This book, which, as the title would suggest, is about hermeneutics, forms part of the Christian Studies Today series and consists of a quite substantial and highly stimulating article by the philosophical theologian James Olthuis, followed by three short responses and a concluding reply by Olthuis himself.

My first recommendation as regards this book would have to be to start at the end. That is to say, read G. T. Sheppard’s response before attempting the rest of the collection. My reasons for suggesting this are two-fold. To begin with, Sheppard’s contribution is brief (a mere four or five pages); secondly, and more importantly, it provides an excellent account of the historical and political background to the hermeneutical debate that this volume contributes to, highlighting the various reasons why Olthuis’ view may, lamentably, find few friends within the evangelical community.

But what is Olthuis’s view? His essay in this book, which is an expanded version of a paper delivered at a conference in Toronto, does not make easy reading, particularly for those unfamiliar with the philosophical traditions upon which he draws. In essence however, Olthuis is seeking to develop a hermeneutic which is lessdependent upon (but not totally independent of) the pseudo-scientific techniques of the historical-critical method, utilizing instead some of the insights of post-critical thought. He points out that while all Christians would accept the notion of biblical authority, there is little agreement as to what constitutes that authority. Because our view of biblical authority is so tied up with our belonging to a particular community there exists, says Olthuis, ‘… the ever present danger that we declare all those whose concepts of biblical authority are not the same as ours to be heretics, infidels, and hypocrites …’ (p. 11).

Olthuis calls on us to recognize the fact that the way in which we submit to the scriptures is not solely the product of a pure and simple faith, but rather it involves the articulation of that faith within a particular tradition, asking particular questions at particular points in history. In the light of this observation we ought to exercise a deep humility as regards both our submission to the scriptures and also the manner in which other communities live out their submission to them. Olthuis’ concern with the reader’s response to Scripture could represent an encouraging redressing of a balance which has been almost exclusively biased towards the quest for ‘objective, authorial intention’. However nobody likes to be told that their view is coloured by a particular pair of tinted spectacles and thus we find the first response to Olthuis’ essay, by Clark Pinnock, to be a negative one.

Pinnock rejects Olthuis’ approach as ultimately subjectivist in its down-playing of evidentialist methodology. However, it would seem that the bulk of Pinnock’s criticisms stem from a misplacing of Olthuis within the so-called existentialist tradition, grouping him with, among others, that evangelical bogeyman Bultmann (p. 56), in an attempt to show that truly conservative scholars ought to turn their backs on Olthuis’ views as they do on Bultmann’s. Yet Olthuis should more properly be placed within the tradition of the phenomenologists such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michael Polanyi and Hans-Georg Gadamer. The work of these men, from which Olthuis is obviously drawing, does much to demonstrate that a personalist view of knowlege, such as the one which Olthuis is expounding, is by no means an exercise in subjectivism.

The second response to Olthuis, by Donald Bloesch, is rather more considered. He rightly identifies Olthuis’ indebtedness to the phenomenologists and is both encouraging and appreciative of Olthuis’ contribution, while being at the same time suspicious of its weaknesses, calling for greater clarity in areas where post-critical thought is notoriously hazy.

This reviewer has no hesitation in recommending this volume to both teachers and students alike as an example both of how the questions of hermeneutics ought to be addressed in the light of our century’s increasing dissatisfaction with the mechanistic thought-forms of the last century, and also of the way in which evangelicals choose to greet such a development.

---