This book is comprised of a series of technical essays on various aspects of the doctrine of Scripture.  It is written from an Evangelical perspective, and is the second in a pair of volumes on Scripture edited by Carson and Woodbridge (the first being Scripture and Truth).  The primary focus of the book is on providing a reasoned presentation of the Evangelical view of Scripture in the face of liberal thought on the one hand, and fundamentalism on the other.

Outline of the book

Each chapter of Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon is a separate article in its own right.  Each addresses a different topic, and although there is considerable cross-pollination of ideas between articles (both within this book and with its companion volume), each can be understood without reference to the others.  Each article is around 40 pages in length, and so is able to cover the material in some depth.

Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture (D. A. Carson)

D. A. Carson begins with an overview of recent developments in the Evangelical understanding of Scripture, including a brief summary of the work and views of some of the more influential and controversial authors in the Evangelical world, and suggestions for areas in which research needs to be progressed.  He also introduces each of the articles in the book, explaining how they came about and why they are necessary. 

The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture's Diverse Literary Forms (Kevin J. Vanhoozer)

Kevin Vanhoozer's article on truth and the Bible's literary forms is primarily focussed on progressing the doctrine of inerrancy beyond the popular Evangelical understanding (exemplified by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).  (A search for this document on your friendly neighbourhood Internet search engine should uncover at least a dozen copies of it.)

Vanhoozer's main problem with the Chicago statement (and similar ones by various Evangelical authors such as I. Howard Marshall and Carl F. H. Henry) is that it is inadequate to account for a large portion of the Bible's message.  Specifically, the concept of inerrancy (taken as meaning "without error in all that it affirms") can only really be applied to statements that it actually does affirm; i.e. statements in the indicative mood.  e.g. "Jesus wept", "And the LORD God formed man...", etc.  (I will refer to this as the "traditional Evangelical" view of inerrancy.)

This definition of inerrancy means that there is a large portion of Scriptureto which the doctrine of inerrancy simply does not apply.  For example, Luke 22:35 says,

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

The traditional definition of inerrancy is very clear about one thing: Jesus did ask this question.  However, it says nothing about the content of the question itself.

Similarly, when Matthew 28:18-19 says,

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

the traditional inerrantist will affirm that Jesus did indeed come to the disciples, and that he does have "all authority in heaven and on earth", and he did command them to go, but can say nothing about the inerrancy of the command to go itself.  Such a concept is nonsensical.

It should be stressed that Vanhoozer is not disputing the correctness of the Chicago Statement, but its completeness and appropriateness to the task of presenting the Bible as God's sole authoritative revelation to humanity.

What Vanhoozer proposes as an alternative to the current understanding of inerrancy is a revision of the concept of infallibility (used by Evangelicals of last century very similarly to the modern usage of inerrancy) which gives due attention to the various forms in which speech occurs in Scripture.  He does this with reference to the field of speech theory, a discipline somewhere in between philosophy and linguistics which deals with the nature and purpose of speech: Why do we say things, what do we mean when we say them, why do we say them the way we say them, and what are the results of saying them?  (I must confess i was unaware of the existence of this field before i read Vanhoozer's article.  :-)

Vanhoozer examines a couple of alternate theories which take into account recent works by speech theorists, and suggests a definition of infallibility which encompasses the traditional Evangelical view of inerrancy, but also includes the speech recorded in Scripture to which the term "inerrancy" cannot apply.  He suggests that we need to understand infallibility in terms of such verses as "The word of the LORD will not return void", "The LORD let none of his words fall to the ground", and "he does everything well".  In these verses, God's word is presented as not only without error in what it affirms, but also perfect to achieve what he set out to accomplish.

