This collection of essays offers not only numerous insights in specifically Orthodox approaches to Scripture, but it also provides a glimpse into the broad variety of self-understandings within contemporary Orthodoxy. The editor, Eugen Pentiuc, begins his introductory chapter by stating that “for the Orthodox believer, everything is regulated by and wrapped up in Tradition” (1), which we may safely hold to be a fair restatement of Orthodoxy's foundational view of scripture: the Bible is part of sacred tradition. At the same time, Pentiuc alludes to a variety of issues surrounding scripture that challenge today's Orthodox self-understanding: how to deal with historical-critical exegesis, to what extent we should view biblical exegesis as liturgical in character, and whether Orthodox theologians should be granted complete freedom in their endeavors (17–18). On each of these questions, this volume reflects a variety of views. While the editor at times makes clear where his sympathies lie, this book does not attempt to impose one approach.
This Oxford Handbook consists of five main parts. The first (“Text”) discusses the variety of biblical versions and translations used throughout Orthodoxy. Key issues here are, naturally, the prominent place of the Septuagint within Orthodox tradition and the place of the so-called Majority text of the New Testament. Discussing the first issue, Miltiadis Konstantinou argues that although the Septuagint remains invaluable, the Hebrew text should also be taken seriously (34). In a fascinating and carefully written essay, Gregory Paulson deals with the second issue as he turns to traditional lectionaries, making the case that a late date does not necessarily mean a late text (127)—which may be one reason we should deplore the recent jettisoning of the Textus Receptus. Simon Crisp, similarly, rightly makes the point that textual criticism should not just pursue the original text but should be focused on its transmission (140).
The second and shortest part of the book (“Canon”) has chapters dealing with canonicity (Lee Martin McDonald), inspiration (Edith Humphrey), and a variety of different canons (Ioan Chirilă, Petros Vassiliadis, and Daniel Assefa). With regard to this latter issue, the place of the so-called anagignōskomena (or apocrypha; Ioan Chirilă) is obviously the most significant. Part III (“Scripture within Tradition”) deals with the Scripture–Tradition relationship. Silviu Bunta offers a particularly rich essay in which he makes a thoughtful and exegetical plea for the death of the text within tradition. Alexis Torrance, turning to Origen, Maximus, and Palamas, cautions us not to strip Christ of his scriptural garments, whether by fixating on historical methods or by bypassing historicity.
The book's fourth and largest part is perhaps somewhat ambitiously termed “Toward an Orthodox Hermeneutic.” Here Theodore Stylianopolous sets the tone with his opening essay under the same title. It is an informative overview of various Orthodox approaches to hermeneutics (especially Florovsky, Romanides, Breck, and Agourides), cautiously pushing back against Florovsky's neopatristic synthesis and arguing for inclusion of historical critical methodology. Both Christopher Seitz and Bradley Nassif reflect upon the challenge that Antiochene exegesis offers us today. This section also offers several chapters on how specific geographical traditions have uniquely interpreted the Scriptures. These chapters will likely prove to be of interest especially to those particularly acquainted with them.
The last part of this volume (“Looking to the Future”) deals with a variety of “niche” areas, such as texts of violence (Brent Strawn), Christian-Jewish dialogue (Michael Azar), theology and science (both David Wilkinson and Nikolaos Chatzinikolaou), and women and the Bible (Ashley Purpura), as well as with hermeneutics more broadly (John Behr, Olivier-Thomas Venard, Justin Mihoc, James Wallace, and Walter Moberly). Some of these last essays would have fit more naturally in Part III on the Scripture–Tradition relationship (especially Mihoc on reception history) or in Part IV on hermeneutics (particularly Behr's fascinating “Reading from the End,” James Wallace's defense of academic freedom, and Walter Moberly's sane words of caution regarding historical exegesis).
This is obviously a rich volume that will be consulted for years to come. Still, it suffers from a couple of weaknesses. First, I am struck by the rather large number of non-Orthodox authors whose contributions have little or nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity. The United Methodist contributions to texts of violence (Brent Strawn) and to science and theology in the wake of COVID-19 (David Wilkinson); the Roman Catholic contribution on the digital project of La Bible en ses traditions (Olivier-Thomas Venard); and the Anglican conclusion to the book (Walter Moberly) are all quite interesting. But none of them engages Orthodoxy in particular; as such, they seem out of place in a book on the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. Somewhat ironically, perhaps, Moberly's excellent contribution would have been a great fit if presented as an Orthodox theological hermeneutic vis-à-vis modernity.
This last comment leads to my second reservation. The repeated pleas for historical-critical methodologies seem out of place in a book on the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. It is not just that the editor makes a point of raising the issue emphatically in the introduction, but a number of the chapters also deal with the issue. John Fotopoulos is quite unhappy with exegesis grounded in patristic thought, since he claims it is due to Florovsky's theology that “for many Orthodox Christians, the church fathers somehow take the place of the Scriptures” (326). Insisting on historical exegesis, he accuses his opponents of “biblical docetists,” an unsustainable charge that goes back to the days of Ernst Käsemann. James Wallace, similarly arguing that “it is time to move beyond the neopatristic synthesis” (637), goes so far as to insist on “complete freedom” in biblical scholarship (636).
This latter claim is surely startling: it assumes either an understanding of biblical exegesis as a neutral, presuppositionless endeavor, separate from theology, or unwillingness to exclude heterodoxy from the church. It is surprising to encounter so many pleas for historical-critical exegesis at a time when the theological academy as a whole has clearly moved on from there. Perhaps Orthodox biblical scholars would do well to soften their reaction against perceived traditionalism within their own background and instead take more recent theological trends in hermeneutical scholarship more seriously than they do. In which case, they could take their cue from the excellent chapters in this book by Humphrey, Nassif, Behr, and Moberly—all of whom read the Scriptures theologically, because they read it within the tradition.
