This volume presents Cosmin Pricop's 2014 Goethe University dissertation. Pricop, who writes from an explicitly Romanian Orthodox perspective, seeks to foster mutual enrichment between Western historical-critical exegesis and traditional Eastern Orthodox biblical interpretation, a project that he also hopes will bear ecumenical fruit for Orthodox and Protestants. As a testing ground for this aspiration, Pricop proposes to study the Markan account of Jesus’ Transfiguration. In his introduction (chapter i), Pricop explains his choice of pericope, then reviews the history of Orthodox biblical interpretation, making the case that the time is ripe for vigorous engagement with historical criticism. Chapter ii guides the reader through the steps of the historical-critical method. Pricop covers text criticism; textual analysis, which he subdivides into delimitation and division of the textual unit, linguistic-syntactic analysis, semantic analysis and narrative analysis; literary criticism; determination of genre and Sitz im Leben; tradition criticism; and redaction and composition criticism. For each of these steps, Pricop explains what it is, comments on existing Orthodox attitudes towards it, and then applies it to Mark ix.2-9. Along the way, Pricop furnishes a treasure trove of useful analytical charts and tables.

With chapter iii Pricop shifts gear to consider potential openness on the part of Protestant exegetes to the Church Fathers. By Pricop's lights, the wirkungsgeschichtlich approach of Ulrich Luz affords the best starting point for a Protestant reception of patristic interpretation. Building on Luz's own remarks about patristic exegesis, Pricop identifies several points of contact between the interpretive approaches of Luz and the Fathers, but he also notes Luz's persistent ‘Protestant reservations’ about traditional exegesis, and responds from an Orthodox perspective with his own series of ‘open questions’ about Luz's approach. Chapter iv, which takes up approximately half the book, turns to patristic exegesis of the Transfiguration. After briefly reviewing the paramount significance of the Fathers for Orthodox exegesis, Pricop attempts to sketch out a general picture of patristic hermeneutical method, relying particularly on the work of Christina Metzdorf. He then turns to representative patristic treatments of the Transfiguration. He selects Origen as a seminal representative of the Alexandrian tradition, Chrysostom for the Antiochian tradition, and Jerome as a complex figure indebted to both interpretive traditions and, additionally, as a bridge between East and West. For each of these figures, Pricop follows the same procedure: (1) introduces the interpreter and identifies where in his oeuvre the Transfiguration is treated; (2) provides a detailed report of his interpretation of the Transfiguration, focusing on exegetical procedure and the precise text of the pericope; (3) discusses how the basic principles of the exegete's understanding of Scripture are manifest in the exegesis; (4) offers comparisons with aspects of historical-critical method (specifically, textual analysis, synoptic comparison, tradition criticism and redaction criticism); and (5) highlights differences with historical-critical exegesis, zeroing in on the Fathers’ invitation to hearers and readers to identify with and imitate figures in the biblical account, and their view that an encounter with the scriptural account constitutes a real, spiritual encounter with the reported event itself (‘Aktualisierung’).

Pricop's aims are ambitious and admirable, but his execution is sometimes unwieldy. For one thing, the volume's title is puzzling. The book's cover and spine only display the main title, Die Verwandlung Jesu Christi, which leaves potential readers entirely in the dark as to Pricop's central goals, which are methodological, theological and ecumenical, and only secondarily concerned with actual exegesis of the Transfiguration. Moreover, while Pricop provides a convincing justification for his choice of ‘Verwandlung’ rather than the more conventional ‘Verklärung’ to refer to the Transfiguration, the presence of ‘Verwandlung’ in the title only adds to its obscurity. In addition, the complexity of Pricop's project sometimes causes the book to sprawl in ways that threaten to diminish the force of his most important proposals.

What are these proposals? At various points in the text, Pricop gestures at the analogy between Chalcedonian Christology and the Bible's dual, divine and human authorship. He challenges Orthodox exegetes resolutely to explore the implications of the Bible's human authorship, which can open theological space for the insights of historical-critical method. Conversely, he suggests that patristic interpretation provides resources for Western biblical scholars who are believing Christians to bridge the gap between their scholarly practice and their faith.

Nevertheless, it is not clear that Pricop succeeds in paving the way for genuine rapprochement between historical-critical and traditional Orthodox interpretation of the Bible. One worries that Pricop underestimates the breadth of the enduring philosophical and theological disjunctions between historical-critical method as such and the convictions of the Fathers of the Church shared by their Eastern Orthodox heirs, so that some of the alleged points of convergence are in reality false cognates. For instance, Pricop rightly elucidates and celebrates a common concern for establishing the literal meaning of the biblical text. But the care that the Fathers take in this regard is rooted in a theological conviction about the text and its contents. The Fathers believe that the Bible accurately reports God's authoritative self-disclosure through divine actions in human history. The events recorded in the Bible are themselves revelatory, so it is vitally important to determine precisely what the text is reporting. When that has been determined, it is firmly believed on the authority of the Holy Spirit. If they are believing Christians, individual historical-critical exegetes may (or may not) share this view, but this does not translate into inspiration's acceptance as a methodological premise. Another such rift appears in Luz's aforementioned ‘Protestant reservations’. Luz expresses an appreciation for ‘tradition’ and ‘the Church’ as exegetical contexts, but, as Pricop notes, he defines them in a way fundamentally unacceptable to Orthodox (or Catholic) Christians. Many other such obstacles could be mentioned. Pricop recognises them yet remains optimistic that they are surmountable. I hope he is right.