In the last decade, Qurʼānic exegesis has become a thriving subject of study in its own right. Our familiarity with the genre, its history and its authors has considerably increased. However, a number of limitations still hinder tafsīr studies. Chiefly, introductory works still dominate the field. Furthermore, focus has been put on single exegetes, which leads to insularity of findings. There is an underlying premise guiding many studies which consists in attempting to reset the history of tafsīr on the basis of the importance of one exegete. Many fruitless and disproportionate efforts were also displayed in the study of modern debates on hermeneutics in the Muslim world. While these caveats are concomitant to the “discovery phase” in which tafsīr studies immerse now, there is an urgent need to go further. In particular, with few exceptions such as Jane Dammen McAuliffe and Johanna Pink, little has been done to explore the methods of tafsīr. Not enough attention has been paid to the ways exegetes construct their works, the kind of epistemological tools they use and the rhetorical they privilege. The investigation of methods of tafsīr could only be effective if accompanied with the historical-critical approaches to the Qurʼān. Disconnecting tafsīr from its rooting in the Qurʼānic studies, as a critical subject of inquiry, might well run tafsīr studies into a vicious circle. For this reason, comparative, critical and historical studies are necessary to advance our knowledge of the development of tafsīr.

Karen Bauer's edited volume meets both historical and methodological expectations. On the one hand, it fills the gap in the studies of the methods of tafsīr. On the other, it expands, almost equally, on the history of tafsīr. Bauer's introduction incarnates this two-fold concern; she argues for a comprehensive study of tafsīr tools, but still dedicates a great deal of the discussion to the categorisation of tafsīr. She criticises the thematic-historical classifications of I. Goldziher and J. Wansbrough, suggesting an alternative categorisation according to the volume of the commentary. Despite their shortcomings, the classifications of I. Goldziher and J. Wansbrough are still functional and more viable than a classification based on dividing tafsīr works according to volume (large vs medium vs short or encyclopedic vs madrasa commentaries). The volume does not indicate anything about the content of the book, the difference between exegetes and the methods or the hermeneutic posture of the exegete.

The book is divided into three sections. The first section, which consists of four chapters, is meant to uncover the aims of tafsīr. The phrase “aims of tafsīr” is somewhat vague and the section could be better named as thresholds to tafsīr as it deals with the introductions of Qurʼānic commentaries. Feras Hamza authored the first chapter, in which he calls to consider tafsīr as an asset for a historical understanding of the Qurʼān. He also translated Kāshānī's introduction to his Taʼwīlāt al-Qurʼān. In the second chapter, K. Bauer examines the introductions of nine major Qurʼānic commentaries. She argues that exegetes considered a specific posture on method to be the reason they composed their works. Here, she deems Wansbrough's categorisations to be useful. This follows logically from two facts: 1. Differentiation between exegetes, as she shows, lies in the methods. 2. Wansbrough offers a working paradigm based on methods of interpretation. Bauer's meticulous content description should be a step toward further comparison and analysis. Next, Walid A. Saleh edits, translates and comments on the introduction to al-Wāḥidī's al-Basīṭ. Saleh makes several claims that need to be substantiated such as that al-Wāḥidī was “the architect of a major cultural transfer of Mu‘tazilī philological Qurʼān commentary tradition into sunnism”(p. 68). His qualifications of al-Wāḥidī's introduction as radical and unique are hyperbolic. The major problem of the edited text is its status. Al-Wāḥidī asserts that, in this work, he is composing few pages on tafsīr (not several volumes that make his largest commentary al-Basīṭ). Al-Wāḥidī declares that he wrote his work “as a rushed book and a flame snatched by a hurried borrower” (p. 83). The fourth chapter, written by Suleiman A. Mourad, analyses and translates the introduction to al-Tahdhīb of al-Jishumī, a Mu‘tazilī exegete. Mourad also inspects Jishumī's exegetical tools in selected passages of his commentary. These findings alone cannot allow a reconstruction of a specific Mu‘tazilī tradition of Qurʼānic exegesis.

