This work has an impressive line-up of contributing authors and it is therefore no understatement to say that Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon lives up to the high scholarship and intellectual rigor implied by those authors. Composed of a series of essays, the book examines various topics that have a direct bearing on the Bible: how we interpret it, how we derive authority from it, and (in the last essay) how the canon came to be developed. The authors present their specific topics in such a way as to impart useful information in a concise manner while at the same time providing significant resourcing so that investigation by the reader can continue; indeed, approximately 80 pages of the work is taken up with an impressive list of end notes. Also included in the work is an “Index of Persons,” “Index of Subjects,” and an “Index of Scripture References;” a much-appreciated addition for quick reference. Students interested in such topics as (but not limited to) theology, apologetics, Christology, hermeneutics, and language will all find portions of this work enlightening and instructive. The editors of the work are D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge.

Carson begins the work with the first essay entitled “Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture” and presents the student with an overview of some of the topics that have developed “in the past two or three decades” (v) – or the mid-1900’s from our standpoint. Carson describes four factors that have contributed to the resurgence of interest in the doctrine of Scripture; the growing strength of Evangelicals, the subsequent fragmentation of Evangelicalism, the crisis of authority in Western Christianity, and the “theological revolution” (8) effecting the Roman Catholic Church. From this foundation Cason looks at several topics which he obviously feels have significant impact upon the doctrine of Scripture. A review of each topic Carson covers would be well beyond the scope of this review, but his second topic – “II. FOCUS ON THE PHENOMENA OF THE BIBLE” (20-25) – focuses on points that can be considered fundamental to an understanding of the purpose and interpretation of the Scriptures. This topic, and others, lead to his final thought in which he discusses the diminishing authority of Scriptures in the churches.

Douglas Moo writes the fifth essay in the book and discusses “The Problem of Sensus Plenior.” A brief definition of sensus plenior for those unfamiliar with the phrase is the deeper sense given to the Scriptures, a sense beyond the surface interpretation of the human writers themselves. Part of what causes a problem specifically with the idea of sensus plenior is the New Testamen’s use of the Old Testament; or more specifically, the reinterpretation of the OT passages and events in view of the NT revelation of Christ and the gospel message. After an examination of different methods of dealing with the problem, Moo makes a preliminary conclusion that the doctrine of inspiration does not exclude the possibility that God could have “intended a sense related to but more than that which the human author intended” (204). Therefore, OT passages that are appropriated by NT writers/speakers (i.e., Peter’s use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2:25-28 as David’s reference to the Messiah – a sense David was not trying to indicate) can actually be better understood and interpreted by an understanding of the sensus plenior as revealed by the Spirit. Moo’s discussion does end with an important note of caution that while the NT does reinterpret parts of the OT, one should be quite cautious about suggesting “deeper meanings” in the text which “are not clearly enunciated within Scripture” (210).

The last chapter in the work is by David G. Dunbar and is simply titled “The Biblical Canon.” As Dunbar notes, some of the reasons there has been a resurgence of an interest in Canon studies is related to the “contemporary theological agenda” (299) which includes the attempt by liberal theology to salvage a notion of biblical authority, a continued attention to the development of the OT and NT canons, and the growth of ecumenism and pluralism. Dunbar, as expected, does a concise and informative job presenting those scholarly considerations for the canonicity of the OT and NT in the limited space allotted. There is an interesting section discussing the influence of Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Montanism on the creation of the NT canon and the need for apologetic interaction with “a concrete standard by which to evaluate church tradition” (330). As Dunbar brings his section of the work to a close, he remarks that the “closed status and enduring validity” of the canon is not of necessity related to “the close proximity of the second-century church” to those recorded events or related to those early writer’s “clearer historical memory” (359). The divine authority we find in our typical canon is related to the redemptive-history that is presented by Jesus Christ through the apostles and other writers of the Scriptures.

As a reference book for the considerations of hermeneutics, authority, and canon as related to the Scriptures, one is deeply indebted to the editors for assembling such a fine cast of scholars, theologians, and teachers to discuss these valuable and enlightening topics. The essays presented in this work will enhance any library and one is convinced that those interested in the topics presented will find the work as valuable and enlightening.

Quotes from the work:

“To our shame, we have hungered to be masters of the Word much more than we have hungered to be mastered by it.” (D. A. Carson, 47)

“Scripture is, therefore, indefatigable in its illocutionary intent. It encourages, warns, asserts, reproves, instructs, commands – all infallibly. Note that this makes inerrancy a subset of infallibility. On those occasions when Scriptures does affirm something, the affirmation is true.” (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 95)

“An intelligent reliance on the authority of Scripture, coupled with sensitivity to its true character and purpose, yields the best prescription for responsible historical reconstruction.” (Moisés Silva, 133)

“One thinks of the way Scriptures holds together seemingly disparate themes (et., predestination and free will, security and apostasy, the preservation and yet supersession of the OT law). The compatibility of the two members of each pair is not easily proved, but neither is their incompatibility; and the biblical writers’ regular juxtaposing of contrasting themes suggests that they did not find the tension that severe.” (Craig L. Blomberg, 140)

“Thus, without denying the problem of subjectivity in interpretation, the notion that a “correct” interpretation of a text exists and can be found is both reasonable and necessary.” (Douglas J. Moo, 186)

“The Spirit does not whisper to us special reasons that are not otherwise available; rather, He opens our eyes to acknowledge those that are available (and that, at one level of consciousness, we know already, Ro 1:21).” (John M. Frame, 232)

“The Scriptures are sufficient and perspicuous concerning matters of essential faith and practice. There is no need to turn to fallible Roman Catholic traditions for additional information regarding those subjects.” (John D. Woodbridge, 251)

“Making biblical authority dependent on God and not on human effort, Barth had full confidence that Scripture will never be reduced to a paper tiger any more than it should be exalted as a paper pope.” (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 294)

“Increasingly, modern students of the canon recognize not only the fact of historical process in the formation of the canon but also the genuine connections between the developed canon and the origins of the biblical literature. Specifically, they realize that the words and deeds of Jesus interpreted to the community by the apostles form the ultimate standard or “canon” for the nascent church.” (David G. Dunbar, 357) ( )