Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Book Reviews (08-08) Page 1 of 14

How to Write a
Book Review
Joel B. Green, Ph.D.
Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Fuller Theological Seminary
Introduction: Staying Engaged in Your Reading
Graduate study generally involves regular reading of key books and ongoing, critical, and personally
engaged interaction with that material. Given the busy-ness of our lives, during the term, you will
probably find yourself having to read at various levels mostly critically and personally engaged,
but sometimes less so. If you need to scan some chapters rather than drink deeply, this is to be
expected; if you find yourself scanning major sections of a book, or otherwise falling behind in the
reading, then yellow or red flags ought to be waved. Are you giving yourself adequate time to
interact with this material, to evaluate its importance, and to integrate it into your understanding of
the Christian faith and vision of the church and its mission?
Some questions to ask yourself as you read:
< What is the main thesis argued in this text? What is the overall aim of this book? What form
do(es) this texts central argument(s) take?
< What does this text assume? Are these assumptions acknowledged and/or supported?
< Do you see points of contact between this book or writer and others with which you have
interacted in this course? Other books or writers you know?
< How helpful is this writer/book for your study in this course? What models for theological
reflection and/or practice might arise from this material? How might this material inform the
theological and/or interpretive practices you know or in which you have been involved?
< Would you encourage someone else to read this book, or part of this book? Who? Why?
Writing Book Reviews
1. Primary Matters. By way of exposing students to alternative viewpoints and in order to foster
critical thinking, I often assign book reviews of various lengths e.g., approximately 750-1000 or
1250-1750 words in length, typed, 1-spaced, using a standard, 12-point font like Times New
Roman with one-inch margins. Check the course syllabus for specifics on length.
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 2 of 14
Reviews should develop along two avenues. First, the review should indicate a thorough
knowledge of the book as a whole, read on its own terms. This part of the review might be thought
of as a summary, in a sense, of the entire volume but with an eye to several important questions,
including: What is the books fundamental aim? Central theme(s)? Presuppositions? Method(s)?
Second, the review should engage the book critically and personally. Does the book accomplish its
aim? Is the book understandable? Are its assumptions defensible? Is its argument cogent? How has
the reading of this book shaped you? In what way, if at all, do you regard this as an important book?
Whenever possible, you should situate your critique of the book within the larger discussion of the
subject.
(2) References. Usually, a book review will refer to only one book namely, the book being
reviewed. In this case, the heading for the review should include your name, followed by the relevant
bibliographical information. Thus:
Jane Doe. Review of Howard Clark Kee, To Every Nation under Heaven: The Acts of the
Apostles (The New Testament in Context; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997).
As with any written assignment, book reviews should include proper referencing of direct
citations. This is most easily accomplished in a book review by in-text notes. For in-text notes, the
proper form to follow would be (page). Thus:
According to the author, this commentary aims to consider the various facets of the context
in which the writer and his initial readers lived and thought: the religious assumptions, the
political framework and structures of power, and above all the sociocultural features of the
author and the initially intended readers (13).
Notice that quotation marks, not italics, are used to set off the citation. Notice also that the in-text
reference comes after the second set of quotation marks but before the final period.
In some cases, a review will include references to other books as well. If your book review
refers to books in addition to the book being reviewed, use the same heading as before, but change
the form of your in-text notes and add a complete bibliography. In this case, the proper form to
follow for in-text notes is (Authors last name date, page). Thus:
According to the author, this commentary aims to consider the various facets of the context
in which the writer and his initial readers lived and thought: the religious assumptions, the
political framework and structures of power, and above all the sociocultural features of the
author and the initially intended readers (Kee 1997, 13).
For the bibliography, here are two possible forms to follow.
Kee, Howard Clark. To Every Nation under Heaven: The Acts of the Apostles. The New Testament
in Context. Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997.
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 3 of 14
Or
Kee, Howard Clark. 1997. To every nation under heaven: The Acts of the Apostles. The New
Testament in Context. Harrisburg: Trinity.
