What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Theological Interpretation
The Character of Christian Scripture (Studies in Theological Interpretation): The Significance of a Two-Testament Bible
"In this learned, astute, and graceful study, Christopher Seitz reflects on the significance of the two-testament form of the Bible for understanding the character of Christian Scripture. It is a commanding account of the matter from a master of biblical theology."
--John Webster, King's College, Aberdeen
"Seitz carries forward the work of Brevard Childs and his canonical approach to the theological interpretation of Scripture. Seitz argues that the rich, diverse, and unique theological resources of the Old Testament should be allowed their own integrity in dialogue with the witness of the New Testament. He rightly argues that the Christian Bible is unique in its bi-testamentality and thus requires a correspondingly unique theological hermeneutic as it testifies to the Triune God of Christian faith."
--Dennis Olson, Princeton Theological Seminary
"What does it mean for the Christian Bible to have two testaments? Seitz, the foremost proponent of the canonical approach today, demonstrates how this deceptively simple question leads us to the heart of the challenge of reading the Bible theologically. Incisive in its criticisms, sound in its proposals, and ecclesial in its concerns, this is an exhilarating contribution to biblical theology."
--Nathan MacDonald, University of Göttingen and University of St. Andrews
"Seitz has long been blazing an exciting trail in thinking through the theological reality of a single, two-testament Bible. Here--in vigorous, challenging, and learned argumentation--he brings his reflections to a magnificent maturity and shows a way beyond the too-facile formulae of relating Old and New that have ultimately stripped the Old Testament of its power and substance as God's living Word. Seitz's rigorous book constitutes a major contribution to both theological and practical hermeneutics that should fruitfully reorient the church's reading of the Bible."
--Ephraim Radner, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto
"Beginning with the Bible's unique character as a two-testament book, Seitz traces a theocentric path through issues of historicity, the final form of the canon, the providential location of the church's exegetical task, the distinctiveness of the Old Testament's voice, the rule of faith, contemporary Anglican debates, and more. A work of maturity and grace, this is Seitz's best book yet--necessary reading both for its answers and, equally important, its questions."
--Matthew Levering, University of Dayton
--John Webster, King's College, Aberdeen
"Seitz carries forward the work of Brevard Childs and his canonical approach to the theological interpretation of Scripture. Seitz argues that the rich, diverse, and unique theological resources of the Old Testament should be allowed their own integrity in dialogue with the witness of the New Testament. He rightly argues that the Christian Bible is unique in its bi-testamentality and thus requires a correspondingly unique theological hermeneutic as it testifies to the Triune God of Christian faith."
--Dennis Olson, Princeton Theological Seminary
"What does it mean for the Christian Bible to have two testaments? Seitz, the foremost proponent of the canonical approach today, demonstrates how this deceptively simple question leads us to the heart of the challenge of reading the Bible theologically. Incisive in its criticisms, sound in its proposals, and ecclesial in its concerns, this is an exhilarating contribution to biblical theology."
--Nathan MacDonald, University of Göttingen and University of St. Andrews
"Seitz has long been blazing an exciting trail in thinking through the theological reality of a single, two-testament Bible. Here--in vigorous, challenging, and learned argumentation--he brings his reflections to a magnificent maturity and shows a way beyond the too-facile formulae of relating Old and New that have ultimately stripped the Old Testament of its power and substance as God's living Word. Seitz's rigorous book constitutes a major contribution to both theological and practical hermeneutics that should fruitfully reorient the church's reading of the Bible."
--Ephraim Radner, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto
"Beginning with the Bible's unique character as a two-testament book, Seitz traces a theocentric path through issues of historicity, the final form of the canon, the providential location of the church's exegetical task, the distinctiveness of the Old Testament's voice, the rule of faith, contemporary Anglican debates, and more. A work of maturity and grace, this is Seitz's best book yet--necessary reading both for its answers and, equally important, its questions."
--Matthew Levering, University of Dayton
- GenresTheology
226 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 2011
9 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
About the author
Christopher R. Seitz
38 books13 followersChristopher R. Seitz (PhD, Yale University) is senior research professor of biblical interpretation at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, in Toronto, Ontario. He previously taught at the University of St. Andrews and Yale University. He is the author or editor of numerous books, including The Character of Christian Scripture, Prophecy and Hermeneutics, The Goodly Fellowship of the Prophets, and commentaries on Isaiah 1-39 and 40-66. Seitz is also an ordained Episcopal priest.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 25, 2024
4.5. A very difficult but rewarding read. Through masterful question asking, Seitz is able to show weaknesses within contemporary biblical theological scholarship. And with precise logic, he further clarifies what is meant by a “canonical approach” in accordance with Childs. This is a book I will need to return to after I read all of Childs’ works and more of Seitz.
“The point of this book is that what is latent of Jesus Christ in the Old has a character commensurate with this witness in its present form. Stated negatively, the theological dimension of the OT is not chiefly to be grasped by a historical reconstruction of what may or may not be going on when the second witness uses the first” (20).
