The nature of the relation between biblical studies and systematic theology has become a much-explored topic of late. Beyond the Bible, a series of lectures delivered by I. Howard Marshall for the Hayward Lectureship at Acadia Divinity College, is a contribution to this growing discussion by the eminent New Testament scholar. Included are responses by Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Stanley E. Porter.

For Marshall, it is essential we provide a ‘reasoned, principled approach’ to scripturally based doctrinal formation, one making the Bible relevant for contemporary readers, as well as being true to the confessional framework within which many scholars operate. To that end, Marshall examines rudimentary issues of biblical hermeneutics before offering his own constructive proposal.

Marshall argues that the Bible, being scripture, is no ordinary book and thus requires a unique hermeneutical approach. This approach consists of three levels: general hermeneutics, exegesis and exposition or application. Of these, Marshall attends to the third level most thoroughly, delineating his concern by exploring three areas: ethics, worship and doctrine.

With the first two, the issue is what the Bible explicitly condones or condemns, versus the question of theological licence: what can we say and do ‘beyond the Bible’? Scrutinising the third area, doctrine, Marshall makes two observations. First, statements like the Formula of Chalcedon and doctrines such as the atonement do go beyond scripture, though considered faithful renderings of scripture's content. Second, such ‘development’ is in scripture itself. Here, Marshall gives insight into the New Testament's reading of the Old Testament through a christological lens. But even as Jesus was the hermeneutical key for the New Testament writers, Jesus's own teaching was liminal, requiring further development by the church.

Ultimately, Marshall argues, we take our cues on moving from scripture to theology from scripture itself. How? First, like the New Testament writers, we should read the Old Testament in the light of the new covenant. Second, Jesus's teaching is best understood in the context of his death, resurrection and apostolic teaching. Finally, apostolic teaching itself was formed by the concerted dynamic of ‘word’ and the ‘Gospel-nurtured mind’. The canon is closed; the need for interpretation is not. Therefore, the church must be shaped in its theologising by the very scriptures to which it turns to know its God, itself and the world in which it lives.

Is Marshall's proposal adequate to accomplish this task? Questions remain. My initial concern is with what the term ‘doctrine’ means here. It appears theology is the formation of doctrine, but this still begs the question of what ‘doctrine’ is as Marshall uses the word. Recent contributions by Lindbeck and McGrath show this term's meaning is much debated, and Marshall would have benefited from some clarity. Second, I wondered where Marshall understands his own project within the larger history of biblical studies. He begins, for instance, by recounting developments in the discipline from around 1950 to 1980, halting there. Considering the changes that have taken place in the twenty-five years since, the lack of more engagement with contemporary scholars is curious. While he does acknowledge a few (Francis Watson, Joel Green, Richard Hays), their names and contributions remain tucked away in footnotes.

As a result, Marshall fails to acknowledge profound hermeneutical issues, even brushing aside the category general hermeneutics to deal with the ‘nitty-gritty’ of application. This simply assumes too much. Critique of historical criticism, ongoing explorations in narratology, the pluralism indicative of present-day theology – all of this has been precipitated by the shifting epistemological landscape of postmodernism, rendering ‘principled approaches’ highly suspect precisely because they are often unaware of their own boundedness in culture and history. So while Vanhoozer says ‘the Marshall plan’ (as he calls it) is ‘a summons to revolution’, I have the sense we have all been here before.

Of the two respondents, Vanhoozer interacts the most with Marshall. He can be laudatory, but he also raises important questions, like the critique of timeless principles, and Marshall's belief that less work has been done on the transition from bible to theology than from bible to ethics.

Porter spends much time critiquing Wittgenstein's levels of language, as well as speech-act theory and even Vanhoozer. His interaction with Marshall, however, is almost incidental.

In all, this book seems to me an opportunity missed. With the scholars assembled here, one would hope the conversation might be advanced more at certain points. A response from Marshall at the book's close seemed appropriate, and its absence contributes to the sense that the discussion lacks focus. Although it is commendable that Marshall realises there is a problem to address at all (and many still do not), the way forward in theological hermeneutics must be charted elsewhere.