Book Reviews | 255

ERNEUERUNG DES LEBENS als GEBURT/ZEUGUNG: Die Auss-

agen der Texte” (Kaiser's caps). Part 3 consists of chs. 8–11. Chapter 8
deals with Titus 3:5, where παλιγγενεσία occurs. Chapter 9 examines the
Johannine texts, especially John 1:12–13, John 3:1–12, and 1 John 3:9 along
with related passages. Chapter 10 turns to 1 Pet 1:3, 23 and the respective

Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/biblical-research/article-pdf/31/2/255/1267685/bullbiblrese_31_2_255.pdf by guest on 05 February 2022

contexts of those verses, along with other 1 Peter passages where the motif
of new life reverberates. Chapter 11 takes up Jas 1:18 (chapter title: “‘Er hat
uns geboren durch das Wort der Wahrheit”: Die Geburtsmetaphorik in
Jak 1,18 in ihrem Kontext”) and gives an amazingly detailed exegesis of Jas
1:13–25 (pp. 337–94).
Chapter 12 surveys, rehearses, and extends results. The main contention in
this wide-ranging study is that greater conceptual precision is called for in
understanding the NT’s “Wiedergeburt” language, limiting it to the (late first
century; p. 395) passages that Kaiser has isolated, and dissociating it from
more general and widespread terminology regarding renewal or newness of
life found in other texts and especially in Paul.
Scholars engaged in this research topic or the passages Kaiser majors on
will find here a fruitful and substantial discussion partner and source for
fresh insights.
r o Be r T W. Ya r Br o ug h
Covenant Theological Seminary
doi: 10.5325/bullbiblrese.31.2.0253

John DelHousaye. The Fourfold Gospel: A Formational

Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, volume 1: From
the Beginning to the Baptist.
Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020. Pp. xix + 423. ISBN: 978-1-5326-8364-0. $49.00
paper.

This volume, and the one to follow, are the product of 20 years of research
and devotion from the author (p. xi). DelHousaye’s Fourfold Gospel seeks to
walk the line of biblical commentary and devotional, utilizing the medieval
Quadriga. This interpretive methodology, drawn from the Latin word for a
chariot drawn by four horses, embraces four levels of scriptural interpreta-
tion: the literal, anagogical, typological, and tropological. The commentary
itself is structured along the parallel rabbinic structure of PaRDeS (‫)ּפ ְַרּדֵ ס‬,
wherein the “P” stands for peshat (‫ׁשט‬ ָ ‫—)ּפ‬the
ְ plain sense of the words; the
“R” for remez (‫—) ֶרמֵז‬the allegorical sense; the “D” for derash (‫—)דֵ ּרַ ׁש‬the
homiletical sense; and the “S” for sod (‫—)סֹוד‬the intent of the divine author
256 | B U LLE T I N FOR BI BLI CA L RE SEA RC H

(p. 30). The biblical text is then arranged in the form of a fourfold Gospel
reminiscent of Tatian’s Diatessaron, with the commentary categorized by the
letters explained above.
Before arriving at the commentary proper, DelHousaye spends the first 126
pages explaining the methodology of the book, the historical development of

Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/biblical-research/article-pdf/31/2/255/1267685/bullbiblrese_31_2_255.pdf by guest on 05 February 2022

its devotional approach, and a summarized history of the Gospels—including
their reception in history, alternative arrangements, and competing Gospel
texts within the first 300 years of the church. This introduction is a vital
part of this commentary, as most Western readers will be wholly unfamiliar
with the approach utilized or how to appropriate it. The author should be
commended for his desire to reintroduce popular medieval concepts such as
lectio divina into the Protestant reading of Scripture and present a work that
is both academically challenging and spiritually enriching. For the reader
interested in medieval spirituality, the bibliography contained within this in-
troduction alone will be an invaluable resource for further study. While this
work does not rest comfortably in the genre of biblical commentary that
most are accustomed, DelHousaye encourages the reader to approach the
text with spiritual preparation in order to allow the devotional content to
permeate. Though this methodology may be uncomfortable for scholastics
as well as lay Protestants, the author should again be commended for making
the purpose of the text absolutely clear at the outset.
Where this book succeeds is in its valiant attempt to summarize an
often-overlooked era of Christian spirituality and synthesize it with modern
academic Gospel studies. Its acknowledgment of the status quaestionis of
the Synoptic Problem, as well as the historical-critical breakthroughs in
Gospel research, open the door for the academic discussion without tak-
ing the forefront. Alternatively, this commentary seeks to demonstrate that
modern academic discourse and medieval mystagogy can cohabitate. While
not all commentary sections incorporate every aspect of the PaRDeS ap-
proach illustrated in the introduction, most attempt to close on a devotional
thought designed for later reflection, and while this may be out of place for
its peers, the devotional approach of this work presents the academic reader
with something often overlooked: opportunity for introspection and inter-
nalization of the biblical text.
While there is much to be lauded over an intrepid endeavour such as this,
there are also infelicities that distract from the overall book. The introduc-
tion itself not without purpose, yet one wonders if it is necessary to include
in a commentary on the canonical Gospels a lengthy discussion of apocry-
phal and heretical Gospels and Muslim literature. While worthy subjects of
study in their own right, this diverts from the text in hand. Additionally, the
author has chosen to include his own English interpretations of the Greek
 Book Reviews | 257

text—a common approach in most academic commentaries—resulting in

several awkward readings of familiar texts and the adjusting of the Greek in
uncommon ways.1 Last, the authors insistence that the Gospel of John was
composed prior to Luke is at odds with most contemporary scholarship and
is reasserted throughout the text without suitable substantiation.

Downloaded from http://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/biblical-research/article-pdf/31/2/255/1267685/bullbiblrese_31_2_255.pdf by guest on 05 February 2022

In spite of these minor disputations, it can be said that this work will
stand out among its peers, given its unparalleled approach within the Prot-
estant tradition. DelHousaye should be commended for his tireless efforts to
gather such an immense collection of resources and his willingness to relate
a work that is a deeply personal expression of his own spiritual formation.
There is certainly a need in the academy for more of this within contexts
dominated by intellectualism.
cl ar k r . BaT e S
University of Birmingham
doi: 10.5325/bullbiblrese.31.2.0255

Sandra Huebenthal. Reading Mark’s Gospel as a Text From

Collective Memory.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Pp. 638. ISBN 978-0-8028-7540-2. $74.99 cloth.

Sandra Huebenthal is professor of exegesis and biblical theology at the

University of Passau, Lower Bavaria, Germany. She is an expert in the ap-
plication of social memory theory and its use in biblical studies. It is with
this expertise that she explores Mark’s Gospel. More specifically, Huebenthal
asks of Mark’s text what can be gleamed with regard to social memory
theory and the aurality of the text. She states, “this study aims to read Mark’s
Gospel as a collective memory text, namely, one that reflects the efforts of
a group to draft a group identity based on that group’s memories of Jesus”
(emphasis hers). Her study attempts to point to what is remembered and how
the memory is structured and presented.

1. For example, the interpretation of John 1:1–5 includes the use of the definite article
where it is often omitted and avoids the use of the English “word” for the Greek λόγος in
an effort to convey its use in Hellenistic philosophy. In so doing however, the author also
changes the masculine pronouns into neuters: “In the beginning was the Logos. And the
Logos was beside the God, and the Logos was God. It was in the beginning beside the
God. All things through it came to be, and apart from it not one thing came to be that
is. In it was life, and the life was the light of people. And the light in the darkness shines,
and the darkness did not overcome (or comprehend) it.”