Bockmuehl begins with an image that depicts the conundrum of biblical studies, an icon by Marmion

of Luke painting Mary with child. Bockmuehl notes Lukes depiction is interpretative rather than
reproductive yet it is not a fiction. Luke does not produce an exact copy but an exposition of the
subjects deeper significance. The biblical scholar when writing about Jesus of Nazareth is painting
the biblical author, painting Jesus. Marmion invites the implied viewer into the biblical authors
optical space, learning to see as he does. (21) It is this rediscovery, after 250 years of modernist
exegetical optics that Bockmuehl argues all interpreters will benefit from. Interpretation of the NT
text will resemble portraying the evangelist painting Mary of Nazareth as the Mother of God and as
such the gospel writers are the models of this process.
Bockmuehl goes on to take stock of the current predicament of NT scholarship, which no longer
enjoys any agreement either about the methods of study or even about the criteria by which one
might agree about appropriate methods and criteria. (31) The claims of methodological sovereignty
or at least priority in the various fields that attempt to rescue the discipline aggravate the crisis and
make it impossible to reach a composite solution.
The solution should be public (62) with a common approach for it has to provide a rallying point for
secular and Jewish approaches to the NT debate. (59) Hence Bockmuehl rejects a fideistic or
inwardly ecclesiastical turn to achieve a solution. (24) If NT scholars explicitly adopted the history of
the influence of the NT as an integral part of their practise we would at least be engaged in a
common exploration that would by definition embrace historical and reader-response concerns
alike. (67) This is an Effective history a Wirkungsgeschichte. And, secondly, implied readers and
their readings are assumed in order to derive a range of criteria that allows appropriate theological
engagement with the text. The understanding of the NT as the churchs Scripture is indispensable
for any approach to do justice to the texts themselves. Bockmuehl insists such an approach can
have a future both by integration to other theological disciplines (common) and the ability to
justify its existence and value in a university context (public).(64)
Bockmuehl now considers some examples, first is the nature of interpretation and the interpreter, as
envisaged by the NT itself. The implied interpreter is a disciple and the disciples God given wisdom
(mind of Christ) is more important than his critical reason and enquiry. When this is forgotten
commentary is confused for text. Christian thought in its historic ecclesial setting is a result of
exegesis of Scripture in the context of Eucharistic fellowship in which the interpreter/disciple is
invigorated by Christ himself. (90) The object of biblical interpretation, in other words, is the
interpreter as much as it is the text.
Second is the issue of diverse theologies versus a single biblical theology. Bockmuehl states that for
all the tensions and apparent contradictions, the NT writers are agreed that there is fundamentally
only one gospel faith and there is a unity implied in the diversity. Finally there is the example of the
tension between Peter and Paul. He notes there is already a canonical tendency between the
apostles themselves. A synthetic effective history can provide evidence of a substantially more
nuanced symbiotic understanding than the usual bipolar paradigm that Baur suggests. Also a
sympathetic historical-critical approach can give a nuanced and qualified endorsement to the
patristic view of their shared mission (poles of unity) as depicted in the icon of the two men
embracing. (135/136)