The second section on the methods and sources of tafsīr is by far the most important in the book and the core contribution of the volume. It consists of seven chapters. Robert Gleave examines four techniques in early shī‘ī hermeneutics: meaning equivalence, explanatory glosses, linguistic exegesis and univocal-equivocal category. He concludes that none of these techniques are specifically shī‘ī nor part of a consistent hermeneutics. Andrew Rippin studies the use of the milieu, the life of Muhammad and the language of the seventh-century Arabia by Muslim exegetes to construct an Arabian historical context of the Qurʼān. In the seventh chapter, Roberto Tottoli discusses the use of ḥadīth in classical tafsīr literature through the exegesis of Q. 21:85 and Q. 17:1. Tottoli shows that many commentators broke the rule and included ḥadīth materials rejected by ḥadīth criticism. In the following chapter, Martin Nguyen attempts to trace the sources of al-Qushayrī. In particular, al-Qushayrī relies on exegetes from Nishapur available to him because of proximity. Tariq Jaffer examines Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī's system of inquiry at work in tafsīr, theology and philosophy through three dialectical procedures: questions, arguments and points of investigation. This expands the boundaries of tafsīr to include any available knowledge to the exegete. Subsequently, Ludmila Zamah underlines the polysemic use of the apparent meaning, ẓāhir in Qurʼānic exegesis through al-Qurṭubī. Stephen R. Burge closes the section with the eleventh chapter on al-Suyūṭī's modes of exegesis in his al-Itqān compared to his commentary on Q. 113. Burge highlights al-Suyūṭī's selectiveness who can but use some of the eighty modes of exegesis (in al-Itqān), focusing in his exegesis of Q. 113 on canonisation, lexicology, circumstances of revelation and the virtues of the Qurʼān.

In the third section, Claude Gilliot and Michael E. Pregill revisit the difficult problem of early tafsīr. First, Claude Gilliot depicts the profile of al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim, an exegete who is thought to have died in 724. Gilliot also describes the paths of transmission of his “exegesis”. Gilliot's piece is part of a project of social history of Khurāsānī tafsīr. Second, Michael E. Pregill wrote the thirteenth and last chapter on methodologies for the dating of early exegetical works and traditions. He maintains that a combination of quantitative methods (the number of similar passages between different works) and qualitative methods (conceptual similarity) could produce a relatively accurate dating of early works. He criticises Wansbrough's literary method and privileges H. Motzki's approach. This section is very important in terms of the formative period and should have been put at the beginning of the book so that it could pose the problem of methods of tafsīr since its genesis. An extensive bibliography of primary and of secondary sources and two indexes (one for the Qurʼānic citations and a general index) make the book very accessible for students and scholars alike.

Nevertheless, the volume has its shortcomings. A major weakness lies in the transliteration and translation. At this level, the number of inaccuracies is considerable. Here are examples I took from different chapters; on p. 64, ‘illāl should be ‘ilal, karamāt should be karāmāt and Kaylāfī should be Kīlānī. On page 90, yadhdhakhir should be yaddakhir. On page 94, kaliddan should be muqallidan. On page 99, inkashaṭat should be inkashafat. On p. 134, allā should be illā. On page 133, qarāʼ should be qaraʼ. On page 131, li-raʼs should be al-raʼs. On page 264, the date of al-Rāzī's death is given as 1210 while it should be 1209. On page 269, fawāhish should be fawāḥish. On page 270, bāṭinā should be bāṭinan. On page 279, al-A‘samm should be al-A‘sam. On page 280, faḍāil should be faḍāʼil. On page 338, lam yakhruj shayʼan should be lam yukhrij shayʼan. On page 423, muqtasmīna should be muqtasimīna and on page 446, ālihan should be ilāhan.

Despite these formal issues, the book is a key publication that is likely to exert influence on tafsīr studies, especially with regard to the issue of method. I highly recommend it for scholars as well as students of Qurʼānic studies. It could also benefit specialists of ḥadīth since more than half of the used primary sources belong to the discipline of ḥadīth. The 13 authors generously crafted their work, seeking both novelty and thoroughness of inquiry.