This massive dictionary is one of the latest products of the emerging 'respectable academic evangelicalism'. It is respectable because it is decidedly moderate in its approach on many of the items discussed. While the more flexible evangelicalism exhibited here will win praise from the academic establishment, evangelical readers need to read this with discernment, since more than a few assertions made in here carry the same flaws as more liberal scholarship.
The most obvious positive of this dictionary is its often exhaustive treatment of various subjects that too often get ignored in commentaries and Biblical studies courses. As is usually the case in reference works like this, the bibliographies contained in here are extremely helpful; often more helpful than the articles themselves. As such, it achieves its goal of providing the reader with the tools to conduct more thorough research on most any NT topic. Regardless of how questionable the articles themselves might be, this book is worthy of purchase on the basis of the bibliographies alone.
Having said that, there are more than a few problems with the articles put forth here. Dunn's article on pseudepigraphy is creative in that he attempts to rescue 2 Peter from liberal critics while maintaining that it's pseudepigraphal. But it is nonetheless hopelessly flawed in its mistreatment of the early church's attitude toward pseudepigraphal writings so that not only will liberals reject his thesis, evangelicals should as well. In addition, the evangelical reader will likely be unpleasantly surprised by the degree to which the moderate evangelicals in this book discount the importance of apostolic authorship. Increasingly, evangelical scholars are siding with their liberal counterparts in saying that the authorship questions of the NT writings are immaterial. Liberals use this train of thought to discount the writings themselves. This book doesn't go that far, but seems to suggest that since the Holy Spirit can theoretically inspire anyone to write a canonical book, it doesn't matter whether John wrote 1 John, or Peter wrote 1 Peter, etc. The problem with this is obvious. When the writings become distanced from the apostolic mission, it's easier to cast doubt on their apostolic reliability. This is what liberals have been doing for decades, and this book moves dangerously in that direction.
It's good that there is an emerging evangelical academic respectability. But this respectability should not be the sine qua non of our scholarly endeavors. While the authors here are clearly more optimistic than liberal scholars in regards to the authenticity of the later NT writings, they have, in my view, adopted too many critical tools uncritically. The result is that too many articles in this book contain questionable conclusions based on questionable and even dubious assumptions that are too easy to debunk, and this makes them resemble their liberal counterparts in a way that should give the evangelical church discomfort.