May 8, 2012 Don Carson has more than twenty years combined as a professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. According to his bio posted on Trinity’s web site, his areas of expertise include, biblical theology, the historical Jesus, postmodernism, pluralism, Greek grammar, Johannine theology, Pauline theology, and questions of suffering and evil. He can read about a dozen languages and is fluent in French. He is a member of the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Evangelical Theological Society, the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, and the Institute for Biblical Research. In 1989 Carson was voted Faculty of the Year at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.1 Clearly his credentials as a scholar are outstanding and impressive. Carson first conveyed the concepts contained in Exegetical Fallacies 1 in 1983 as a lecture series at “Western Conservative Baptist Seminary in Portland, Oregon” (13). Carson discusses a total of forty-eight fallacies and divides this work into four parts organized around word, grammatical, logical and historical types of fallacies. While he acknowledges that this discussion may at first be discouraging to those who are attempting to engage in proper biblical exegesis, he insists that his purpose for writing this book is to encourage better biblical scholarship by pointing out these common types of fallacies. According to Carson we should study the Scriptures critically, that is, we should give sound reasons for the exegetical choices and positions we adopt (16) while also learning to reject exegetical arguments which are based on unsound reasoning (17). It troubles Carson that among Christians who accept scriptural authority, so many different and contradictory interpretations exist. In fact he agrees with Robert K. Johnston’s point that “to accept that the Bible is authoritative, but to be unable to come to anything like agreement on what it says is self defeating” (18). Therefore Carson posits that if our errors in interpretation are removed, perhaps then Christians will be better able to come to agreement on the meaning of texts and no longer cast doubt on Scripture’s veracity. This volume is Carson’s attempt to begin just such a dialogue. Carson begins his discussion by examining word fallacies. He points out how various words are used in commentaries or in sermons to make points which are not credible. In one example Carson shows that word usage in classical Greek should not be given great significance when seeking to understand a word’s use in the Greek New Testament. Carson notes the word kephal is used by some to mean “source” based on a single use in an obscure classic Greek fragment. He suggests that words change their meaning over time (36), and this usage of kephal misses the point of implied authority present when “head,” the word’s meaning during the time the New Testament was written, is used instead. In his chapter on grammatical fallacies ,Carson’s arguments are important and weighty. Most notable for proper biblical interpretation is the discussion of the aorist tense. Carson reminds us over and over that “the context makes it clear” (69) and that one should not equate kind of action or durative or punctiliar action with verb tenses in general. Instead, context should determine usage more than any hard and fast rule memorized in beginning Greek. Especially helpful in this section is the reminder that, instead of attempting to base one’s theological conclusions on an arguably questionable grammatical choice, one’s argument is best served by finding another text where the theological point at issue is more clearly made. In the third chapter Carson turns his attention to a discussion of logical fallacies which proves immensely insightful. Carson’s point that “the fundamental ‘laws’ of logic . . . are universally true” (89) is invaluable to all who seek to argue successfully for their own exegetical positions. He takes dead aim at a common problem of exegesis as he discusses the fallacy of over-specification when he states that “To hold to the Word of God involves us in the commitment not only to believe all that it says, but also to avoid going ‘beyond what is written’” (115). Carson gives a clear and concise critique of the New Hermeneutic as he begins his introduction of presuppositional and historical fallacies. He argues that interpretations that “ignore the Bible’s story-line” (130) are wrong on their face because they ignore how the Bible’s message fits together. Those who have a high view of biblical inspiration will therefore need to closely examine their own personal presuppositions prior to their study of Scripture in order to eliminate as much as is possible their own biases from their exposition. Carson’s discussion of word fallacies alone will make reading the entire book profitable for every pastor. Particularly helpful is his exposure of the common error of implying a false distinction between the Greek words phile and agapa (28, 31-32), as well as the discussion of the problems related to using the Greek word dynamis to imply that the power of the gospel is a lexical equivalent to the English word dynamite. While such information may serve to ruin one’s preferred interpretation or even Valentine’s Day banquet sermon, the need to rightly handle the word of God is greatly served by Carson’s treatment. Another strength of the book is how fairly Carson treats the positions of those with whom he disagrees. For example, he exposes through various examples the fallacies which are often used to defend against the egalitarian position. In a discussion of the position supporting women keeping silent in the church, Carson points out that this is the logical fallacy of an appeal to selective evidence, because those who advance this position based on 1 Cor. 14:33-36 often do not comment on Paul’s declaration that he “permits women under certain conditions to pray and prophesy in the church (1 Cor. 11:2-15)” (94). Carson also points out that Stephen B. Clark is guilty of unwarranted generalization in his argument against the Christian feminist position of Galatians 3:28″ (110). While many who have found their own work quoted in this volume would disagree, most notably Zane Hodges, Carson’s treatment, though necessarily controversial, seems nonetheless fair. The greatest weakness of this book is its complexity. Carson gives an example in a note that many Christians believe that the Holy Spirit has “told” (16) them a particular Scripture means a particular thing without attempting to view the interpretation critically. Also, he rightly points out that many “local Bible teachers and preachers” (19) do not face their own erroneous understandings because they are psychologically unprepared to challenge positions from which they derive personal security. Yet throughout the book Carson’s use of technical jargon, such as “distanciation” (24) , limits the usefulness this volume might have with just such an audience. While it is clear that the discussion of many fallacies must be technical and as such will not be readily understood by those who have not studied the Greek or Hebrew, still Carson is unnecessarily complex. He acknowledges that this work has come to be used as an “auxiliary reading in exegesis courses” (11); however, he fails to understand that all of his readers will not have been “A” students in their New Testament Greek courses. For example, in his discussion of the grammatical fallacy of the aorist tense (68-73), Carson goes around the world to make the point that context, important in properly understanding all Greek tenses, is even more important in properly interpreting the aorist. Thus, the old understanding that the aorist tense introduces action understood as “‘once for all’ or ‘completed’” (68) is wrong. This and similar statements in his discussions of the copula (58) and conditional statements (77-79) are a great deal more than the advertized “amateurs collection of exegetical fallacies” (26). Carson’s complexity could enable one to accuse him of “that form of argumentation that earnestly seeks out the most ambiguous language possible in order to secure the widest possible agreement” (119). While this argument would fail because it seems clear by the tone of the entire volume that Carson wishes to improve not hinder understanding, he is open to the charge. This work is extremely helpful to all who seriously seek to properly interpret the message of Scripture. It serves to increase one’s diligence and care when stating the meaning of the text. Carson’s appeal that everyone is guilty of falling prey to various fallacies from time to time does not excuse or error. Since everyone, including himself (16), has been guilty of basing their exposition on exegetical fallacies, we all need to heed his final appeal that “a little self-doubt will do no harm and may do a great deal of good [because] we will be more open to learn and correct our mistakes” (142) Carson’s effort in this work assists all who wish to be serious students of God’s unchanging word. Pastors, seminarians, professors, and serious laymen can all profit from reading and wrestling with the fallacies exposed in this volume. Its status as a supplemental reading in exegesis courses is well earned. Perhaps in the future Carson will bring forward a more in-depth study of the issues raised within this work in more simple language. Nevertheless, this work is helpful even though its effect may prove not to be as encouraging as its author intended. End Notes 1. Carson, Don, Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Press, 1996.