Dr. Jeff Cate reviews The Early Text of the New Testament edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation (OEBI) is an invaluable resource for scholars, and especially those in biblical studies. Steven McKenzie and his editorial team have produced a volume that combines accessibility, clarity, and eruditeness. The contributors include both well-established and emerging scholars from a variety of fields and from different global and cultural vantage points. Each of the essays, organized alphabetically, is a few thousand words in length and includes a—many times annotated—bibliography. The second volume helpfully includes at the end a list of contributors and their essays, an index, and a topical outline of contents. This last feature is especially beneficial, as it assists the reader in locating essays for which they may be unsure of the title. The topical outline is also useful for potential buyers, since it demonstrates what the dictionary does and does not cover. The topics listed are “The Biblical World,” “The Biblical Text,” “Literary Approaches,” “Cultural Approaches,” Ideological Approaches,” “Philosophical Approaches,” and “Political Approaches.”
One should notice from this list that the dictionary’s primary aim is to cover the various interpretive approaches in biblical studies, rather than provide comprehensive coverage of other topics like biblical content, theology, and history. The editors chose to use Paul Ricoeur’s “. . . rubric of the worlds behind the text, of the text, and in front of the text,” as a means of choosing topics (p.xix). Also of note is the fact that the OEBI is available in both print and electronic format, and McKenzie gives the impression that the electronic version may be updated on occasion with new articles (p.xx).
Readers of this journal will be particularly interested in and benefit from the following essays: “Allegory and Allegorical Interpretation” (Mark W. Elliott), “Authority of the Bible” (William W. Klein), “Canonical Criticism” (Corrine L. Carvalho), “Canon of the Bible” (Hal Taussig), “Evangelical Interpretation” (Walter C. Kaiser Jr.), “Inner-biblical Interpretation” (G. Brooke Lester), “Intertextuality (B. J. Oropeza), “Patristic Interpretation” (Paul M. Blowers), and “Theological Interpretation” (Craig Bartholomew).
As with any edited volume, some essays are stronger than others. This reviewer found the articles on theological interpretation and patristic interpretation to be particularly well written and beneficial. Each of the others mentioned, as well as all those included in the volume, are careful, scrupulously researched, and helpful for readers. Nevertheless, this reviewer was left with some questions after reading a few of the articles. First, at times Mark Elliott’s essay on allegory seemed to oscillate between organizational methods, namely historical and categorical. While this could be a natural consequence of the ebb and flow of allegorical approaches throughout the history of interpretation, the shifts from section to section and from one organizational method to another were not always apparent until one was well past the turning point. Second, there are times when the articles can become repetitive, and this is perhaps nowhere more apparent than when one reads the “Inner-biblical Interpretation” and “Intertextuality” articles together. Both of these essays contain large swaths of material that are covered in the other article, and it may have been wiser for the editors to combine these two into one essay.
Third and finally, while not a criticism, readers should remember that much of the OEBI’s content is related to particular interpretive approaches used by certain groups of biblical scholars. This necessarily means that scholars who approach biblical interpretation differently and from different, and even opposing, vantage points will not agree with either the presuppositions or the methods used by various approaches. For instance, non-confessional scholars may have some difficulty with Klein’s article on the authority of the Bible. In one instance, for example, Klein argues that the Bible has a grand narrative, one that “. . . points to the missio Dei, God’s mission of redemption and restoration . . . “ (p.55). Although this reviewer agrees with Klein’s position here, other readers who see more disunity in the biblical corpus from both a narrative and theological perspective may not find his essay as beneficial. Other methodologies covered in the dictionary, such as many of the ideological approaches that have proliferated in the midst of the postmodern turn, may not be as palatable to an evangelical reader.
Regardless, though, of one’s interpretive stance, the OEBI is a premier resource for biblical scholars. It should be owned and consulted for anyone who desires to take seriously the tasks of understanding and undertaking biblical interpretation.
Bibliographical Information
Steven L. McKenzie, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation. 2 Vols. Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xxviii + 559 (vol. 1); Pp. x + 566 (vol. 2). ISBN: 978-0-19-983226-2 (set). $395.00 [Hardcover].
About the Author:
Matthew Y. Emerson
Within this series of posts I am investigating some of the contextual factors that influenced the early church’s decision for Sunday gathering. In previous posts I have highlighted several contextual factors important to the Sabbath/Lord’s Day discussion in the early church. In the previous post I looked at the Didache’s teaching about the Lord’s Day. In this post I want to examine what Ignatius of Antioch taught about “sabbatizing” and Lord’s Day observance.
Within this series of posts Jon English Lee is investigating some of the contextual factors that influenced the early church’s decision for Sunday gathering. In previous posts he has highlighted several contextual factors important to the Sabbath/Lord’s Day discussion in the early church. In this post he will examine what the Didache has to say about the topic in order to demonstrate a very early Christian prescription for Sunday worship.
The world of the New Testament is set within the larger framework of an established Greco-Roman society. This culture, consisting of specific social, religious, philosophical, and literary nuances, influenced and informed the early people and events of the Christian community. Not having a grasp of backgrounds severely limits one’s ability to fully grasp the significance of the early Christian witness. The world of the New Testament was set within an emerging Roman empire.
The concept of virtue plays a major role in the life of early Christianity. As variously espoused by philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and others, virtue relates to living the ‘good life’ or a proper mode of right living in the polis. Certainly philosophical notions of virtue influenced early Christian writers, however, the infusion of biblical material into commonly accepted notions of virtue set early Christians apart from their pagan philosophical interlocutors. For our purposes that follow, I will only mention few features and implications.
“Why should I study the early Christian church?” As a lover of historical theology, I hear this question quite often. I could point you to countless books that provide fine answers to this question. In this brief post, however, I want to give you my number one argument—which I borrowed from a mentor—for engaging in ancient Christian studies: It should help us become the best evangelicals we can be. More specifically, reading the works of the earliest Christians can guide us to lead the church today to the best of our abilities.
Every Wednesday Southern Seminary Ph.D. students from across all disciplines gather in community for their personal and professional betterment. Typically, a senior scholar spends time amongst us—whether digitally or in the flesh—to discuss different aspects of life in the academy. On October 15, the 1892 Club—named for the year of the first SBTS graduating doctoral class—welcomed one of Southern’s own in Dr. Michael Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality and Director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies.
What factors were influencing the early church’s decision to meet on the Lord’s Day? What do the early church fathers have to say about Saturday or Sunday corporate gatherings for worship? Within this series of posts I hope to investigate some of the contextual factors that influenced the early church’s decision for Sunday gathering. I also plan to look at several of the earliest church documents that speak to the sabbath/Lord’s Day issue.