On all questions of style, refer to Patrick H. Alexander, et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of
Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1999; the SBL Handbook, together with a student supplement, is available without charge to
members of the SBL at http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/publishingwithsbl.aspx); and then to
Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (7th ed., revised
by John Grossman and Alice Bennett; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007). On matters not
covered by Turabian see The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2003).
(3) A Possible Outline. Book reviews come in many forms. If you are unfamiliar with this genre,
you might want to look at a few examples in journals like Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Theology
Today, or Review of Biblical Literature (http://www.bookreviews.org/). One outline (but hardly the
only one) that can be effective is the following (remember that the relative length of each section will
depend on the overall length of the assignment):
The Beginning (1 or 2 paragraphs)
< Identify the author and her book.
< Situate the book in a larger context or discussion.
< State the books primary contribution.
< State the books primary aim(s) and approach.
The Middle Part 1 (3-4 pages)
< Provide a brief outline of the book.
< Sketch the books contents, taking care to represent the substance of the
book on its own terms. Give your implied reader (that is, the person who
has not read this book but who wants to be introduced to it) a generous
accounting of the main threads of the books argument.
< Be sure that you deal with the whole book and not only your favorite
part or with the material you found least or most compelling.
The Middle Part 2 (2-3 pages)
< Engage the book critically and personally. For possible avenues into the
sort of critical reflection expected at the graduate level, see the questions
outlined above, under the headings Staying Engaged in Your Reading
and Primary Matters.
The End (1 paragraph)
< Write a conclusionnot to the book, but to your book review. Sum up the
importance and/or liabilities of this book for your reader.
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 4 of 14
(4) Presentation. Because much of vocational ministry is about communication or rhetoric, I treat
seriously a number of issues related to presentation: style, format, proper spelling, proper
grammatical usage, and so on. My typical practice is to edit the first page heavily, but not to edit the
whole paper.
< Presentation is factored into the grade of this and all written assignments.
< Remember when writing a book review, or any other written assignment at Fuller
Theological Seminary, that the Seminary has adopted a policy on inclusive language in
references to human beings.
< First, second, and even third drafts of written assignments are often not suitable for
submission.
< I would strongly urge you to use but not to trust your spell-checker.
< There is no substitute for careful and repeated proofreading, including proofreading by a
friend.
< I do make allowances for persons whose first language is not English.
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 5 of 14
Evaluating Book Reviews
Factor Superior Review
(A- A)
Competent Review
(B B+)
Adequate Review
(C+ B-)
Weak Review
(F C)
Grading
Scale
Representation
of the Books
Substance
A superior review sets the
book in context, articulates
clearly the books thesis, and
traces the argument of the
book in its entirety and with
attention to detail appropriate
to exemplify the argument.
A competent review articulates
clearly the books thesis, and
provides an overall map of the
books argument. It typically
struggles with balancing
attention to detail with a focus
on the overall agenda of the
book.
An adequate review generally
presents the contents of the book,
but without demonstrating ones
grasp of the whole of the books
contents and/or without attending
well to the argument that shapes
the books substance.
A weak review fails to consider
the whole book and shows few
or no signs of grasping the
books thesis. Often, a weak
review misrepresents the
books contents.
Scale:
0 40 pts.
Engagement
with the
Books
Substance
A superior review engages
with the substance of the book
critically, interacting with
assumptions or claims critical
to the books argument, and
assessing the success of its
argument and the overall
significance of the book.
A competent review begins to
raise questions demonstrative of
critical and/or personal
engagement. Its assessment may
tend toward matters of detail
that do not substantially affect
the overall thesis of the book or
only marginally engage the
book on its own terms.
An adequate review raises
questions of a critical nature, but
these are undeveloped; it may
provide little more than an
overall judgment of approval or
disapproval.
A weak review provides only
impressionistic or prejudicial
assessments, or fails to
demonstrate any critical or
personal assessment of the
books argument.
Scale:
0 40 pts.
Presentation A superior review includes a
relevant introduction and
conclusion and is reasonably
structured, with material well-
organized for the length of the
paper. It is presented in a
professional manner in terms
of spelling, sentence and
paragraph construction, and
acceptable form/style.
