In this collection of mostly previously published essays, Wall and Lemcio set forth a ‘canonical’ hermeneutic of the NT. By ‘canonical criticism’ they foremost mean the task of interpreting the Bible in its final form as accepted by the church (although it is not always clear which church or canonizing community they adopt). They do not, however, attempt to undermine historical-critical approaches to the Bible, but they do emphasize the need for a balanced biblical hermeneutic, by which scholars seek the original setting of the text, the canonical setting of the text (why, where, and for what reasons it was included in the canon), and appropriate situations for its application to the modern church. For those interested both in serious biblical criticism and in applying its results to the modern church, this work provides an introduction to both the theory and the practice of one form of canonical criticism.

The work is divided into four parts spanning the entire NT—gospels, Acts, letters, and Revelation—including an appendix (two separate essays) and an index of references and authors. Each essay (or chapter) contains a theoretical discussion of canonical criticism which is then applied to portions of the NT text.

The first four chapters present canonical readings of the gospels. In ch. 1, Lemcio offers his version of a canonical reading of the Beatitudes and the Great Commandment, highlighting both the individual author’s perspective as well as the perspective of the collective gospels as canon. He also details the different viewpoints of two leading canonical critics: Brevard S. Childs and James A. Sanders (see bibliographical references on p. 333, nn. 1, 2). In chs. 2 and 3 Lemcio analyses the history behind, the redaction of, and the canonical context of the parables of the great supper and the wedding feast (ch. 2) and the commands to love God and neighbour (ch. 3). He argues that canonical criticism should include a study of the historical-critical questions of the gospels (e.g. source, form, redaction). More importantly, the gospel traditions represent a diversity of Christian models that provide dynamic analogies for the contemporary church. In ch. 4 Lemcio compares and contrasts the synoptics with John for their treatment of Jesus’ role as Son with respect to God as Father. The synopticists stress the ‘authorized independence’ of the Son while the gospel of John portrays his loyal dependence on the Father for his every act and word.

Chs. 5 and 6 concern the canonical context of Acts. In ch. 5 Wall suggests that Acts is the canonical bridge between the gospels and the letters. The canonizing community purposefully separated Acts from the gospel of Luke to serve their own church needs. Acts summarizes the narrative of Jesus and then continues the messianic mission with the story of the apostles. Acts also sets the tone for the letters which follow, emphasizing the universality of the Christian message while maintaining its diversity. Finally, Wall argues that the canonical title—the Acts of the Apostles—served to validate the apostolic authority claimed by the later canonizing community. In ch. 6 Wall makes the case that the conversion of Cornelius in Acts has been arranged by Luke in such a way as to resemble the account of Jonah in the OT. Like the OT audience, Luke’s audience is supposedly bitter over God’s forgiveness of repentant people (Jews or Gentiles?).

Chs. 7–11 treat the canonical context of the NT letters (divided into Pauline and non-Pauline letters). In ch. 7 Wall claims that Rom. 1:1–15 introduces the corpus of Pauline letters, and recapitulates and develops the Lukan portrait of Paul in Acts. Each biblical text interacts with the other in their canonical context. For example, Rom. 1:1–15 introduces Paul as a letter writer, filling in a gap left by the author of Acts. In ch. 8 Wall states that, as in the case of the multiple gospels, the canonizing community incorporated two groups of letters (Pauline and non-Pauline) as a type of checks and balances. Paul’s gospel was considered more important (in view of its forefronted placement in the canon), but other letters were included in the canon to guard against abuses of Paul’s theology. In ch. 9 Wall similarly claims that the Pauline and non-Pauline letters are self-correcting. For example, Paul maintains that the church should be somewhat accommodating to the world and its leaders. The non-Pauline letters portray the church as a pilgrim, separated from the world and awaiting future removal from it. These two views of the church balance each other and provide different models of conduct for the modern church. In chs. 10 and 11 Wall argues that the law (as represented in the non-Pauline letters and Matthew) and the gospel (as represented in the Pauline letters and Luke) are also self-correcting motifs in the canon. Wall then describes the Wesleyan community as advocate of the non-Pauline theology.

In ch. 12 Wall discusses the canonical context of the Apocalypse. Revelation concludes the canon because it narrates the conclusion of God’s story. By attributing the authorship of Revelation to the apostle John, the canonizing community appeals to the text’s conformity to the other Johannine writings. More importantly. Revelation was canonized, despite its possible Sitz im Leben in the first century, because the canonizing community recognized its continuing importance for the church.

Although ch. 13 (part of an appendix) could have been omitted from this work, it is in some ways the most informative since, despite its emphasis on NT ethics, it contains many recurring themes and arguments found throughout the work. The reader would be best served to read this chapter first despite its emphasis on NT ethics, and then glance over the introductory theoretical sections of the other chapters. Finally, in ch. 14 Lemcio attempts to demonstrate by means of NT data and later church traditions that the city of Ephesus provided a meeting place for the diverse Christianities and Christians of the early church. There they could set forth their differing viewpoints and produce their literature. At Ephesus (as exemplified in the universalistic theology of Ephesians), more than any other city, Christian diversity was allowed to flourish without denying the need for unity.