What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bible and the Believer: How to Read the Bible Critically and Religiously
Can the Bible be approached both as sacred scripture and as a historical and literary text? For many people, it must be one or the other. How can we read the Bible both ways?The Bible and the Believer brings together three distinguished biblical scholars--one Jewish, one Catholic, and one Protestant--to illustrate how to read the Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament critically and religiously. Marc Zvi Brettler, Peter Enns, and Daniel J. Harrington tackle a dilemma that not only haunts biblical scholarship today, but also disturbs students and others exposed to biblical criticism for the first time, either in university courses or through their own reading. Failure to resolve these conflicting interpretive strategies often results in rejection of either the critical approach or the religious approach--or both. But the authors demonstrate how biblical criticism--the process of establishing the original contextual meaning of biblical texts with the tools of literary and historical analysis--need not undermine religious interpretations of the Bible, but can in fact enhance them. They show how awareness of new archeological evidence, cultural context, literary form, and other tools of historical criticism can provide the necessary preparation for a sound religious reading. And they argue that the challenges such study raises for religious belief should be brought into conversation with religious tradition rather than deemed grounds for dismissing either that tradition or biblical criticism. Guiding readers through the history of biblical exegesis within the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant faith traditions, The Bible and the Believer bridges an age-old gap between critical and religious approaches to the Old Testament.
221 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 17, 2012
32 people are currently reading
247 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
April 3, 2013
A rabbi, a priest, and a minister walk into a book.....
What sounds like the beginning of a joke turns out to be a wonderful addition to the discussion on how believers should read the Bible. The Bible and the Believer provides unique insight into how three very different traditions read the Bible, specifically the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible).
The book is actually a compilation of three essays, written by Marc Zvi Brettler, Daniel J. Harrington, and Peter Enns. Each write their own contribution from their own point of view and then the other two give a short response.
As a Protestant, I was interested very much in reading Brettler's approach and he definitely gave me a great deal to think about. He, like Enns, has the enormous problem of identifying which group he really speaks for. He does not speak for all Jews, just as Enns can't speak for all Protestants. But he does a good job at balancing his approach and addressing the larger issues that face the Jewish community. In particular Brettler describes the Jewish willingness to embrace difficulties in the text, because they were not as concerned as getting the right interpretation as they are engaging the text in dialogue.
Harrington, speaking from the Catholic perspective, had a great deal of official doctrine to expostulate. His essay felt like the most unified and cohesive over all. It is not that Brettler and Enns were not coherent, but they were not as tied to a specific community. Harrington mentions the rise of Biblical criticism and the Church's willingness to engage with it, at least to some degree. The way around the tension between the critical studies and the religious reading seems to be willing to subordinate the critical studies under the religious and to remember that the primary arena of interpretation is the Church. What I found particularly interesting was Brettler's disclaimer that Roman Catholics were not 'people of the book,' in the way that Protestants are, although he does reiterate the Bible's unique position.
Enns has been a favorite of mine since seminary. He has been dealing with the same issues for quite some time. His approach brings the question of critical studies to bear on the Bible. Perhaps Enns is better at raising questions than offering answers, but in a sense his questions are answers, of a sort. What is the believer to make of the similarities between the OT and the ANE texts? How should we approach the NT use of the OT? Enns seems willing to forgo and perhaps agree that a dialogue is better than a correct answer, but unwilling to suggest that there is NO right answer. For Enns, Christ provides the unique key to understanding the OT, even if this changes the original historical critical interpretation of a text. He sees the OT through the lens of NT and suggests that this is the correct way to interpret it.
Each author had to answer the question of which Bible and it is interesting to think that each tradition has a different Bible. For the Jewish community, the Hebrew Bible, in its own arrangement, stands alone as its own book. While the Catholics and Protestants have identical New Testaments, their Old Testament collections and roots differ significantly.
Overall this was a well done book. All of the authors write accessibly and easy enough for the lay reader. There is even a glossary in the back for those unfamiliar with some terms.
The one weakness I saw was the absence of a fourth voice, perhaps of a more Biblicist evangelical.
This book is going to resonant mainly with Pastors or those with a deep interest in the Old Testament. However, I would recommend it as a supplemental text for Christians who are beginning to seriously study the faith.
