I remembered running across this review in college. Two years later and after reading Vanhoozer (plus a gracious recollection and Google), it is very helpful.

Thanks, grace to you in Christ!

So, no need to be defensive on another’s behalf; interacting on important issues is part of serious scholarship, and I believe both Kevin and I are focused on the issues, not each other. We have a very cordial relationship, and it is this relationship that allows us to interact on these matters frankly and openly.

And, naturally, in a review of this sort I am not going to focus on the things on which Kevin and I already agree (which are many; see Whatever Happened to Truth? [Crossway, 2005], which I edited and which includes an essay by Kevin), but on questions which in my view need further dialogue.

Finally, my reference to the “Epistle of Kevin” was an attempt at humor; apparently, those who put KJV on the same level at which some people put the KJV have a hard time handling any such humor when it comes to their hero! I, for one, am resolved to treat Kevin with the utmost respect, but not religious reverence.

Grace and peace,

AJK

I never said nor implied that you were dishonest, only uncharitable or less than congenial.

Moreover, I never said that this was an ad hominem attack. Rather, I said it was a rhetorical strategy, that is, an attempt to exaggerate the dangers of a position by associating it with a heretical position. And within that, I did question your motivation for which I do apologize as I had little insight into your intentions apart from your review. I must say in my defense that there were several comments in your review that led me to believe there was a dismissive edge (e.g., the comment about a not so serious suggestion that Vanhoozer’s notion of dramaturge came from the “Epistle of Kevin.” I, at least, saw this as a way of suggesting Vanhoozer was not biblical, a critique that D. A. Carson has leveled in similar fashion). But still, I shouldn’t have assumed the worst.

I still think that it is unfair to link Vanhoozer with Ehrman. Why? Again, b/c their respective intentions are incompatible (the former seeks to uphold theological unity and biblical authority while the latter seeks to dismiss both as a myth born from political powerplays). It’s not a matter of whether their arguments bear similarities. I’m sure there are places where your methodology as an NT scholar has affinities with someone like Ehrman. But I’m sure you would find it quite unfair if for that reason someone likened you to him. I agree with Jordan: Comparing Vanhoozer to Ehrman is a stretch.

And I still do think that your mostly critical assessment (a) obscures what you do think is positive; and (b) does to Vanhoozer exactly what you accuse him of doing to Henry when you speak of how Vanhoozer’s repeated negative characterization of Henry makes Henry out to be the villian more than he deserves.

Thanks for the response though! I’ll be more careful in making hasty assumptions about your motivations; I should certainly extend to you the same charity I am asking you to give Vanhoozer.

In re your response to Jordan:

But what sort of mileage were you hoping to gain out of placing Ehrman and Vanhoozer side-by-side. I mean be honest here, this is a rhetorical move. Even if you are right about this, I don’t think it is at all charitable and congenial (as you said, “I am a Vanhoozer fan”) to lump someone who, by all accounts, intends only to make evangelical theology more faithful to Scripture with an unorthodox scholar.

I’m not sure what the motivation for this could be? I guess if I were to be charitable, it would be that you really want to warn people of the danger. But c’mon, this man is an evangelical, not a rabid liberal critic. Vanhoozer’s and Ehrman’s intentions couldn’t be more divergent. So here, I think this was inappropriate.

Additionally, you say at the end that you are a “Vanhoozer fan” but you have given us almost no reasons why you would be such. The bulk of your evaluative portion is criticism. What good does this do anyone, other than scare people off. Perhaps you are doing to Vanhoozer exactly what you think he does to Henry. That is, you let criticism obscure any positive value. So your brief declaration “I’m a Vanhoozer Fan” is just about as worthless as Vanhoozer’s attempt to temper his criticisms of Henry: they both fall on ears that have been deafened by the overwhelming negativity.

Jim