What do you think?
Rate this book
Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach
CONTENTS Part 1: INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 Introduction PART 2: THE METHODOLOGY OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY Chapter 2 Methodology Chapter 3 Text or Event Chapter 4 Criticism or Canon Chapter 5 Descriptive or Confessional Chapter 6 Diachronic or Synchronic PART 3: A CANONICAL THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Chapter 7 A proposal for a Canonical Theology APPENDICES Appendix A The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch Appendix B Compositional Strategies in the Pentatuech Appendix C The Narrative World of Genesis Appendix D 1 Chronicles 21:16: A study in Inter-Biblical Interpretation
332 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1995
28 people are currently reading
398 people want to read
About the author
John H. Sailhamer
26 books58 followersDr. Sailhamer has been teaching since 1975, most recently at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. He was President of The Evangelical Theological Society in 2000 and has published a number of books, including An Introduction to Old Testament Theology, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary, and Genesis: The Expositor's Bible Commentary, all from Zondervan. He has contributed a number of articles and book reviews in various biblical journals and has delivered several scholarly papers and particpated in several Old Testament Bible translation committees
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
May 11, 2018
A Canonical Approach: Helpful Reference and Delightful Treasure
John Sailhamer’s Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach was a different sort of work than anything I had read before. While I had thought it would be an entry-level foray into the OT itself, in reality it was a wide introduction to the many streams of approaching OT Theology; I thought the book would primarily be content and instead I primarily found various methods of study.
The best parts of the book for me were the chapter on Text and Event along with the appendices. Chapter three opened up my mind to think of what it actually meant for the locus of divine revelation to be in the graphe ("scripture," as in 2 Tim 3:16) itself, as opposed to events that we are hoping to piece together from an ancient artifact.
And then--considering I had come to this work expecting to be introduced to lots of content (as opposed to method)--when I finally got to those sections, I was deeply satisfied. I ended up spending many hours studying the passages that Sailhamer explored in his appendix, and after drinking deeply from the wells of the scripture that he exposed, I feel both thirsty for more and that I have hardly dipped into the surface of the deep reserves.
I was initially frustrated when halfway through the book, all I had read was a history of different approaches to studying the Hebrew Bible, with seven eighths of those methods deemed faulty by the author. It seemed like a waste to read on and on about how hundreds of dead Germans and nearly-forgotten Jewish Rabbis had erred. Upon complaining to a friend, he gave me the following analogy: “Austin, think of it like this. You’ve gotten your hands on a copy of an Al Qaeda strategy book. When they attack, you will already have their coordinates. You will be ready to defend and fight back, because you’ll know their weaknesses and be prepared to defeat them.” While I still have yet to find myself fighting such metaphoric terrorists-against-truth, I have grown to appreciate more and more the broad overview of the field of study that I’ve been given in this work. I initially felt like the reading was a waste of time but I now am glad to have a reference when I do need to engage in said battle.
Due to limited space, my remaining summary will delve most into the parts of the book I found titillating while I will glaze over those I found less so.
Text and Event
Text and Event is the main attraction of this work. Dr. Sailhamer first went about defining what constitutes a text: a text is a written document, it represents the real world, it represents an author’s intention, it is expressed in a communicative situation (Speaker/author → sign system/text → Hearer/reader), it take a literary form, and it is about events.
There are two striking images that Sailhamer has left imprinted on my mind. The first is the example of René Magritte's painting The Treachery of Images: “This is not a pipe,” but rather a representation of a pipe. Similarly, a photograph of a tree is not a tree, but the photograph is a composition in itself, taken from a certain angle, only capturing a certain side of the tree, with certain light and exposure. In the same way, the text itself is the thing we are to gaze upon rather than to try to peer through the text to the events that lie behind. Seeing the scripture this way has shaped my understanding of the Bible and caused me to pay closer attention to the words themselves that the authors choose, as well as to consider more deeply the authorial intent in word selection.
The other chapters in the main corpus detailed other categories in binary options for how one could approach study of the OT: Criticism or Canon, Descriptive or Confessional, and Diachronic or Synchronic. In the final chapter, Sailhamer puts forth his proposed Text-based, Canonical, Confessional, Diachronic approach, which he puts into practice in an application to Deuteronomy 33 and 34.