A competent review includes a
relevant introduction and
conclusion, but lacks
transparent clarity in its
presentation and argument. It
evidences only minor and
infrequent errors in spelling and
grammar, and/or lapses of style.
An adequate review fails to
provide a suitable introduction
and conclusion, and is unclear in
its presentation and argument. It
evidences repeated lapses in
form/style, spelling errors, and/or
grammatical irregularities
enough so as to begin to
adversely affect reading and
understanding.
A weak review evidences little
or no attention to structure. It
contains major grammatical
errors (e.g., sentence
fragments, subject-verb
disagreement), evidences no
real attempt at proofreading,
and/or does not conform to an
acceptable form/style.
Scale:
0 20 pts.
Book Reviews Page 6 of 14 Book Reviews (08-08) Page 6 of 14
Two Sample Book Reviews
Following are two book reviews the first I wrote for publication in the Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, the second for the Journal of Biblical Literature. My assignment in each case was to
provide a review somewhat shorter than what I usually requires and the first covers a book
written in German. Nevertheless, they should provide you with workable illustrations. (I have
made a few editorial alterations that will make these examples differ slightly from the published
versions.)
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 7 of 14
Joel B. Green. Review of Matti Myllykoski, Die letzten Tage Jesu: Markus, Johannes,
ihre Traditionen und den historische Frage (Band 2; Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian
Toimituksia, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B/272; Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, 1994).
In the preface to the first volume of his study of Die letzten Tage Jesu: Markus,
Johannes, ihre Traditionen und den historische Frage (1991), Matti Myllykoski promised
a second volume dealing with the trial of Jesus before Pilate, the accounts of
entombment, and wider issues a promise on which he now makes good. Without
introductory fanfare, the present book picks up immediately where the former volume
left off.
As before, then, Myllykoski attempts to move beyond the efforts and conclusions
of form-critical and redaction-critical approaches to identifying a pre-Markan passion
narrative. He orients his analysis around two basic methodological criteria namely,
disruptions in the story-line of Mark and comparison of the Second and Fourth Gospels,
which are presumed to be independent. Additionally, his appraisal of the historical
probability of particular episodes or details plays a determinative role in his tradition-
critical judgments. Previously, Myllykoski had argued that Mark 11:11*, 15c, 27b*, 28*;
14:58 (cf. John 2:18-19*); 14:1-2* (cf. John 11:55a*), 10-11*, 17*, 26*, 43*, 45*, 46-47*,
50, 53a, 61b, 62a, 65ca*; 15:1* belonged to the old passion account (die alte
Passionsbericht [PB]); to this he now adds 15:3*, 2*, 15b, 19a* (cf. John 19:1, 3b), 22a,
24a, 26 (asterisks denote partial verses). That is, to an account relating Jesus' symbolic
cursing of the temple leading to Jesus arrest and hearing before the high priest,
Myllykoski now adds abbreviated versions of the hearing before Pilate and the act of
Book Reviews Page 8 of 14 Book Reviews (08-08) Page 8 of 14
crucifixion. This PB accorded privilege to the question of Jesus' identity as "king of the
Jews, a focus Myllykoski believes is consonant with its origin in the early Christian
mission where the death of Jesus was characterized as the death of the Messiah.
As noted in my review of the first volume (Green 1993), the capacity of
Myllykoski's reconstruction to convince is dependent in large part on how one judges
the assumptions from which his analysis develops. Thus, he moves forward with only
minimal argumentation concerning the independence of John and Mark and regarding
Luke's sole dependence on Mark for his passion narrative. Moreover, he treats Mark as
a literary unity in order to identify its tradition-historical strata. This approach assumes
lapses in narrative development are best explained with reference to source-critical
interpretation an assumption not easily granted by those engaged in the application
of narratology to Gospels study. A third criteria of analysis used by Myllykoski, historical
probability, likewise assumes that the earliest report is likely to have been the most tied
to historical realitiesan assumption flatly denied by the parallel 1994 publication by
Wolfgang Reinbold on Der lteste Bericht ber den Tod Jesu (1994, 20-21).
