Just finished. As an after Barth, Torrance, Calvin, Athanasius (and patristic theology), John Webster (on Scripture) person, I would say that Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s book fits well with what us Evangelical Calvinists (after our books and my blog work) call a Dialogical Theology and reading of the text of Scripture. It is more about the encounter, transformation, and instrumentality of the reading of Holy Scripture versus the academic slicing and dicing of things; the latter often being under higher critical antisupranaturalistic pressures. This is not to say that the grammatical historical has no place, but that such a frame is only as real as the humanity of Jesus Christ is real (which has ultimate real-ness); as the veil, indeed torn, by the illuminating power and transfiguration of resurrection. I would say that KJV has put to words a hermeneutical frame that I have been engaging the text with myself for the last many decades. Although I would say, as Richard Muller has referred to Calvin’s christological reading of the Bible, that on a continuum, KJV’s offering fits with Calvin’s soteriological-extensive christocentrism rather than Barth’s principially-intensive christocentric frame of reference for reading Scripture. That notwithstanding, I don’t think these distinctions must be held in a competitive frame of understanding either. I commend, Vanhoozer’s work to you.