Appendix
The first of the final four gems was Appendix A: The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch, in which the author went about demonstrating that “faith versus works of the Law” is central to the aim of the Pentateuch. He drew up comparisons between the two foils Abraham, before the law (ante lege) and Moses, under the law (sub lege) (260). Showing the evidence of contrasting authorial intent with the two characters, Sailhamer arrived to the conclusion that “Moses and Aaron, who held high positions under the law, did not enjoy God’s gift of the land. They died in the wilderness because they did not believe” (270). He went on to show that the Pentateuch has the same view of the Sinai covenant that the prophets do, especially in the concern they show for the necessary coming of the promised new covenant.
In his part B on Compositional Strategies in the Pentateuch, Sailhamer questions whether the laws given throughout the narrative are to all be taken as part of the Sinai Covenant or if the they are to be taken as secondary laws given as supplement. He goes on to apply a composition criticism approach to explore the authorial intent behind the the giving of the law at Sinai (272).
Sailhamer sides with views held Justin Martyr and Johann Cocejus that the Decalogue was a sufficient covenant of grace, but Israel’s unfaithfulness warranted additional regulations, both for the priests and then for the whole people. He then explores this interpretation—in accord with Paul in Galatians 3:19 (the Law "was added because of transgressions")—showing the changing nature of Israel’s relationship with God as their sinning in the golden calf incident is followed by fearful paralysis at Sinai, goat idol worship, etc. Dr. Sailhamer exposes authorial emphasis on the need for both a mediator as well as a priesthood, necessitated by their sin (287).
Appendix C, The Narrative World of Genesis, Sailhamer overviews different narrative techniques employed by the writers of the Pentateuch: recursion, contemporization, and foreshadowing, as well as techniques in dialogue.
In his final appendix, Appendix D: 1 Chronicles 21:1—A Study in Inter-Biblical Interpretation, Sailhamer tackles the OT’s use of the OT. He delves first into the tension found in the two seemingly opposite accounts of the same event: 2 Samuel 24:1 reads “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he incited David...” while 1 Chronicles 21 reads “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David...” So the question to be considered it who incited David to take a census? Was it God or Satan? After exploring a harmonistic and redactional approach, the exegetical approach to this question shows the Chronicler was attempting to explain the aforementioned passage, not replace it (302). It is then shown that
This section concludes with an exposition of the verbal links between the Melchizedek blessing passage in Genesis 14 and the Covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 15. Sailhamer shows that—in an argument backed by the writer of Hebrews in the NT— “God alone will care for the well-being of his chosen ones” (309).
I am deeply thankful that God has cared for the well being of his people by giving us faithful scholars like Dr. John Sailhamer to point us to truth. This book has changed the way I read the Bible and it is a resource I see my self confidently coming back to in the fight for Truth.
John Sailhamer’s Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach was a different sort of work than anything I had read before. While I had thought it would be an entry-level foray into the OT itself, in reality it was a wide introduction to the many streams of approaching OT Theology; I thought the book would primarily be content and instead I primarily found various methods of study.
The best parts of the book for me were the chapter on Text and Event along with the appendices. Chapter three opened up my mind to think of what it actually meant for the locus of divine revelation to be in the graphe ("scripture," as in 2 Tim 3:16) itself, as opposed to events that we are hoping to piece together from an ancient artifact.
And then--considering I had come to this work expecting to be introduced to lots of content (as opposed to method)--when I finally got to those sections, I was deeply satisfied. I ended up spending many hours studying the passages that Sailhamer explored in his appendix, and after drinking deeply from the wells of the scripture that he exposed, I feel both thirsty for more and that I have hardly dipped into the surface of the deep reserves.
I was initially frustrated when halfway through the book, all I had read was a history of different approaches to studying the Hebrew Bible, with seven eighths of those methods deemed faulty by the author. It seemed like a waste to read on and on about how hundreds of dead Germans and nearly-forgotten Jewish Rabbis had erred. Upon complaining to a friend, he gave me the following analogy: “Austin, think of it like this. You’ve gotten your hands on a copy of an Al Qaeda strategy book. When they attack, you will already have their coordinates. You will be ready to defend and fight back, because you’ll know their weaknesses and be prepared to defeat them.” While I still have yet to find myself fighting such metaphoric terrorists-against-truth, I have grown to appreciate more and more the broad overview of the field of study that I’ve been given in this work. I initially felt like the reading was a waste of time but I now am glad to have a reference when I do need to engage in said battle.