Moving beyond these initial obstacles, it is nonetheless of interest to see how, in
the latter half of this volume, Myllykoski addresses in a more synthetic way important
matters of a tradition-historical nature. First, making good on the last phrase of his
subtitle, he addresses a number of questions of historical reconstruction (1994, 138-
54). For example, while calling for further investigation on the nexus between the
narrative role and historical foundations of Jesus' indictment as king of the Jews,
Myllykoski favors the view of E.P. Sanders that Jesus' temple-act was historical and
that it provoked a crisis leading to Jesus' arrest and trial. Myllykoski proceeds to argue
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 9 of 14
that the PB had its Sitz im Leben in the kerygmatic needs of the early church, then
associates this need particularly with Hellenists who found in Jesus' passion not only a
concrete means of relating Jesus' kingdom-teaching and his death as Messiah, but also
an antecedent to their own negative outlook vis--vis the temple.
According to Myllykoski, this PB was not the form of the passion tradition shared
by Mark and John, however. Rather, an intermediate stage is positedan augmented
passion narrative (die erweiterte Passionsgeschichte) which, while adding new material
to the skeletal PB, did not substantially alter its theological focus. How did the
developing passion narrative fare in the hands of the Markan redactor? Following an
analysis of the significance of Markan redaction in Mark 14-15, and especially of ch. 13
in relation to chs. 14-15, Myllykoski argues that the Evangelist strove to counteract the
effects of emerging false prophets in the context of the Jewish War. Their
pronouncements of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple might have been taken as
an announcement of the time of the parousia. Instead, for Mark, this was the time for
watching and praying, and especially for witness.
Whether one agrees with the assumptions and conclusions Myllykoski has made
on the developing passion tradition, the point remains that he has successfully helped
to open the door on a new era of tradition-critical study of this material. This is an era
whose more expansive set of questions goes beyond "what happened" or "what was
original" to include such questions as, By whom, against whom, and to what end(s) was
the passion remembered and recounted in this way?
Book Reviews Page 10 of 14 Book Reviews (08-08) Page 10 of 14
Bibliography
Green, Joel B. Review of Die letzten Tage Jesu: Markus, Johannes, ihre Traditionen
und den historische Frage, Band 1, by Matti Myllykoski. In Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 55 (1993): 173-74.
Myllykoski, Matti. Die letzten Tage Jesu: Markus, Johannes, ihre Traditionen und den
historische Frage. Band 1. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, Annales
Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B/256. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
1991.
__________. Die letzten Tage Jesu: Markus, Johannes, ihre Traditionen und den
historische Frage. Band 2. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, Annales
Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B/272. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
1994.
Reinbold, Wolfgang. Der lteste Bericht ber den Tod Jesu: Literarische Analyse und
historische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 69. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1994.
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 11 of 14
Joel B. Green. Review of Peter Doble, The Paradox of Salvation: Luke's Theology of
the Cross (Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 87; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Since the onset of redaction criticism forty years ago and the ensuing study of Luke as
a theologian in his own right, the Third Evangelist has been accused repeatedly of
having no theology of atonement. Although few have found reason to reject this
characterization outright, a number of others have demurred by insisting that Luke's
general lack of concern with the sort of atonement theology one finds in Paul must not
be confused with an alleged lack of interest in any theology of the cross. Doble's
monograph, a revision of his 1992 dissertation at the University of Leeds under the
supervision of Professor J.K. Elliott, falls into this latter group.
By means of a close examination of the crucifixion scene in Luke 23 against the
horizon of the wider Lukan corpus, he argues that Luke does indeed have a clear,
coherent understanding of Jesus' death within God's salvific plan. Working from the
assumption that Luke-Acts was addressed to a Christian readership in order to provide
scriptural confirmation that they were the genuine heirs of God's promises, Doble
attempts to show how Luke has drawn on words and patterns from the Wisdom of
Solomon to demonstrate that Jesus' execution, far from constituting a shameful
rejection, brought to expression the divine plan evident in "the paradox of salvation."