Thus, in a particular passage, if God's intent was to convey information to his people (i.e. statements in the indicative mood), Vanhoozer's definition of infallibility says that Scripture conveys that information accurately (the traditional view of inerrancy).  If his intent was to incite his people to action (statements in the imperative mood - commands), then Scripture contains sufficient information for us to act upon, and sufficient guidelines on how to act.  If his intent was to challenge and provoke thought (questions, certain statements in the subjunctive mood, and some forms of poetry), Scripture does this effectively also.  Simplistically speaking, infallibility says, "When God spoke, he got what he wanted."

The Place of Historical Reconstruction in New Testament Criticism (Moises Silva)

Moises Silva's article focuses on explaining some of the techniques used by secular historians in building up a picture of ancient historical events, and comparing this to the way biblical scholars approach the historical passages of Scripture.

Silva concentrates on studies surrounding two major biographers of Alexander the Great, and demonstrates how, despite apparrent contradictions, both authors can usually be shown to be right, and an accurate picture of the life of Alexander the Great can be gained.  He quotes several experts in the study of Alexander's life, explaining the techniques they use to make their conclusions.

Silva then demonstrates how these techniques can often be directly applied to Scripture to produce dependable results.  Indeed, Silva points out, many of these techniques have long been used by Evangelicals in dealing with difficulties in Scripture (particularly in narrative books with parallel accounts, such as Kings/Chronicles and the Synoptic Gospels).  Evangelicals have been criticised by liberal scholars at times for some of these reconstructions, but Silva shows how the Evangelical view is actually more in line with practices used in secular historical studies than that of most liberal scholars.

Silva also offers some criticisms of common Evangelical practices, describing how we can be more faithful to the Scriptures and less open to accusations of bias and twisting narrative.

The Legitimacy and Limits of Harmonization (Craig L. Blomberg)

In this article, Craig Blomberg reviews eight techniques used by biblical scholars to explain apparent discrepencies between parallel narratives.  This is a critical field of study, as many educated (and uneducated!) nonbelievers use biblical "contradictions" as an excuse for their rejection of the gospel, and it is a stumbling block to many believers also.  Blomberg presents each of these techniques in detail, giving examples of their use.

Blomberg comments that many Evangelicals have been quick to jump to the harmonistic solution for many problems (Harold Lindsell's now-infamous suggestion that Peter denied Jesus six times, not three, being a classic, if somewhat overused, example), when other techniques can often yield much more palatable explanations.  He explains that traditionally Evangelicals have been reluctant to employ some of the techniques he presents (such as source criticism and redaction criticism) due to the liberal connotations attached to them, and the fear of being seen to be rejecting core doctrines like infallibility by employing them.  He asserts that these fears are not always well-founded, and gives examples of how such techniques can be appropriate tools when used responsibly, without compromising our commitment to the authority and reliability of Scripture.

Opinion of the book

Carson: solid as always.  I've never been disappointed by Carson's thinking or articulation.  Even on academic subjects such as this, he writes with a passion that is infectious.

Vanhoozer: ground-breaking and block-busting! Superb thinking and understanding of main issues.  Bring your dictionary.

Silva: excellent explanation of how the Evangelical position is consistent.

Blomberg: somewhat more tentative than the others, but still very valuable.

Moo: almost an apology for the fact that the OT writers sometimes didn't understand what they were writing.  Walter Kaiser's approach seems more useful.

Frame: I learned more about the Holy Spirit from Bromiley on Karl Barth than i did from this article.

Woodbridge: I'll be honest here - i read about 3 pages of this chapter before deciding that i wasn't interested in the material, so i skipped it.  Hence there really isn't anything i can say about it.

Bromiley: excellent discussion of issues, although how accurately Barth is presented is unclear, as there seems to be considerable disagreement among scholars as to what Barth's views really were.

Dunbar: not as thorough as i'd like, but raised good points nonetheless.

This book is a must read for anyone who is serious about understanding the Evangelical position on inerrancy.  However, it is fairly technical, and would be heavy going for anyone without at least an Bachelor's level of education.  Despite this, pressing on through the material brought me great rewards in understanding, and i believe it would do the same for many others.