Due to limited space, my remaining summary will delve most into the parts of the book I found titillating while I will glaze over those I found less so.
Text and Event
Text and Event is the main attraction of this work. Dr. Sailhamer first went about defining what constitutes a text: a text is a written document, it represents the real world, it represents an author’s intention, it is expressed in a communicative situation (Speaker/author → sign system/text → Hearer/reader), it take a literary form, and it is about events.
There are two striking images that Sailhamer has left imprinted on my mind. The first is the example of René Magritte's painting The Treachery of Images: “This is not a pipe,” but rather a representation of a pipe. Similarly, a photograph of a tree is not a tree, but the photograph is a composition in itself, taken from a certain angle, only capturing a certain side of the tree, with certain light and exposure. In the same way, the text itself is the thing we are to gaze upon rather than to try to peer through the text to the events that lie behind. Seeing the scripture this way has shaped my understanding of the Bible and caused me to pay closer attention to the words themselves that the authors choose, as well as to consider more deeply the authorial intent in word selection.
The other chapters in the main corpus detailed other categories in binary options for how one could approach study of the OT: Criticism or Canon, Descriptive or Confessional, and Diachronic or Synchronic. In the final chapter, Sailhamer puts forth his proposed Text-based, Canonical, Confessional, Diachronic approach, which he puts into practice in an application to Deuteronomy 33 and 34.
Appendix
The first of the final four gems was Appendix A: The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch, in which the author went about demonstrating that “faith versus works of the Law” is central to the aim of the Pentateuch. He drew up comparisons between the two foils Abraham, before the law (ante lege) and Moses, under the law (sub lege) (260). Showing the evidence of contrasting authorial intent with the two characters, Sailhamer arrived to the conclusion that “Moses and Aaron, who held high positions under the law, did not enjoy God’s gift of the land. They died in the wilderness because they did not believe” (270). He went on to show that the Pentateuch has the same view of the Sinai covenant that the prophets do, especially in the concern they show for the necessary coming of the promised new covenant.
In his part B on Compositional Strategies in the Pentateuch, Sailhamer questions whether the laws given throughout the narrative are to all be taken as part of the Sinai Covenant or if the they are to be taken as secondary laws given as supplement. He goes on to apply a composition criticism approach to explore the authorial intent behind the the giving of the law at Sinai (272).
Sailhamer sides with views held Justin Martyr and Johann Cocejus that the Decalogue was a sufficient covenant of grace, but Israel’s unfaithfulness warranted additional regulations, both for the priests and then for the whole people. He then explores this interpretation—in accord with Paul in Galatians 3:19 (the Law "was added because of transgressions")—showing the changing nature of Israel’s relationship with God as their sinning in the golden calf incident is followed by fearful paralysis at Sinai, goat idol worship, etc. Dr. Sailhamer exposes authorial emphasis on the need for both a mediator as well as a priesthood, necessitated by their sin (287).
Appendix C, The Narrative World of Genesis, Sailhamer overviews different narrative techniques employed by the writers of the Pentateuch: recursion, contemporization, and foreshadowing, as well as techniques in dialogue.
In his final appendix, Appendix D: 1 Chronicles 21:1—A Study in Inter-Biblical Interpretation, Sailhamer tackles the OT’s use of the OT. He delves first into the tension found in the two seemingly opposite accounts of the same event: 2 Samuel 24:1 reads “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he incited David...” while 1 Chronicles 21 reads “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David...” So the question to be considered it who incited David to take a census? Was it God or Satan? After exploring a harmonistic and redactional approach, the exegetical approach to this question shows the Chronicler was attempting to explain the aforementioned passage, not replace it (302). It is then shown that
if the Chronicler were looking for a term from the deuteronomistic history itself to express his understanding that the anger of Yaweh against Israel meant the threat of foreign invasion, the term “adversary” (שָׂטָ֖ן) was one of the most readily available. In using this term, the Chronicler not only would have interpreted his sources in their own language and with their own ideas, but he also would have linked the failure of David with the notorious failure of King Solomon in the book of Kings…[and so] Israel was threatened by invasion from their enemies because of the disobedience of their leaders (306, 308).
This section concludes with an exposition of the verbal links between the Melchizedek blessing passage in Genesis 14 and the Covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 15. Sailhamer shows that—in an argument backed by the writer of Hebrews in the NT— “God alone will care for the well-being of his chosen ones” (309).