“it is clear that interpreters should not be criticized for not doing what others wish they had done…To speak of the OT as Christian Scripture requires a genuine interpretation of its literal sense according to its canonical form and character” (23).
“The canonical approach, then, occupies a meaningful location in our late-modern environment, where anxiety over truth and meaning is high. The fact that opponents aim their objections from opposing directions could well confirm that the canonical approach offers the most compelling, comprehensive account of biblical interpretation and theology presently on offer” (35-35).
“Much confusion has entered the picture by the claims of certain forms of (recent) historical inquiry into the OT. These seek to focus on the retrieval of an authorial intention behind the witness of the Old, in the events of history to which the text is said to refer, or in the religious life that either gave rise to the literature or is somehow related to it, as an independent sphere of reconstructive interest” (139).
“A simple thesis would appear to commend itself at this point: historical analysis of the use of the Old in the New threatens to create a disproportionate picture of what theological use of the OT by the Christian church should actually look like. And in so doing, it has also failed to reflect on what it means to speak of the NT as canon” (148).
“The turn to the history of interpretation does not show us how to read the OT in our day, any more than the NT does. Rather, it helps us observe how earlier interpreters allowed each respective Testament to sound its theological notes, each as Christian Scripture, each equidistant and at once proximate to the subject matter they both share” (171).
“The point of this book is that what is latent of Jesus Christ in the Old has a character commensurate with this witness in its present form. Stated negatively, the theological dimension of the OT is not chiefly to be grasped by a historical reconstruction of what may or may not be going on when the second witness uses the first” (20).
“it is clear that interpreters should not be criticized for not doing what others wish they had done…To speak of the OT as Christian Scripture requires a genuine interpretation of its literal sense according to its canonical form and character” (23).
“The canonical approach, then, occupies a meaningful location in our late-modern environment, where anxiety over truth and meaning is high. The fact that opponents aim their objections from opposing directions could well confirm that the canonical approach offers the most compelling, comprehensive account of biblical interpretation and theology presently on offer” (35-35).
“Much confusion has entered the picture by the claims of certain forms of (recent) historical inquiry into the OT. These seek to focus on the retrieval of an authorial intention behind the witness of the Old, in the events of history to which the text is said to refer, or in the religious life that either gave rise to the literature or is somehow related to it, as an independent sphere of reconstructive interest” (139).
“A simple thesis would appear to commend itself at this point: historical analysis of the use of the Old in the New threatens to create a disproportionate picture of what theological use of the OT by the Christian church should actually look like. And in so doing, it has also failed to reflect on what it means to speak of the NT as canon” (148).
“The turn to the history of interpretation does not show us how to read the OT in our day, any more than the NT does. Rather, it helps us observe how earlier interpreters allowed each respective Testament to sound its theological notes, each as Christian Scripture, each equidistant and at once proximate to the subject matter they both share” (171).
January 27, 2023
The subject of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture is important, and Seitz significantly contributes to highlighting this. Despite many insights (especially concerning the crisis of interpretation in light of the OT's neglect, and the rule of faith), much of the argumentation is too dense for those outside of the academy to find this beneficial.
April 22, 2025
Materially, it’s brilliant. Formally, it’s inscrutable.
[I have returned to this book a few months after my initial reading and decided to up my review to 4 stars. It’s absurd how difficult it is to penetrate through Seitz’s prose, and that’s the book’s greatest weakness, in my view. But the labor is worth it because this book is a gem. A vitally important work on the relationship between the testaments, and especially helpful for thinking about the NT use of the OT.]
[I have returned to this book a few months after my initial reading and decided to up my review to 4 stars. It’s absurd how difficult it is to penetrate through Seitz’s prose, and that’s the book’s greatest weakness, in my view. But the labor is worth it because this book is a gem. A vitally important work on the relationship between the testaments, and especially helpful for thinking about the NT use of the OT.]
October 17, 2024
Thought-provoking questions and insightful analyses in certain portions of the book, but—as an undergrad philosophy professor once said to my little brother about his paper—“it was more ambitious than it was successful.”
Want to read
October 21, 2021Recommended by Stephen B. Chapman.
May 9, 2013
A bit difficult to read, but extremely worthwhile, especially if one wants to understand both the crisis of interpretation in the church today and how viewing the canon as being composed of two equally significant testaments can help find a solution to this crisis.
January 13, 2023
Hard to assign a star rating to this one, which feels like a strong case could be made for either two stars or five. The primary issue is that the format, structure, and style of the book seem to almost deliberately obscure the reader’s understanding of Seitz’s thesis, which is only really elucidated in the final two chapters (where, not coincidentally, the prose becomes far more lucid, though the lengths of sentences do not decrease). The book has an incredibly high “activation energy,” as it were, opening with an incredibly long (nearly 40% of the length of the whole book) and technical chapter that assesses the legacy of Brevard Childs and his canonical interpretation of Scripture. Even once Seitz gets into his own proposals for moving forward, it takes maddeningly long to learn how he specifies what is “the character of Christian scripture.” And in a book this technical and in as direct conversation with the broader literature, not including a bibliography is really just an inexcusable decision on the part of the publisher.
