Customer Reviews

Beyond the Bible

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The reader should understand that this book is only 60% from Dr. Marshall. Of the book's five chapters, the first three are from Marshall. The other two are responses from two noted theologians.

On one hand, the format makes sense. Marshall means to offer a proposal of (badly needed) evangelical hermeneutical principles. Since Marshall knows it is merely a proposal, it begs a response. Thus, the responses of Vanhoozer and Porter are appropriate.

However, I bought the book to read more of Marshall's insight into this challenging task. He is today's venerable dean of evangelical New Testament scholars. Few others have his academic credentials, his longstanding reputation, and his voluminous reservoir of respected published works, all from an evangelical perspective. Thus, at this point near the end of his remarkable life, I wanted to hear Marshall, not others.

"The Marshall Plan," as Vanhoozer respectfully calls it, is a refreshing educational experience. I felt as if I were sitting at Marshall's feet, listening as he humbly shared his hard-earned conclusions about how to interpret the New Testament. The book is actually based on lectures where his thoughts were delivered just like that.

That is both the book's strength and weakness. As a speech, he seems to speak frankly, demonstrating little concern for any political fallout from his candid remarks. Yet, as a speech, his remarks tend to ramble a bit. And since speeches cannot be too long, his comments beg for more cohesive, organized, comprehensive conclusions.

I think Marshall knows that, and that's why the book contains responses from others. He knows his remarks are the beginning of a responsible hermeneutic, and he hopes that others will finish the work.

From my perspective, Vanhoozer offers a helpful extension to the Marshall Plan, but Porter does not. Porter openly admits (p. 101) that the majority of his comments do not respond to Marshall at all. To be direct, I didn't buy the book to hear the Porter Plan, I bought it to hear the Marshall Plan.

But all that aside ... If you are a serious student of the New Testament, you need to read this book (or certainly the first 3-4 chapters). Take advantage of Marshall's 40+ years of scholarly reflection on these historic Christian documents. Hopefully, someone will pick up the baton from here and stride ahead toward a more comprehensive evangelical hermeneutical method.

Beyond the Bible is a short book on taking exegesis of the Scriptures and moving to theology and ethics, a clearly important step which far to ofton gets past over. Marshall, the dean of evangelical New Testament scholarship in recent decades, describes the history of evangelical hermeneutics and points to both some very promising proposals, and some dangerous paths we may tend to take.
After Marshall's section (the bulk of the book) there are two responses, including a brilliant one from VanHoozer which adds a lot to the book and both furthers and challenges some of Marshall's proposals.
This is a must read and a very manageable entry point into quite important hermeneutical issues.

[...]

I find this reading helpful in that the exegete must always question the texts. However, Marshall is calling for too much in this book. I am of the impression that a reader can be swayed from traditional hermeneutics that has proven to be solid and according to the word. For example, sola scriptura is challenged in this volume.

In some ways Marshall is reiterating what dispensationalists have beens saying for some time. That is, interpretation must consider diachronic changes through the history of redemption. Teachings given to the Jews during one period may not be applicable in the same ways today. In sum: consider larger contexts! Central to Marshall's thesis is that "The closing of the canon is not incompatible with the nonclosing of the interpretation of the canon" (p.54). The problem with this thesis is that it smacks of the notion that the text may be finished but meaning may not. Or, in other words, meaning = application. This would destroy the difference between meaning and significance. If he simply means that significance is never finished, all would heartily agree. But it is doubtful he means this because such an idea is not very profound, nor fresh (but compare p.77). For example, he states on p.56 that the "meaning" of the OT changes! Marshall also views the issue of Land and OT promises as "fully spiritualized" (p.62). For Marshall, there is a NT priority given when interpreting the OT, and as such, "the old is taken up into the new" (p.63).

As an aside, I found Porter's criticisms of Vanhoozer weak; at times Porter seems to admit so. On p.116, criticism of the ontological status of illocutions is said to be "contrary to the kind of thinking speech-act theory entails." Furthermore, Porter wants to posit speech-act theory as being antithetical to discourse analysis. I think this is a misunderstanding and again, Porter almost acknowledges as much. As Porter admits, speech-act theory is about a philosophical foundation (p.117).

This book is helpful in that it directs one toward the right foundational questions for ethics, theology and even translation. Generally speaking, I found Vanhoozer's and Porter's essays more cogent and helpful than Marshall's.