and judicious, and is broadly positive about their perspectives. The speech-act theory (or ‘performative’uses of language) of Austin and Searle is much in evidence, and represents one area where Thiselton’s owncontribution has been immense. Bultmann’s hermeneutical perspectives often serve as partial foils to morenuanced developments here put forward. As postmodern thinking comes into focus later in the volume,Thiselton engages with Derrida, Foucault, Rorty and others, always seeking to find more careful criteriaand more reflective analysis of socio-pragmatic implications of such philosophical perspectives.One interesting area which Thiselton notes concerns more recent work on ‘theological interpretation’,

and he declares something significant about his own view in the following: ‘I have often wished that [myearlier books] had embodied a more explicit, rather than implicit, Christian theology. Yet how could I haveachieved this in the face of Schleiermacher’s contention, with which I fully agree, that the kind ofhermeneutics that would best serve theology for the good of theology itself would be a transcendental,independent, critical discipline?’ (p.37) He suggests that several issues might need attention in anyavowedly theological hermeneutic, including a consideration of the effect of human fallenness on thecapacities of reason, judgement, wisdom and understanding, and a consideration of the contribution of‘reception history’ after the work of Hans Robert Jauss (and which he then takes up at various places here).The theme is returned to at the very end of the collection, where perhaps the key concern is articulated thus:‘hermeneutics must resist becoming assimilated into a prior system of theology, and . . . theology mustavoid compromise by being shaped by an independent discipline of hermeneutics. . . . we need to find a wayforward by facilitating a genuine process of dialectic between the two disciplines’. (p.802)This volume will serve as a rich forum for exploring just such a dialectic, and deserves to take its place

alongside Professor Thiselton’s other major contributions in this area to a dialogue which, in the nature ofthe case, will remain ongoing.

St John’s College, Durham Richard S. Briggs

The Nature of Biblical Criticism. By John Barton. Pp.190, London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, $24.95.

This published version of Barton’s Croall Lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 2005 exploresbiblical criticism through ten theses. In defending these theses, B. explains the roots and boundaries of thecritical endeavor in biblical studies and argues the wrong-headedness of criticisms against it.The principal strategy he uses is to describe the critical endeavor in its widest possible scope. Chapters

2–3 argue that biblical criticism and recent literary methods are not opposed since both are concernedwith genre recognition (p. 26). B. prefers the term ‘biblical criticism’ to ‘historical criticism’, since historyis only a part of the critical operation. In fact, biblical criticism’s primary concerns are semantics, genreawareness and bracketing the question of truth in preference for determining the exact meaning of a text.(pp. 38, 58). B. argues that the goal of the critical method is the plain sense which is, however, open toallegory (p. 110).B.’s defence undermines cavils that biblical criticism claims exclusive objectivity, has concern only for

history, and is antipathetic to theological readings. B.’s description, however, fits only an ideal form; heaccuses critics of not capturing this ‘self-understanding’ (p. 57). However, there is frequently a chasmbetween how biblical criticism is practiced and how B. re-constructs it.This is evident in B.’s discussion of intentionalism. For B., concern for the author is ‘an accidental

rather than an inherent part of the establishment of biblical criticism’ (p. 76). Yet critics point out thatauthorial intention has been a primary focus; to argue it is accidental does not give sufficient attention towhat occurs in practice or what has led to this focus. That said, when biblical criticism operates in the wayB. describes, it stands up to this criticism leveled against it.Later chapters explore the theological implications of the critical method. In chapter 5 B. traces the

roots of biblical criticism to the Renaissance. He appreciates the current critical endeavor as including atheological contribution, since a theological dimension has not been absent to the critical method fromits origins.Chapter 6 takes on claims that biblical criticism is theologically void (Childs, Braaten, Jenson, Moberly

and Seitz). B. defends biblical criticism and what he calls ‘advocacy’ readings by offering a two step process:an uncovering of the textual meaning, and a subsequent analysis of this meaning from the perspective ofone’s belief. He applies this process through an interesting analysis of feminist claims of misogynisticreadings. We must first have established what a text actually means before we can claim a misreading(p. 160). A contradiction ensues, for ‘when they insist this must be done from a confessional or committedviewpoint, they are plainly in opposition to the values that criticism stands for’ (p. 174). While this is one ofB.’s strongest points, the argument could be strengthened if specific opponents’ arguments were taken up.The feminists remain unnamed and only their general position is described. B.’s treatment even of the majorcritics, though he explores each in some detail, also ends up gathering them into one (p. 147).