Grade: A-
What sounds like the beginning of a joke turns out to be a wonderful addition to the discussion on how believers should read the Bible. The Bible and the Believer provides unique insight into how three very different traditions read the Bible, specifically the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible).
The book is actually a compilation of three essays, written by Marc Zvi Brettler, Daniel J. Harrington, and Peter Enns. Each write their own contribution from their own point of view and then the other two give a short response.
As a Protestant, I was interested very much in reading Brettler's approach and he definitely gave me a great deal to think about. He, like Enns, has the enormous problem of identifying which group he really speaks for. He does not speak for all Jews, just as Enns can't speak for all Protestants. But he does a good job at balancing his approach and addressing the larger issues that face the Jewish community. In particular Brettler describes the Jewish willingness to embrace difficulties in the text, because they were not as concerned as getting the right interpretation as they are engaging the text in dialogue.
Harrington, speaking from the Catholic perspective, had a great deal of official doctrine to expostulate. His essay felt like the most unified and cohesive over all. It is not that Brettler and Enns were not coherent, but they were not as tied to a specific community. Harrington mentions the rise of Biblical criticism and the Church's willingness to engage with it, at least to some degree. The way around the tension between the critical studies and the religious reading seems to be willing to subordinate the critical studies under the religious and to remember that the primary arena of interpretation is the Church. What I found particularly interesting was Brettler's disclaimer that Roman Catholics were not 'people of the book,' in the way that Protestants are, although he does reiterate the Bible's unique position.
Enns has been a favorite of mine since seminary. He has been dealing with the same issues for quite some time. His approach brings the question of critical studies to bear on the Bible. Perhaps Enns is better at raising questions than offering answers, but in a sense his questions are answers, of a sort. What is the believer to make of the similarities between the OT and the ANE texts? How should we approach the NT use of the OT? Enns seems willing to forgo and perhaps agree that a dialogue is better than a correct answer, but unwilling to suggest that there is NO right answer. For Enns, Christ provides the unique key to understanding the OT, even if this changes the original historical critical interpretation of a text. He sees the OT through the lens of NT and suggests that this is the correct way to interpret it.
Each author had to answer the question of which Bible and it is interesting to think that each tradition has a different Bible. For the Jewish community, the Hebrew Bible, in its own arrangement, stands alone as its own book. While the Catholics and Protestants have identical New Testaments, their Old Testament collections and roots differ significantly.
Overall this was a well done book. All of the authors write accessibly and easy enough for the lay reader. There is even a glossary in the back for those unfamiliar with some terms.
The one weakness I saw was the absence of a fourth voice, perhaps of a more Biblicist evangelical.
This book is going to resonant mainly with Pastors or those with a deep interest in the Old Testament. However, I would recommend it as a supplemental text for Christians who are beginning to seriously study the faith.
Grade: A-
September 14, 2017
I mostly appreciated Pete Enns and Marc Zvi Brettler's sections. The Protestant and Jew respectively. The catholic contributor was the weakest in my mind, but overall, a solid book about historical and textual criticism and how it affects the practitioners of each faith.
Read
May 6, 2021I bought this book because I love Peter Enns' writing. This book felt more academic than his others—maybe in part because he was a coauthor, but even his section of this book had a different feel to other writings of his.
I liked the different comparisons between Jewish, Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Hebrew Bible.
I liked the different comparisons between Jewish, Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Hebrew Bible.
November 15, 2023
It’s possible.
January 11, 2014
Great, smart writers, but the book is a bit strange in terms of its format, which are talks-made-into-essays-with-brief-responses. I think as a quick intro to the writing style of the authors, the book is useful, but people who are really wanting to get into the topic would probably be better off getting the book-length treatments by the contributing authors, who really are great, respected, thoughtful writers and scholars. I much preferred Kugel's long book to this but am reading Brettler's book and looking at the other two as possibilities.
July 27, 2014
Slow (but good) read. I felt like there was much to chew mentally on with these three authors. And I'm realizing just how much of my own personal wrestling with the Bible is rooted in being raised Protestant.
July 9, 2017
This book is a good introduction to what Biblical Criticism is and why it is used. Biblical Criticism is the process of establishing the original, contextual meaning of biblical texts and assessing their historical accuracy. Suffice it to say that scholars have found extensive evidence that many of the events in the Old Testament did not happen, or that if they did, they did not happen in the exact way they are portrayed in the Old Testament.