I am deeply thankful that God has cared for the well being of his people by giving us faithful scholars like Dr. John Sailhamer to point us to truth. This book has changed the way I read the Bible and it is a resource I see my self confidently coming back to in the fight for Truth.
November 18, 2019
I'm not sure I believe in reading backwards, but that's what I've done with Sailhamer. I began with The Meaning of the Pentateuch, which was a game-changer for me. Then I read The Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, and now this. Entirely backwards.
Because I've read Sailhamer back to front, there were things in this book that weren't new to me. His material on the composition of the Pentateuch and the significance of the last days poems is as brilliant as ever. The discussion of the purpose of the Law in the Pentateuch (Appendix B) is as whacky as ever - although perhaps the earlier discussion of Reformational use of the Mosaic Law gave it a bit more context. I still think there's more to be said for a positive reading of Leviticus. I still think he could be more judicious in the way he describes Moses the man. In other words, I still think this particular kite should stay in the hand.
But mostly, on most things, and on the most important things, I still think he's right. As an Introduction to Old Testament Theology, there's lots that this book doesn't say. It's much more a discussion of method and hermeneutics than it is a description of conclusions. There are places where Sailhamer pulls back the veil and gives us a glimpse into where he might go. But mostly, he's clearing the ground, brushing the abuses of criticism to one side, pushing past our fixation on history to the detriment of the text, establishing the right kind of special hermeneutic. There's so much that's good here. I agree with his choices - text rather than event, canon rather than criticism, diachronic rather than synchronic, confessional rather than descriptive. I agree with his conviction that the Old Testament itself is eschatological and Messianic, and that we give much too much away when we forget this. But I'm thankful for the breadth of reading in both the Bible and the history of interpretation that Sailhamer brings to his task. It's refreshing to have a discussion of biblical theology that is rooted in such a broad view of the field.
It's not perfect. I've already intimated that Appendix B is weird. The book is a slow burner all round, written adequately rather than well in places. And it's only a beginning, not an end.
But I am persuaded that it's the right beginning. Not a game-changer for me, because I've read Sailhamer backwards and he'd already changed my game. But I'm thankful to have invested the time, I learnt more from this book, and I wonder whether this might be the most careful presentation of his position. I'd love to get more of my friends to read him. 4 stars.
Because I've read Sailhamer back to front, there were things in this book that weren't new to me. His material on the composition of the Pentateuch and the significance of the last days poems is as brilliant as ever. The discussion of the purpose of the Law in the Pentateuch (Appendix B) is as whacky as ever - although perhaps the earlier discussion of Reformational use of the Mosaic Law gave it a bit more context. I still think there's more to be said for a positive reading of Leviticus. I still think he could be more judicious in the way he describes Moses the man. In other words, I still think this particular kite should stay in the hand.
But mostly, on most things, and on the most important things, I still think he's right. As an Introduction to Old Testament Theology, there's lots that this book doesn't say. It's much more a discussion of method and hermeneutics than it is a description of conclusions. There are places where Sailhamer pulls back the veil and gives us a glimpse into where he might go. But mostly, he's clearing the ground, brushing the abuses of criticism to one side, pushing past our fixation on history to the detriment of the text, establishing the right kind of special hermeneutic. There's so much that's good here. I agree with his choices - text rather than event, canon rather than criticism, diachronic rather than synchronic, confessional rather than descriptive. I agree with his conviction that the Old Testament itself is eschatological and Messianic, and that we give much too much away when we forget this. But I'm thankful for the breadth of reading in both the Bible and the history of interpretation that Sailhamer brings to his task. It's refreshing to have a discussion of biblical theology that is rooted in such a broad view of the field.
It's not perfect. I've already intimated that Appendix B is weird. The book is a slow burner all round, written adequately rather than well in places. And it's only a beginning, not an end.
But I am persuaded that it's the right beginning. Not a game-changer for me, because I've read Sailhamer backwards and he'd already changed my game. But I'm thankful to have invested the time, I learnt more from this book, and I wonder whether this might be the most careful presentation of his position. I'd love to get more of my friends to read him. 4 stars.
April 20, 2025
This book is a beast to get through but well worth it. No author has had a greater impact on my approach to reading the Bible. Changed the way I look at the Scriptures!
