156 Christoph Stenschke employ scholarly but accessible terminology. The book provides also in a single volume an extensive but certainly not exhaustive list of terms associated with biblical studies” (Preface). However, according to the author’s preface, there is a clear focus, namely, “… terms that relate in some way to interpreting the biblical texts as literary documents. Theological terms are included whenever theological and literary concerns converge”. The bulk of the volume consists of a dictionary of terms from “A minore ad majus” to “Zion” (1-396). To give an indication of the scope and coverage I list the entries starting with the letter p: P (priestly document), Paleography, Palestinian Judaism, Palimpsest, Panegyric, Pantheism, Papyrus, Papyrus manuscripts, Parable, Paradigm, Paradox, Paranesis, Paralepsis, Paraphrase, Parataxis, Parody, Paronoma- sia, Parousia, Participationist model, Passion of Christ, Passion narratives, Pastoral Epistles, Paternalism, Pathos, Patriarchal narratives, Patriarchal pe- riod, Patriarchal structures, Patriarchy, Patri-Kyriarchy, Patterned Writing, Peace-wish, Penitential Psalms, Pentateuch, Pentecost, day of, Performative language, Pericope, Peripeteia, Perlocutionary act, Persona, Personification, Perspectivism, Pesher, Peshitta, Phallocentrism, Phallogocentrism, Pharisaic Judaism, Pharisees, Phenomenology, Phenomenological criticism, Philology, Phoneme, Phonocentrism, Phonology, Platonism, Play, Pleonasm, Plot, Plura- lism, Plurivalence (254-67) This is followed by a select bibliography in six parts (General Critical Theory; Biblical Critical Theory, The Bible as Literature, Hermeneutics, Gen- eral Biblical Studies: Hebrew Bible, General Biblical Studies: New Testament). Then Tate provides two examples of reading the Bible as literature, namely, “A New Critical Reading of Mark’s Gospel” (425-434) and “A Reader-Response Analysis of the Gospel of Mark” (435-65). Their purpose is to be “illustrative of the manner in which any method may require arduous and involved work” (“To the user”). The volume closes with an index of authors and Scripture references (467-82). Tate has provided a helpful dictionary of some the terms and methods of modern biblical studies. However, in view of the preface and its welcome and necessary focus on the interpretation of the Bible as literary documents, some entries are rather surprising, e. g. “Elohist” (114f); “Heilsgeschichte” (158),”Ge- neva Bible” (148f), “Griesbach Hypothesis” (155), “Maccabees” (203), “Mari tablets” (204), “Vellum” (386), “Zealot” and “Zion” (396). Do they “relate in some way to interpreting the biblical texts as literary documents”? Neither are they necessarily terms where theological and literary concerns converge”! What is not explained in the preface but is apparent at the bottom of many entries is that they are adapted (or cited?) from a number of other handbooks and reference tools. The distinction in the bibliography between the “Sources” and “Resources” that are listed at the end of many entries is far from clear. It appears that Tate serves as the author of the many, shorter articles (apparently) not adapted from other sources and as the editor of such adapted articles. All in all the volume is a mixture between a dictionary with a main focus