This review is not meant to be critical of the author as a person. I simply want to offer some points for critical consideration, that I feel need to be addressed for those who may use this book in a Catholic theology course. I will just narrow them down to 3 points.
First, Sri says on p.34-35, that the PBC(Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1993, which no longer enjoys the teaching office of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, unlike the ones that came before Vatican II)makes a distinction in the different ways that the "sensus plenior" can come to be known. This distinction that Sri is trying to insist on, is NOT a distinction that the PBC talks of when explaining how the "sensus plenior" can be assertained. Please see PBC document p.130-131. The PBC states this about the "sensus plenior", "Its existence in the biblical text comes to be known when one studies the text in light of other biblical texts which utilize it(meaning sacred scripture)OR in its relationship with the internal development of revelation." The later is called by the PBC p.131 "a genuine doctrinal Tradition."(sacred tradition) Notice how the PBC does not make a distinction on how to arrive at the "sensus plenior" as Sri is insisting. The PBC does not place one above the other, but rather side by side. The PBC has so worded it this way because the sacred deposit of Faith comes from 2 divine sources, sacred scripture and sacred tradition(see also Dei Verbum #9,10). Sri seems to suggest that the PBC deems less important on how sacred tradition or the Magisterium comes to the understanding of the sensus plenior, than sacred scripture. This is not true. It seems as though Sri has either unintentionally or intentionally, adopted this view that sacred tradition is of little value when it comes to biblical exegesis. A case in point is found specifically(& generally throughout the book) on p.54-58, where Sri speaks about the prophecy of Is.7:14. Sri is in agreement with the view of modern and rationalistic exegests, that the "almah" spoken of in Is.7:14 refers to the "wife" of King Ahaz and sees this prophecy has having a "double fulfillment with the successor to Ahaz bringing the prophecy to a partial fulfillment & Christ giving its ultimate fulfillment(p.58)." Sri also says, "Finally, we note that the extent to which this passage can be viewed as messianic prophecy is still debated(p.58)."
First of all, this view of "partial or double fulfillment" of this prophecy or that it was referring to the wife of King Ahaz, therefore his son, was defended in early times by Jews against Christians. Sts. Justin & Jerome, both refuted this view. Is.7:14 has been viewed by the Faith of the Catholic Church & the unanimous view of the exegetical tradition, that this text is to be understood as exclusively Messianic & Marian. Meaning that the debate is over as to whether it is messianic or not & it exclusively and literally refers to Jesus & Mary.
Let me make another note, the PBC itself gave this text of Is.7:14 as a prime example of how the "sensus plenior" can come to be known. It says, "when a subsequent biblical author attributes to an earlier biblical text, it takes it up in a context which confers upon it a new literal sense(p.130)." As an example of what the PBC means by this, it refers to the very text of Is.7:14. It says that the "almah" in Is.7:14 was taken up by St. Matt.1:24 & had given it the fuller meaning(sensus plenior). St. Matt. definitively gave the meaning of the word "almah" to mean virgin, because it was translated into the Septuagint as "parthenos". Therefore, the Gospel of St. Matt. then confered upon the text of Is.7:14 a NEW LITERAL MEANING. The word "almah" is to literally mean "virgin" in the strict sence & could not refer to the wife or the son of King Ahaz. If Sri had paid more attention to what the PBC said & to what sacred tradition had already solved, he would not still hold this view of "partial or double fulfillment" of Is.7:14. In addition, it would have given him a stronger case for the Church's Queen-Mother typology of Is.7:14.
Another note: Sri says on p.153 in footnote #113 that "While it is true that Vatican II was cautious on its use of Gen.3:15 as having Marian significance,..." This is just not true, nowhere in Vatican II Lumen Gentium, which has a section devoted to the Blessed Mother, are the Council Fathers cautious on giving Gen.3:15 "Marian significance". If they did do this they would have been going against sacred tradition & the dogmatic development of Marian dogma. The dogma on the Blessed Mother's Immaculate Conception, specifically referred to Gen.3:15 in Pope Pius IX bull Ineffabilis Deus.
Lastly, Sri agrees with the position that the "Woman" in Rev.12 refers primarily to "the community of believers, God's people of both the Old & New Covenants(p.96)." On p.103 Sri asserts the same statement but adds, "she also can be understood as the mother of Jesus, Mary, when the passage is read in light of the Gospel of John & the wider New Testament canon." It is unfortunate that Sri has not brought out the view of the "Woman" being Mary the physical person representing the Church as a mystical figure. This view has a strong support among prominent biblical-mariologist & this would have also given a stronger support for the Queen-Mother typology for Rev.12. For a more extensive treatment on this topic please see the great work of Fr. Stefano Manelli's book "All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed."
In conclusion, I did not see how the 3 criteria for interpretating scripture as expounded on in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #'s 112,113,114 was followed, as stated at the beginning of the book.