April 16, 2023
The best of this book is part III, where Sailhamer lays his own conclusions within the framework built by part II. The brief discussion on Narrativity and Memesis (§3.2.1.10) was one of the best and briefest conversations on how Christians should read, understand, and assimilate the OT. This section was worth reading the rest of the book just to find. Pure gold. The rest of the book however was good but not great. Part III and Appendix 4 have turned the book back into a five star for me after the rest of the work was more clearly four.
This introduction is much helped by the analytical and modular approach he offers. While presenting his proposal for doing OT Theology he also skillfully sets it within the context of not only a handful of other active approaches but within an even more expansive background of most possible methodologies, given a few basic presuppositions. Nothing in this work is shockingly new to anyone familiar to Sailhamer’s methods but it does offer a helpfully systematic understanding for others to adopt or adapt.
While I’m hardly the first to make this comment regarding Sailhamer, which is both praise and criticism: he interacts almost exclusively with German higher critics. This is praise in so far as he presents critical analysis and responses to some of the most influential, yet unknown to American Evangelical, scholars of the past century. And criticism in that he frequently fails to also interact with contemporary scholarship from within his own camp.
In the Text vs Event section, Sailhamer makes some helpful clarifications that I think are easy to miss in his more applied texts. First, he acknowledges the legitimacy of salvific and even revelatory events within history. As expected, he consistently follows this up with the reminder that revelation we are offered today is not in recovering the history behind the text but in looking to the revealed interpretation of history. The point that he approaches but never states is that by recovering a supposed history and offering our own interpretations we supplant the God-given role of Scripture to interpret for us “salvation-history”.
The Criticism vs Canon section was interesting and helpful but I felt that he spent too much time discussing criticism and not enough on ‘canonicism’. This felt especially surprising since his own approach is canonical and most readers will already have a clear understanding of the critical method. Something I would have loved to see in this book (though I do realize this is an entirely unfair request because of the time of its writing) is an evaluation of the New Studies in Biblical Theology series or similar books. Such good work has done in Biblical Theology in the last twenty years with a methodology that is at least adjacent to Sailhamer’s and I’m very curious what he did/would have thought of it. One critique growing in my mind concerning the framework lates out in this book is that while it may be possible for someone to hold and operate under any combination on his 4 polarities it seems to me that only 3 or so combinations can be held with an sort of coherence.
The Descriptive vs Confessional portion offers a helpful survey of different portrayals of the history of BT. While I’ve heard most of this before I’ve never seen various versions compared and analyzed in this way. It does however feel somewhat oddly placed, in the middle of the book, and why this chapter and not another? As I continue to read on it does also begin to seem that each of the polarities he introduces are really slightly different angles at the same core issue which is perhaps why much of what is said on one section feels primarily to be a reiteration of the previous ones.
The discussion between Diachronic and Synchronic regarding how one presents an OT Theology has an important place in our whole process of formulating that Theology. At times though I was lost in the discussion and again hoping for more contemporary examples in order better illustrate the different types he introduces.
This introduction is much helped by the analytical and modular approach he offers. While presenting his proposal for doing OT Theology he also skillfully sets it within the context of not only a handful of other active approaches but within an even more expansive background of most possible methodologies, given a few basic presuppositions. Nothing in this work is shockingly new to anyone familiar to Sailhamer’s methods but it does offer a helpfully systematic understanding for others to adopt or adapt.
While I’m hardly the first to make this comment regarding Sailhamer, which is both praise and criticism: he interacts almost exclusively with German higher critics. This is praise in so far as he presents critical analysis and responses to some of the most influential, yet unknown to American Evangelical, scholars of the past century. And criticism in that he frequently fails to also interact with contemporary scholarship from within his own camp.
In the Text vs Event section, Sailhamer makes some helpful clarifications that I think are easy to miss in his more applied texts. First, he acknowledges the legitimacy of salvific and even revelatory events within history. As expected, he consistently follows this up with the reminder that revelation we are offered today is not in recovering the history behind the text but in looking to the revealed interpretation of history. The point that he approaches but never states is that by recovering a supposed history and offering our own interpretations we supplant the God-given role of Scripture to interpret for us “salvation-history”.