"Paradoxically, from one point of view, his was a shameful death, from another it was
notable; from one point of view he suffered an exodos, from another his was an exodos
to standing at God's right hand in the presence of those who persecuted him. Luke's
theologia crucis is built on this paradox of salvation" (Doble 1996, 224-25).
Book Reviews Page 12 of 14 Book Reviews (08-08) Page 12 of 14
How does Doble achieve this reading of the cross in Luke? Following a brief
survey of the state of the question (ch. 1), he devotes five chapters to three distinctively
Lukan elements in Luke 23:46-47. (1) The prelude to the centurion's confession, "he
glorified God," follows a pattern of analogous responses to Jesus' activity in the Third
Gospel whereby the Evangelist marks the fulfillment of the Isaianic programme set for
Jesus in Luke 4 and 7, and prepares for a similar pattern in Acts whereby Luke denotes
the fulfillment of God's redemptive aim for the Gentiles. The centurion is thus portrayed
as one with remarkable insight into what was really happening in Jesus' death.
(2) This emphasis on the centurion's ken presses the question of the meaning of
his confession of Jesus as dikaios. Arguing at length (chs. 3-5), Doble avers that Luke
uses dikaios to present Jesus as the Righteous One, a descriptor that comes into focus
for Luke by means of its usage in Wisdom. Accordingly, Jesus is the one who delights
in God's will, whose life is a manifestation of the divine purpose, and whose death is in
no way incongruous with a life lived for God. It is here that Doble's argument is most
laboredboth because he demonstrates an inordinate concern with overturning what
he regards as "the orthodoxy" on the interpretation of dikaios in Luke 23:47, and also
because he wants to exclude from consideration any other scriptural models as
potential influences on the Lukan account. Had Doble demonstrated greater awareness
of recent American scholarship (e.g., he lists the work of Karris [1986] in his
bibliography, but never interacts with its reading of dikaios), the need to counter the
rendering of dikaios as "innocent" might have seemed less gargantuan. With regard to
the second point, it is only through sleight of hand that Doble is able to object to seeing
Isa 52:13-53:12 in the background of Peter's speech in Acts 3; and in any case it is not
Book Reviews (08-08) Page 13 of 14
evident why Luke's notion of "the Righteous One" must have been informed by only one
source or model.
(3) Finally, Doble turns to an examination of Jesus' last word, borrowed from Ps
31:5. Here he insists that the nature of Jesus' final utterance would have been for Luke
constrained by the scriptural portrait of "the Righteous One" so as to preclude any
disconfirmation of abiding trust in God and to require an affirmation of Jesus'
confidence in divine vindication.
Having argued for Luke's debt to Wisdom in the crucifixion scene, Doble turns in
a final section (chs. 7-8) to explore more fully how Wisdom has contributed to the Third
Evangelist's christology. Here again, it is puzzling to see Doble deny the efficacy of
such models as "servant" or "prophet" for making sense of Jesus' death. Since, for
example, "prophet" is so clearly important for Luke, and so evidently related in Scripture
to motifs of rejection and death, it is not immediately transparent why one could not at
least allow for greater diversity of influence on Lukan thought. Along similar lines, one is
left wondering how Luke's manifest interest in the portrayal of Jesus as the Davidic
Messiah might be correlated with Doble's concern with the emphasis on patterns from
Wisdom in Luke's construal of the cross. At the same time, by working exegetically with
several components of Luke's Jerusalem narrative and theologically with "Wisdom's
dikaios-model," Doble is able to set his more general thesis on firm soil.
The Paradox of Salvation would have been stronger, then, had it attempted to
argue a more limited thesis. Even with this caveat, however, Doble's study is a welcome
contribution to the growing appreciation of a distinctively Lukan way of construing the
significance of the cross.
Book Reviews Page 14 of 14 Book Reviews (08-08) Page 14 of 14
Bibliography
Doble, Peter. The Paradox of Salvation: Luke's Theology of the Cross. Society of New
Testament Studies Monograph Series 87. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
Karris, Robert J. "Luke 23:47 and the Lukan View of Jesus' Death." Journal of Biblical
Literature 105 (1986): 65-74.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen