For almost thirty years a small but significant number of biblical scholars have in various ways pressed on the standard practices of biblical criticism in order to make room for theologically interested readings of scripture. This is hardly a unified movement. Nevertheless, over this time these scholars have produced a number of monographs, there is now a journal devoted to the theological interpretation of scripture, there are several commentary series supporting such theological readings and there are at least two groups within the Society of Biblical Literature focused on the interrelationships between Christian theology and scriptural interpretation.

Theologians, too, have contributed to these discussions, reflecting their own interests. This volume stands squarely on that side of the discussion. The origins of this work lie in the author's Marquette University Ph.D. dissertation. It has, however, been revised significantly; it does not read like a dissertation.

The volume begins by noting the extraordinary plurality in biblical interpretation among contemporary readers of the Bible, lay, ordained and scholarly. ‘Given the cacophony of competing approaches to Scripture, and the seemingly irreconcilable claims the different groups are making of it, is it still possible for contemporary Christians to believe in the inspiration, unity and authority of the Christian Bible?’ (p. 7). Gordon's answer to this question is ‘yes’, but that yes depends on providing a systematic theology of scripture. What follows is his constructive systematic account of the role of scripture, situating scripture within the work of the triune God.

Gordon nominates Henri de Lubac and Bernard Lonergan as his primary interlocutors for this project. For those familiar with the interrelations between scripture and theology, de Lubac is a familiar figure. Lonergan is less so. In my judgement, Gordon's use of Lonergan does not deliver insights that could not have been found elsewhere. This is not to criticise the insights themselves. Nor is it a criticism of Lonergan's stature as a modern theologian. Nevertheless, any number of scholars in Gordon's bibliography who are much more familiar deliver the same insights without the need to introduce readers to Lonergan, too.

Chapters 2–6 are the heart of the book. Many scriptural interpreters argue that some version of the rule of faith is necessary to regulate and order diverse interpretations of scripture. In chapter 2 Gordon recognises this and also argues that a version of the rule of faith is essential to understanding the economic work of the Trinity and scripture's place within a doctrine of God. This leads nicely into a discussion in chapter 3 of scripture's instrumental role in the economy of salvation. Chapter 4 offers a theologically dense account of human persons and their place in God's economy. One of his primary aims here is to offer a robust theological account of humans as both authors and readers of scripture.

The next two chapters address scripture itself. Chapter 5 describes in rich detail the dense historical particularities in the production and formation of the canon. Gordon shows that scripture is the result of myriad human and material processes. Recognition of these realities requires a theological account of God's providence. However scripture came to look the way it does in all of its manifold diversity, Christians hold the conviction that God has provided them with what they need in order to fulfil their ends in God. Chapter 6 returns to questions of scripture's unity, authority and truthfulness. At this point, Gordon has laid a sufficiently dense theological account that he can argue the case for scripture's unity, authority and truthfulness that is rooted in the triune God's economy of salvation which reaches its climax in the reconciliation of all things in Christ. The arguments of these chapters are clearly written and persuasively presented.

If you have been reading in this area for some time, you will not find many points that have not been made elsewhere by others. Indeed, this volume reflects the impressive depth and breadth of Gordon's reading. The great strength of this volume is synthetic, systematic pulling together of various positions and arguments into a systematic theology of scripture.

The overall tone of this work is both eirenic and charitable. This is commendable in a work that is relevant to many of the most contentious aspects of contemporary Christian faith and practice. I believe, however, that without sacrificing charity, Gordon could have presented his views in sharper contrast to alternative positions. Gordon's account is fully theological and this stands in sharp contrast to those who wish to argue for theological readings of scripture in terms that are solely located within scripture. For example, Gordon argues for the unity of scripture based on the unified work of the triune God:

At this point I was eager for Gordon then to note that this way of thinking about the unity of scripture is both thoroughly theological and completely at odds with any account of the unity of scripture one will find in any standard biblical theology. This is because those works, often explicitly, seek to avoid theological solutions to problems that seem internal to scripture.

This volume does extraordinarily important synthetic work. Contrasting it with some of the standard alternatives would have simply made its own strengths more evident.