Biblical Interpretation Then and Now by David S. Dockery, Grand Rapids, MI., Baker Books, 1992 (Second printing 2000), 247 pages, paper, $19.99.
In this well written book, Dockery, who among other things, dons the hat of associate general editor of the New American Commentary, has attempted to bridge the gap in hermeneutics from the early church to the present. This is achieved by first surveying the history of interpretation, particularly the first five centuries, and then comparing the approach of the early church (Jerome, Augustine, and Theodoret are chosen as paradigms), with the present day concerns of the broader non-evangelical church.
Overall, Dockery has done an impressive job, and the reader will find plenty of information on such important figures as Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom. And the final chapter gives an excellent overview of modern-day schools of interpretation. For those wanting an introduction to the concerns of men like Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Bultmann, Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Hirsch, I would suggest that this book is a very good place to start.
Problems with the work would include Dockery’s claim that Jesus Christ is to be seen as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel (p.24). Also, the author’s reticence to discuss methods of interpretation as employed by conservative evangelicals. One may want to ask why if , “Polycarp is most influential for early biblical interpretation” (p.49 n.9), his views were hardly mentioned. Similarly, Dockery tells us that Theodore of Mopsuesta placed greater emphasis upon exegesis than his contemporaries (pp.109, 129, 153), but we are not given sufficient evidence for this claim. This is a great pity since, “Theodore’s exegesis was the purest representation of Antiochene hermeneutics.” (p.112). On a more serious note, readers of this journal will be understandably nervous about the author’s belief that Jesus and the Apostles used both Midrash and Pesher (pp. 29-32, 37-38), in their employment of OT texts. He gives the impression that this is what all scholars believe, when in fact, men like Kaiser, Moo, G.J. Brooke, and many others would contend quite otherwise. Finally, those expecting to garner information about the early church’s belief in premillennialism (chiliasm) and imminency will come away empty-handed. Notwithstanding, the book remains a helpful introduction to the history of interpretation.
