleventh hour pitch to Zondervan for advance funding, to the sacrifice of scholars risking their future advancement by devoting time to this project, the project was tenuous. But who could have imagined the ultimate result: with the NIV becoming the most widely used English version?
The more I have studied the translation philosophy of the NIV, the more I have come to respect it. I hope to offer a review and analysis of Douglas Moo’s brief work (offered as a free ebook) on the state of Bible translation 50 years after the NIV, soon.
I leave you with two videos giving a brief overview of the continuing mission of the CBT and the NIV. Learn more about the NIV’s 50th anniversary at www.thenivbible.com/50th-anniversary.
Reformation Gems are excerpts from selections contained in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, a new commentary series from IVP which gathers the best Reformation-era comments on the text together all in one set. The volumes in this commentary series resurrect long-forgotten voices from the Reformation age and in so doing they recover the piety and vivacity of that era. I hope that by sharing some excerpts from this series, I will edify my readers and promote this important commentary series. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Today’s selection comes from the latest volume in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series: Volume XI (Philippians, Colossians). Henry Airay, was the author of “one of the seventeenth century’s most prominent commentaries on the book of Philippians in English” (p. xlix). In commenting on Phil. 3:4-6, Airay zeroes in on the importance of placing one’s confidence in nothing but Christ.
Here is the excerpt from Airay’s work originally published in 1613 (with key sentences bolded for emphasis):
Confidence in Nothing but Christ.
Henry Airay: Let this, then, teach us not to have confidence in any outward thing whatsoever without Christ. You are baptized; it is well: so was Simon Magus (Acts 8:13). [You partake of] the Lord’s Table; it is well: so, no doubt, did Judas. He who eats and drinks worthily is made one with Christ, and Christ with him. But “he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks his own damnation” (1 Cor. 11:29). You are born of holy and godly parents; it is well: so were Ishmael and Esau. “They which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom. 9:8). You are of a holy profession; it is well: so was Demas. Holiness of profession does not commend to God, but a heart purified by faith which works through love. You distribute to the poor and do many good things; it is well: so did the Pharisees, and the young man in the Gospel (Mt 19:20). “Though I feed the poor with all my goods, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor 13:3). In a word, there is nothing under heaven without Christ that does profit us, so that we should rejoice or have confidence in it. (pg. 75, words in brackets added in an attempt to capture the flow of Airay’s thought)
About the Reformation-era author: Henry Airay (c. 1560-1616). English Puritan professor and pastor. He was especially noted for his preaching, a blend of hostility toward Catholicism and articulate exposition of English Calvinism. He was promoted to provost of Queen’s College Oxford (1598) and then to vice chancellor of the university in 1606. He disputed with William Laud concerning Laud’s putative Catholicization of the Church of England, particularly over the practice of genuflection, which Airay vehemently opposed. He also opposed fellow Puritans who wished to separate from the Church of England. His lectures on Philippians were his only work published during his lifetime. (pg. 264)
From time to time, I’ll be mining the archives around here. I’m digging up my blog’s best posts from the past. I hope these reruns will still serve my readers.
God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words “It is written” throughout the NT)
God has promised that these words will be available to His people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and Is. 59:21)
God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be the means by which He preserves His words through their reception, recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)
Believing in these three points, however, does not automatically make one a KJVO-ist. Many people believe that all of God’s words have been preserved in the totality of the manuscript evidence. They would also contend that God’s Word has generally been available wherever His people have been found (although it may not always be available in the vernacular language). The fact that God uses churches to help preserve His words is agreed on in the sense of canonization, and probably realized in the prevention of clearly heretical readings or obviously spurious readings (for instance Marcion’s canon). Most conservative Bible believers have not agreed with a strict local church only theology [editor’s note: the idea that the Bible does not teach that there is a “universal church” but that God works through local churches only], and so they would look to the universal church and how they received and helped propagate God’s Word. In fact today, most churches allow varying English translations, and it has been a rare event in history for churches and denominations to forbid the use of other translations or the comparing of texts and variants. So these 3 points do not necessarily demand a KJVO position.