The Criticism vs Canon section was interesting and helpful but I felt that he spent too much time discussing criticism and not enough on ‘canonicism’. This felt especially surprising since his own approach is canonical and most readers will already have a clear understanding of the critical method. Something I would have loved to see in this book (though I do realize this is an entirely unfair request because of the time of its writing) is an evaluation of the New Studies in Biblical Theology series or similar books. Such good work has done in Biblical Theology in the last twenty years with a methodology that is at least adjacent to Sailhamer’s and I’m very curious what he did/would have thought of it. One critique growing in my mind concerning the framework lates out in this book is that while it may be possible for someone to hold and operate under any combination on his 4 polarities it seems to me that only 3 or so combinations can be held with an sort of coherence.
The Descriptive vs Confessional portion offers a helpful survey of different portrayals of the history of BT. While I’ve heard most of this before I’ve never seen various versions compared and analyzed in this way. It does however feel somewhat oddly placed, in the middle of the book, and why this chapter and not another? As I continue to read on it does also begin to seem that each of the polarities he introduces are really slightly different angles at the same core issue which is perhaps why much of what is said on one section feels primarily to be a reiteration of the previous ones.
The discussion between Diachronic and Synchronic regarding how one presents an OT Theology has an important place in our whole process of formulating that Theology. At times though I was lost in the discussion and again hoping for more contemporary examples in order better illustrate the different types he introduces.
March 20, 2025
"Simply put, the question is: Does an OT theology focus its attention on the scriptural text of the OT itself, or is the text primarily a witness to the act of God's self-revelation in the events recorded by Scripture?" - John Sailhammer
First Sailhammer book I've read. Certainly some good stuff in here. From a profitability and usefulness view on introductory matters, this is probably more of a 4 star book. Sailhammer does a good job laying out the various "forks in the road" one can take in forming an OT theology that can be applied to broader Biblical-theological principles. His chapter on "Criticism or Canon" was helpful in laying out the various types of criticism out there. The charts are helpful as well. In terms of overall enjoyability and readability, it is not the most fun read (although I'm not sure if the thought-provoking, engaging, and helpful intro on developing a Biblical-theology even exists!). I think Sailhammer does a good job and I do recommend the book if one is thinking through how to develop a consistent Biblical theology.
First Sailhammer book I've read. Certainly some good stuff in here. From a profitability and usefulness view on introductory matters, this is probably more of a 4 star book. Sailhammer does a good job laying out the various "forks in the road" one can take in forming an OT theology that can be applied to broader Biblical-theological principles. His chapter on "Criticism or Canon" was helpful in laying out the various types of criticism out there. The charts are helpful as well. In terms of overall enjoyability and readability, it is not the most fun read (although I'm not sure if the thought-provoking, engaging, and helpful intro on developing a Biblical-theology even exists!). I think Sailhammer does a good job and I do recommend the book if one is thinking through how to develop a consistent Biblical theology.
December 28, 2017
Definitely not a book you read for the joy or excitement of it! But everyone I know who has read it has been significantly impacted by it. It changes the way you read the Scriptures (for the better), opening up the Bible in a way that makes you wonder: "Why have I never seen this before?!"
August 20, 2020
Absolutely essential reading for anyone interested in or involved in the discipline of biblical theology and Old Testament studies. Sailhamer's methodological clarity is extremely helpful, and his proposal is compelling. The implications of his approach are massive. Worth reading and re-reading.
July 31, 2023
Good chapters on reading the OT focussing on the text itself rather than the historical events behind the text, and approaching it canonically rather than critically. Later chapters became a bit waffley and too much on different historical perspectives.
June 16, 2017
Helpful introduction although I do not agree with some of his conclusions, especially those reached in the appendices.
September 5, 2020
Very helpful, his engagement with Post-Reformation sources pre-20th century is particularly valuable and stimulating for thought.
March 12, 2024
Very deep, not very accessible. It just scares me that this is only the introduction to OT theology. Helpful for categorizing one’s hermeneutic.
April 30, 2024
Such an important book. Dense in places, but worth all the effort it takes. Will completely change the way you read the OT.
May 31, 2024
The hermeneutical holy grail?
July 28, 2024
Incredibly helpful and needed topic for discussion; however, I wish it was more accessible. It may just be geared more towards seminarians.
November 29, 2024
This book was very interesting and also quite hard to read.
Read
July 29, 2016Very technical about how people have studies the OT, and how he approaches studying the OT
August 17, 2013
Very good. Gives a clear, analytical approach to how one might go about developing an OT theology.
March 28, 2017
Great for methodology not just for OT theology but for Biblical theology! Must read!!!
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews