Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible.

Harkins, Angela Kim

DICTIONARY FOR THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Pp. 896. $54.99.

This Dictionary should rightly become an important resource for those interested in biblical interpretation and theology. It is a unique work that accessibly integrates current biblical, theological, and philosophical scholarship. Students and scholars of the church and the academy will be pleased by the wide variety of entries, each accompanied by a brief bibliography and cross-referenced where appropriate, and the helpful lists and indexes.

The greatest strength of the Dictionary is its interdisciplinary perspective. Philosophy, particularly postmodernism, is usefully brought into conversation with biblical and systematic theology. Biblical scholars, too often trained in philology at the expense of philosophy, will benefit greatly from the concise presentations. The Dictionary's postmodern perspective emerges in its sensitivity to different communities of interpreters (for example, "African Biblical Interpretation," "Asian Biblical Interpretation," "Charismatic Biblical Interpretation," "Catholic Biblical Interpretation," and "Orthodox Biblical Interpretation," with "Latin American Biblical Interpretation" cross-referenced under "Liberation Theologies and Hermeneutics"). Entries on influential interpretive schools such as the "Tubingen School" or the "Yale School" can also be a great point of entry for those outside the field.

The Dictionary is also marked by considerable historical breadth. It attempts to incorporate more history of interpretation, from the early church to the contemporary period, than do other works of its kind. Kevin Vanhoozer (the general editor) offers the rationale for the work's scope when he calls to mind Gerhard Ebeling's observation that "church history is essentially the history of biblical interpretation" (21). This diverse group of contributors, representing a great number of ecclesial affiliations, holds in common that: (1) the text is divinely authored; (2) the focus should be on the final form of the text; and (3) biblical interpretation should be directed toward building up a community of faith (23). Ecclesial diversity is also represented in the use of at least seven different Bible translations (NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, and TNIV).

The Dictionary's commitment to ecumenism and its sensitivity to ecclesial diversity are to be commended; however, readers should be aware that entries can be tendentious and unbalanced at times. A work of this breadth, which claims to offer something to everyone with serious theological concerns, is bound to dissatisfy some. While the editors do not articulate what is meant by the "church," there is a strong Protestant perspective both in the selection of entries and also in the entries themselves. For example, although an entry is devoted to each biblical book, the deuterocanonical books are discussed only generally under the larger category of "Apocrypha." While this entry is quite good, it is self-consciously written from a Protestant perspective for a Protestant readership.

This tendentiousness appears in entries such as "Doctrine," as that discussion leaps from the early church (notably only two early church figures are named, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem) to Protestant theologians from the modern period (James Orr, Charles Gore, P.T. Forsyth, Reinhard Hutter, and Adolf von Harnack), and concludes with early Protestant Reformers. In this entry, no mention is made of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, or any Catholic theologian from the modern period. Much care is taken to represent the diversity of Protestant groups, but little effort is given to representing the diversity of Catholicism (not assuming of course that "Catholic" refers strictly to Roman Catholic) and other non-Western expressions of Christianity. Apart from the entry on "Orthodox biblical interpretation," readers will find scant treatment of Eastern forms of Christianity even in relevant entries such as "Liturgy."

Some readers may also be disappointed by the entry on "Anti-Semitism," which contains no discussion of how pervasive and influential was the ancient adversus iudaeos tradition--religiously, socially, and politically. Readers may be surprised to find that important watershed documents such as Vatican II's Nostra aetate (1965) are neither mentioned nor included in the bibliography.

Despite these shortcomings, the Dictionary makes a unique and valuable contribution. Space does not permit a full discussion of the many excellent entries on the Bible, hermeneutics, and exegesis, many of them authored by leading scholars in the field. This Dictionary should be consulted by all who are interested in the theological interpretation of the Bible and will undoubtedly enrich future interdisciplinary and ecumenical conversations.

ANGELA KIM HARKINS

Fairfield University, Conn.