The aim of this taxonomy is to describe the discipline of biblical theology by comparing five distinct types of contemporary biblical theology. These five types represent the continuum of contemporary biblical theology. The authors provide two chapters to describe each type: the first describes the theory of this specific type, and the second gives an example of a modern scholar. The authors also contribute to the dialogue by offering their brief critique for each approach at the end of the scholar chapter (second chapter of each type). The book is easy to read, and well organized. ( )

The aim of this taxonomy is to describe the discipline of biblical theology by comparing five distinct types of contemporary biblical theology. These five types represent the continuum of contemporary biblical theology. The authors provide two chapters to describe each type: the first describes the theory of this specific type, and the second gives an example of a modern scholar. The authors also contribute to the dialogue by offering their brief critique for each approach at the end of the scholar chapter (second chapter of each type). The book is easy to read, and well organized. ( )

Excellent overview of different approaches to Biblical theology in different Protestant and evangelical traditions ("Historical Description," "History of Redemption," "Worldview-Story," "Canonical Approach," and "Theological Construction" -- using James Barr, D.A. Carson, N.T. Wright, Brevard Childs, and Francis Watson as exemplars of each genre. ( )

This short book is a very helpful survey of the oft-confusing field of "biblical theology." The authors' goal is not to provide ANOTHER definition of the term but to survey the current definitions. Though they admit their model is not the only way to analyze the constitutive differences, their model is decidedly helpful. The decision to situate the five "models" on a continuum from "History" to "Theology" importantly provides a way to share both distinctions between closely-related methods as well as point out the interconnections of radically-different methods.

That each section and chapter utilized the same layout was especially pleasing. Each section opened with a chapter that defined the "type" of biblical theology, describing its scope, sources, and task. That introductory chapter was then followed by a chapter interacting with one biblical theologian that the authors felt best instantiated the type. Thankfully, Klink & Lockett did NOT take this as an opportunity to introduce some of the more obscure players in the field, but deal instead with the "big guns": James Barr, N.T. Wright, Brevard Childs, Francis Watson, and the like. (To be clear, the "type-definition" chapters do source and quote a number of different scholars; following the footnotes there will give you a good idea of the key scholars working within each model's parameters.)

Their choice to present only one scholar within each identified type for in-depth analysis, though limiting, was a wise choice, I think. It silences, for the reader, the cacophony of scholarly voices that has created the present crisis of definition for the task of biblical theology. It also nicely demonstrates that, though there is a wide range of definitions of the task available, "biblical theology" has enough of a defined shape to be considered a specific sub-discipline of biblical and theological studies.

Without delving into each of their analyses, I would like to offer what I think are the especially helpful analyses of individual scholars.
> Their work on James Barr is very helpful, especially since Barr's posture is always that of the "critic" rather than the "constructor." I've read portions of his "The Concept of Biblical Theology" and felt frustrated that he never seemed to articulate his own understanding of biblical theology, but just criticized others' understanding. This book helped to fill that in.
> Their chapter on Wright was especially helpful in how they outlined his disagreements with Hays (a scholar whom I deeply admire).
> Finally, their section on Francis Watson was also admirable, especially in the way it mapped the radically interdisciplinary nature of his work.

This is the kind of book that I think would repay careful study by specialist and non-specialist alike. It is a great "introduction" to the field of biblical studies but would probably doubly repay the careful student who returned to it AFTER deeply engaging two or more of the scholars mentioned here. Very helpful read! ( )