The proponents of KJV-onlyism seem to have a particular purpose or spin for each of these points as it relates to the KJV only issue. Point 1 is what lets them hold to an all-or-nothing mentality in regards to Bible versions. If you do not hold to the KJV you are not holding to the Bible (although most do not take this as far as Ruckmanites do, or as far as some who insist people can only be saved from the KJV). Point 2 is what allows them to write off any other text except the TR. All other texts are later than the TR and so were not available before 1881 (Westcott and Hort’s first widely accepted critical text). This also allows them to discount the readings of papyrii or MSS like Sinaiticus only recently discovered. Point 3 is what further authenticates and validates the choice of the TR against any claims that it is a poor representative of the Byzantine Text family. The churches used the KJV and it was based on the TR, therefore the TR must be God’s preserved Word.
The third point centers on the role of the church in KJVO-ism, and is what I intend to focus the rest of this post on. This point at first glance, appears to give authentication to the KJV-only position. Since the churches used the KJV for 350 years and since they used the TR then this settles the issue. Any other text was not authenticated and is trying to restore the text, when in fact the churches received the text (textus receptus) already. Also, this point is used to specify which form of the TR is to be viewed as the best (usually called perfect). Since the church accepted the KJV and used it, they then verified the form of the TR which was its basis. This form was later put together in one Greek text (since they used more than one Greek text for the KJV) by Scrivener in 1894.
The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus authenticated the TR is making a historical judgment. It is not something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain them briefly.
That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual choice.
That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and definitive choice.
That the choices of English Christians are more important than those of others.
That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts do deny the availability of every word.
That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual reading.
In the history of the English Bible, gradually the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible as the Bible of choice for the church. Why? It became apparent that it was a better translation than the Geneva. There were virtually no other major English translations attempted and consequently the church just used what it had. [Editor’s note: I would now add that the political climate of England during and after its civil war was a boon to the KJV since the Geneva Bible’s notes were considered treasonous.] Is this a positive choice or a default choice? The use of the TR also was due to its being the only commercially available text. Stephanus’ editions of it became very popular because of his list of textual variants. Presumably a text based on a different Greek family would have been popular as well, but remember this era was still the renaissance of Greek literature. MSS were being discovered, and facts were being compiled concerning the history of the transmission of the Greek text. The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin Vulgate which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was available, stop and ask yourself this question. Does using the best available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly accept each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and pastors, even, who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical text (see this article as an example of this with regards to Tregelles’ defense of several significant variant readings before the discovery of Sinaiticus).
I have spoken a little in regards to assumption 2 above already. But let me note that John Wesley offered several thousand corrections to the TR, and Martin Luther never accepted 1 Jn. 5:7 (excluding it from his translation which was accepted by his followers). Calvin, Beza, Erasmus–they all preferred various textual variants (or even emendations) over and against the TR. Now some would exclude everyone mentioned here and focus only on Baptists. Yet the fact that Baptists attempted correcting the TR in their own translations in the 1800s (which was when Bible Committes and Unions were beginning to form due to a renewed interest in missions) and the fact that Baptists accepted and used the RV and ASV would argue that they had not unanimously viewed the KJV as perfect.
With regard to assumption 3, some might counter that most Baptists were English so that is why English choices are so important. I contend that the Dutch Estates General Version was as revered by the Dutch Christians and it was also solidly based on the TR (Elzevir’s 1633 edition). It seems to be snobbery either for English or for Baptists which would exclude the texts and versions held by other languages. In fact, it is interesting to note that the English held to a priority of the 1550 Stephanus’ 3rd edition, whereas the Europeans held to a priority of the 1633 Elzevir’s–neither of these are Beza’s 1598 which most closely resembles Scrivener’s 1894.
