If the second leads me to think I need to be careful, the fourth makes me quite happy. Any enjoinder to disciplined historical inquiry by evangelical Christians is most welcome, so long as we are able to do so well. Thick descriptions, especially of ancient contexts, are notoriously difficult and prone to erroneous conclusions. We need to be able to be content with incomplete thick descriptions, the opportunity for error increases the thicker a description gets. I suppose that only underscores the importance of thesis 10.

The eighth was the one that struck me closest to home (or rather, closest to the home of some sin). As a confident young Calvinist it’s rather easy enough to approach catholic interpretation with a surfeit of skepticism that too often tests tradition against my own conclusions rather that seeking interpretive assistance. Worse still, I find it even easier to ignore it altogether. The thesis makes sense (within some set of limits that probably has something to do with the transition from the little to the big “c” in catholic), but Vanhoozer himself is a bit unclear with it. Does he list his “provisions” in the paper? Or go into more detail as to what it means to acknowledge superiority?