128 BOOK REVIEWS

The final sections consider the role of the critical method for the church. For B. ‘bracketing out’ one’spresupposition of truth is essential for uncovering the plain sense of a text. B. claims bracketing out ismore theological that other reading methods since without it ‘we have no meaning whose truth value wecan even begin to assess’ (p. 171). He parallels this to prayer, where prayer begins with attention to areality beyond oneself before reflecting on that reality. In other words, both share a first step of admittingan objective reality (p. 181).Even if there remains a gap between how B. describes the critical process in an ideal form and how it is

sometimes practiced, this discussion dispels simplistic objections by demonstrating a viable criticalprocess. This study should be read by students questioning what is happening with the critical endeavor,those frustrated with the critical method, and those who need help articulating its contributions.

University of Toronto Shawn Flynn

Revelation, Scripture and Church: Theological Hermaneutic Thought of James Barr, Paul Ricoeur and Hans Frei.By Richard R. Topping. Pp. x, 239. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007, d55.00/$99.95.

No two hermeneutical frameworks are equal. With respective strengths also come respective weaknesses.However, sorting through these differences is not simple and can rarely be accomplished in clear relief –especially if the sense of relief one is seeking is one that is theologically informed. To his credit, Richard R.Topping, Senior Minister of The Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul in Montreal, Quebec, providesscholars who find themselves mired in the conflicting morass of hermeneutical frameworks with a wayforward. This way forward is cut by virtue of the theological explorations that Topping offers of threedivergent frameworks – the frameworks offered by James Barr, Paul Ricoeur, and Hans Frei. Despite theformulaic nature of his own work, Topping’s comparative study provides invaluable insights that one canonly see when these three frameworks are placed next to one another. Ironically, the result of such a studyyields a space Topping declines yet to fill – one which I sense he most certainly could fill given the insightshe brings to bear in this study. Although the critiques themselves are worthy of our attention, Topping’sproject is one left unfulfilled.The unfulfilled nature of this project emerges by virtue of the fact that what is implicit fails to become

explicit. For example, Topping offers that ‘While the dominant tone of this essay has been expository andanalytical, the general shape of a constructive proposal for the deployment of doctrine (revelation, HolyScripture and church) in the depiction of the hermeneutic field has been implicit’ (p. 213). In essence, thespace he opens through the critiques he offers of the efforts of James Barr, Paul Ricoeur, and Hans Freiallows Topping to argue that ‘the implication of Holy Scripture in God’s revelatory/salvific action isfundamental to what the Bible is’ (p. 213). However, details concerning the fundamental relationshipTopping seeks to establish are sparse. Topping rightfully argues that ‘interpretation takes place in prayerand as penultimate human work with hope, because God has demonstrated that in sovereign freedomGod is for us in the Gospel’ (p. 215). What is needed is for Topping to offer details for this effort thatprove to be comparable in some manner to the details he offers in relation to the efforts of James Barr,Paul Ricoeur, and Hans Frei. However, beyond the details offered in an implicit fashion, those details aresimply not present in this volume.The outline for the details that Topping offers in this volume is divided into three chapters which are

then divided into three subsections.What this structure lacks in an engaging style it gains in thoroughness.The three chapters themselves are defined by the key places that revelation, the Bible, and the church eachhold within various hermeneutical frameworks. Making this point, Topping argues that ‘God’s disclosureand salvific initiative is generative of inscripturated witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which by theilluminative work of the Holy Spirit constitutes and sustains the church’ (p. 4). As a result, exploring thehermeneutical frameworks of James Barr, Paul Ricoeur, and Hans Frei through such interlockingcategories yields strengths and weaknesses (but mostly weaknesses) that may otherwise go unnoticed.Likewise, Topping selected the hermeneutical frameworks of James Barr, Paul Ricoeur, and Hans Frei

for a particular set of reasons. These frameworks have, indeed, yielded significant forms of influence inboth the church and academe. However, Topping also has an interlocking set of rationales for selectingeach one in relation to the weaknesses he brings to bear. In particular, Topping offers that ‘Anyinterpretation of the Bible requires the coordination of at least three loci of meaning – the world ‘behind’the text [Barr], the world ‘in front of’ the text [Barr & Ricoeur] and the world ‘within’ the text [Frei]’ (p. 6).The emphasis here ‘is not to provide a complete overview’ of all possible hermeneutical frameworks (p. 7).In contrast, Topping offers a representative range of possible options through the work of Barr, Ricoeur,and Frei.In his chapter on the Bible, Topping offers that ‘The focus of attention is given to the manner in which

the Bible is implicated in the revelatory and saving action of God in Jesus Christ by means of which

BOOK REVIEWS 129