Nevertheless, if one perseveres (as I did), the final two chapters offer keen diagnosis and constructive proposals. The gist of it (if I have grasped the thesis correctly) is that the Old Testament must be seen as “lying behind” the Rule of Faith, and the development of Christian belief expressed therein as basically a reading of the Old Testament texts, in a way that (Seitz is very persistent on this point) the “use of the Old Testament in the New” reflects and concretely expresses but does not exhaustively define. That is, one must read Paul’s, or Peter’s, or the Letter to the Hebrews’ readings of Old Testament Scripture not first as determinative of the way Christians should read the Old Testament but rather as determined by the way Christians were reading the Old Testament. This is a very perceptive rejoinder to (and Seitz hopes corrective of) the way that New Testament scholars often seem to think of the use of the OT, in which the OT is a profoundly mysterious document that only NT authors’ exemplars or rules of interpretation can unlock. Seitz is trying, basically, to recover the theological value and centrality of the plain sense of the Old as a Christian sense, which is directly in opposition to many canons of contemporary biblical scholarship. Another way to put this is that “in accordance with the Scriptures” is the generative principle (not the generating incident) of the Christian faith, with “the Scriptures” being the only ones known to Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the apostles. There is not exactly some “Christological filter” through which we must run the Old Testament’s literal sense to obtain what is profitable Christian reading, because the content of the Christological filter is determined by the Old Testament’s literal sense.
At least, that’s what I took away from the book. It’s a brilliant thesis, and I think ultimately a worthwhile book to read for those concerned with such weighty hermeneutical questions. But reader beware: there are some things in the writings of our beloved brother Christopher which are hard to understand…
Nevertheless, if one perseveres (as I did), the final two chapters offer keen diagnosis and constructive proposals. The gist of it (if I have grasped the thesis correctly) is that the Old Testament must be seen as “lying behind” the Rule of Faith, and the development of Christian belief expressed therein as basically a reading of the Old Testament texts, in a way that (Seitz is very persistent on this point) the “use of the Old Testament in the New” reflects and concretely expresses but does not exhaustively define. That is, one must read Paul’s, or Peter’s, or the Letter to the Hebrews’ readings of Old Testament Scripture not first as determinative of the way Christians should read the Old Testament but rather as determined by the way Christians were reading the Old Testament. This is a very perceptive rejoinder to (and Seitz hopes corrective of) the way that New Testament scholars often seem to think of the use of the OT, in which the OT is a profoundly mysterious document that only NT authors’ exemplars or rules of interpretation can unlock. Seitz is trying, basically, to recover the theological value and centrality of the plain sense of the Old as a Christian sense, which is directly in opposition to many canons of contemporary biblical scholarship. Another way to put this is that “in accordance with the Scriptures” is the generative principle (not the generating incident) of the Christian faith, with “the Scriptures” being the only ones known to Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the apostles. There is not exactly some “Christological filter” through which we must run the Old Testament’s literal sense to obtain what is profitable Christian reading, because the content of the Christological filter is determined by the Old Testament’s literal sense.
At least, that’s what I took away from the book. It’s a brilliant thesis, and I think ultimately a worthwhile book to read for those concerned with such weighty hermeneutical questions. But reader beware: there are some things in the writings of our beloved brother Christopher which are hard to understand…
June 5, 2019
3 stars because this book is almost inaccessible due to the fact that the author makes no attempt to simplify terms. Great theme and ideas, just needs to be more digestible.
November 26, 2012
I have a hard time recommending this book, even though I feel that is an important one on the topic. I suppose my main concern is that if I, as a recent seminary graduate with a Th.M have a hard time following his discussion, then it is not likely that someone with less than a seminary degree will be able to track with Seitz easily without having a rather taxing time with it. If we were to give it a rating then, I would probably classify this book as doctoral level discussion, which is why it was probably hard for me to track with, but your local Ph.D student may be able to decode it for you.
To see why, and for a more comprehensive review, visit my blog
To see why, and for a more comprehensive review, visit my blog
August 9, 2013
Seitz does a commendable job in elevating the struggle of how to read the Bible as two testaments. He highlights the issues that have faced the church for years as we struggle to see how the Old Testament and New Testament are related, are each Scripture, each have authority, etc.
Unfortunately, it's a tough read. A better background in the issues would have been helpful. Still, for those willing to exercise their minds, and interested in this issue, a good investment.
Unfortunately, it's a tough read. A better background in the issues would have been helpful. Still, for those willing to exercise their minds, and interested in this issue, a good investment.
April 21, 2014
Although I think this is an important book for the ongoing conversation about canonical and theological interpretations, I wouldn't suggest picking it up unless you are in a Th.M or doctoral program. I had an incredibly hard time understanding much of what the author was saying, like coming into a conversation an hour in and trying to figure out what they're talking about.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews