Miriam De Cock and Elizabeth Klein’s edited collection of essays provides a number of scholarly perspectives on patristic biblical exegesis and the literary contexts in which the patristics composed a variety of theological works. De Cock and Klein scour the first millennium of patristic works in order to highlight the surprising variety of methods employed beyond the common homily or commentary. De Cock and Klein demonstrate that the patristic age produced more than these two forms of exegesis including martyrdom accounts, apocalypses, argumentative treatises, a variety of monastic texts, catenae, and others. Casting a wide net, the editors raise awareness of previously undervalued works of early Christianity.

  Because of the scope of this collection, focused attention on every essay is impossible, and even a gloss of each is unreasonable. There are some notable essays that effectively highlight de Cock and Klein’s thesis which argues that some patristic authors were doing valuable exegesis in genres heretofore seen only by scholars. Other than Stewart-Kroeker’s essay on Augustine, the first nine chapters deal primarily with the Alexandrian school of interpretation alongside Robert Kitchen’s excellent treatment of Jacob of Serugh’s metrical homily. In addition to Kitchen’s essay, Bronwen Neil’s essay on the congregational exegetical style of The Shepherd of Hermas underscores the diverse approaches to Scriptural interpretation within the early church. Through writing in a metrical, lyrical style, Jacob of Serugh utilizes artistic expression to illuminate places in the narrative of Daniel where the biblical author was silent in order to teach his audience the spiritual treasures that lay within the rich prophetic narrative. Although disagreeing with the editors’ claim in the introduction that these extant genres are the “bulk of patristic exegesis,” Neil makes the appropriate claim that the novelty of the The Shepherd of Hermas is not only what increased the scrutiny of its canonical status (or the lack thereof), but also what increased the readership and appreciation for it—especially in the Alexandrian school.

 Of the four essays that deal with Western patristic authors, three are written on Augustine. Haflidson remarks on a chapter of Augustine’s Confessions and illuminates the complexity that can come from such a literary genre as the theological biography, while Dunn speaks about the more traditional theological works of Augustine—specifically, his condemnation (and nuanced acceptance) of the Donatists. Although some of these essays do not fall within the stated scope of expanding past the homiletic and commentary genres (a number of them still fall in these two categories), the reader can still enjoy a variety of genres, and the reader is forced to reckon with certain modern attempts to replicate these genres (particularly the paraphrase mentioned by Faulkner and the exegetical biography mentioned by Robin Darling Young).

Where most of the chosen essays in this collection illuminate the beauty, depth, and wisdom hidden within different literary genres of patristic exegesis, two of the essays fall short of illumination and rather shroud the original intent of the author through an overparticular literary lens: Stewart-Kroeker’s ecological perspective on Augustine’s commentaries in “Reading Augustine’s Psalm Commentaries in the Anthropocene” and Karl Shuve’s egalitarian reading of Hildegard of Bingen’s Scivias in “Visionary Exegesis: Interpreting Scripture in Hildegard of Bingen’s Scivias.” The former, in an apparent attempt to reinvent Augustine’s work, muddles the meaning by attempting to reconstruct Augustine’s intended message divorced from what previous scholars have agreed upon. In Shuve’s essay, he boldly claims that Hildegard was attempting to subvert St. Paul by sorting out an inconsistency in St. Paul’s New Testament writings. Seeing that she was canonized by both the Western and Eastern churches, this is a nigh-impossible reading of Hildegard, since she openly agrees with Paul’s statements on marriage and child-bearing—the very statements which Shuve claims Hildegard sought to subvert. This sort of eisegetical analysis in both cases is detrimental to De Cock and Klein’s otherwise helpful and insightful collection of essays. Additionally, Shuve’s essay analyzes the work of a second-millenium Saint in the Medieval period, which falls outside of the stated scope of the work and would be better left out.

In conclusion, Miriam De Cock and Elizabeth Klein succeed in exploring the literary contexts of patristic biblical exegesis by presenting a vast array of scholarship by authors who analyze  the vast array of literary genres in which scholars, monks, and priests wrote during the first few hundred years of Christianity. The editors do not give an intended audience in the introduction, but this collection serves as a valuable resource for the seminary student, lay theologian, or pastor who is attempting to understand the various hermeneutical traditions in the early church. I recommend this book for its variety and ability to search out and honor some of the lesser-known authors of biblical exegesis.