Assumption 4 is a sticking point for KJVO-ists. And they know it. If Beza’s 1598 can differ from Scrivener’s 1894 apx. 190 times, how can you tell which one is perfect? Did the churches accept the 1611 readings of the KJV or the 1769 readings of the KJV (which is essentially your modern KJV). There are differences beyond just spelling and orthography–I think it stands at around 400 differences (by a KJVO-ist’s count). If we assume that we do not need all the inspired words in one document in order for them to be available, we have conceeded the entire premise of the preservation in the totality of the manuscripts view. If the average John in 1600 was dependent on comparing a few English versions and trying to keep abreast with different Greek editions of the TR in order to really have each word that was inspired available to him, how is this any different from the average Joe today? In light of allowing for differences between TR editions, how authoritative can we view the fact that the churches used the KJV. How does that establish which textual readings are correct? If we say only the exact choices of the KJV translators are to be received, how were the churches who used the Geneva Bible before the creation of the KJV to know which readings to choose?
The fifth assumption seems especially egregious. It amounts to a blind trust in one’s historical application of Biblical beliefs. A blind trust in a particular interpretation which is not textually demanded. KJVO-ists basically have a “history-is-unkowable” trump card. They gladly marshall the historical fact that Sinaiticus was only recently unburied as a prime argument against the critical texts, yet they say history-is-unkowable when asked concerning texts like Rev. 16:5. The history we have strongly suggests that Beza conjecturally emended the text to read “shalt be” instead of “Holy One”–so says even KJVO defender E.F. Hills (see his Defending the King James Bible, pg. 208). Yet KJVO-ists can glibly say since we cannot know infallibly that Beza did not have textual support back then, we can gladly assume he did, even though no support (at all in any language) exists today! When history (and facts) say the Greek texts did not contain a reading (as in Acts 9:5-6, Rev. 22:19, or 1 Jn. 5:7–and many others) KJVO-ists can allow for preservation through the Latin translation of the Greek (even though this would make such preservation unavailable to Greek speakers in the Byzantine Empire), as Hills does. When we speak of superiority of texts, KJVO-ists trumpet the majority of Greek texts favoring their text. Yet in many of the examples mentioned above, if just one Greek text or Hebrew text can be marshalled in favor of a reading, they feel that they have successfully defended their position! This assumption is wonderful for them. They can speak out of both sides of their mouth at the same time!
In conclusion, I think I have demonstrated that the church’s acceptance of the KJV by no means infallibly argues for the KJVO position. In fact, the KJVO-ists are glad to allow for a period of formation for their text. After the invention of printing, around 100 or more years are allowed for the development of their text. Yet the fact that the church decided to use that newly available text somehow closes the door to its development. Todays critical texts are in the same line as that text. Much of the preliminary work which allows for their existence today was done immediately after the formation of the TR during the development and refinement of textual criticism methods. The churches today, including the majority of Baptist churches, have accepted the modern versions, just as Charles Spurgeon and the church leaders at the beginning of the modern versions era did. There was no once-for-all acceptance or determinative choice of the TR as the perfect text.
I have no problem allowing the Bible to guide my textual choices. Yet I stand with the majority of God’s people in affirming that the Bible does not specify where its preserved words are to be found. It does not specify how they will be preserved–in other words in one text or in one family, in one book, or in the totality of every copy. KJVO-ists commendably let the Bible’s principles guide their textual choices, but they foolishly refuse to acknowledge that much of their application and decisions made as a result of their presuppositions are not clearly demanded from the text. A few KJVO defenders do acknowledge this, but most exalt their application and handling of historical/factual evidences to the level of Scripture and anathematize (practically) all who hold to any alternative veiw.
50 years ago this August, the NIV translation was commissioned and the Committee on Bible Translation was born. After years of labor from a broad group of Evangelical scholars, the New Testament would be published in 1973 followed by the entire NIV Bible in 1978.
The main point of the book that may be the best theological defense of KJV-onlyism —