This book was written from three perspectives, from the Catholic position (Harrington), the Jewish position (Brettler), and from the Protestant (Peter Enns). Marc Brettler says that "in ancient Israel, as in other premodern societies, the facts themselves or the historical events were not primary - what could be learned from the stories was primary." (p. 52) In other words, from Brettler's perspective, the issue isn't whether something in the Old Testament actually happened, rather, what does this story teach you about your relationship with God? With your fellow man? What can you take away from this text?
I like how Marc Brettler quotes Natan Slifkin, an Orthodox Jew, when he says, "It (science) enhances our appreciation of God's handiwork... It is a more noble way for God to create and run His world than via supernatural miracles... Genesis is best understood not as a scientific account but rather as a theological cosmogony... While certain inferences that some people draw from a theory (of evolution) do stand in conflict with religion, the actual theory itself does not." (p. 53)
I like this quote - we all find evidence as we go down the scholarly rabbit holes that both support and detract from our religious beliefs. I do not believe in a God that would intellectually compel me to believe in him, that goes against the plan, and would interfere with my agency. He would not stack all of the evidence on one side. So at issue is not necessarily the evidence we find, but rather, how we interpret it (the inferences we make) from this evidence. Some people see the humanity in the Biblical text, and decide to reject it as revelation. Others see the evidence that God worked with mannind in his culture, in his place and time, and they see divinity. Either way, the evidence is what it is. We choose what inferences to make on this evidence.
I did find it interesting that Marc Brettler said, "I have almost concluded this essay without having discussed divine inspiration. I do not know what it means for a book to be divinely inspired." (p. 55-56). This made me sad, to think one could spend their life looking at these religious texts, and not even know what this means. I wish he would have written more about what he meant by this. As I have discussed what revelation is and how it is operative in our lives with people of other faiths, I have found some to have a hard time explaining how they know things to be true, how they know God is real, the gospels are real, etc. I would think that being able to explain this to a nonbeliever to be of utmost importance. For example, if this book is not inspired, why is it more important than Hamlet or the Illiad?
The more I read Peter Enns, the more I appreciate his careful approach to higher criticism. He says, "Archaeological studies have greatly and permanently affected how modern readers interpret Scripture, but the data also have to be interpreted, and this is where what one brings to the text must be made plain. For example, it is one thing to conclude, correctly, that ancient Mesopotamia creation myths and Genesis 1-3 share similar ideologies that (along with other reasons) indicate that the latter are not be be read as historical. It is quite another matter, however, to say that acknowledging the mythic nature of the story means that it has no abiding theological value. To speak this way reveals a philosophical precommitment, that historical accounts are of more religious value than nonhistorical, or that any God worth his salt would never stoop so low as to express deep truth in mythic ways. Oddly, this precommitment is shared by both fundamentalists and liberals, which is a lesson to all of us that bad philosophy can be found at either end of the ideological spectrum." (p. 118-119)
Peter Enns' description of the "battle for the Bible" as outlined in pages 134-139 is excellent. He sums it up in a short space. I like how he addressed how the early Christians reinterpreted or recontextualized the Old Testament, and I would agree with his conclusions. I also liked his bit on the "moving rock" that I have read in other works (see p. 158). The idea of a moving water fountain in Saudi Arabia has always interested me (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).
Overall, if you know nothing about higher criticism and the Bible, this is a good book. If you are LDS and want to read more about higher criticism, don't read this book first. Start with "Authoring the Old Testament" by David Bokovoy. This would be where I would start, then you will want to read this book.
This book was written from three perspectives, from the Catholic position (Harrington), the Jewish position (Brettler), and from the Protestant (Peter Enns). Marc Brettler says that "in ancient Israel, as in other premodern societies, the facts themselves or the historical events were not primary - what could be learned from the stories was primary." (p. 52) In other words, from Brettler's perspective, the issue isn't whether something in the Old Testament actually happened, rather, what does this story teach you about your relationship with God? With your fellow man? What can you take away from this text?
I like how Marc Brettler quotes Natan Slifkin, an Orthodox Jew, when he says, "It (science) enhances our appreciation of God's handiwork... It is a more noble way for God to create and run His world than via supernatural miracles... Genesis is best understood not as a scientific account but rather as a theological cosmogony... While certain inferences that some people draw from a theory (of evolution) do stand in conflict with religion, the actual theory itself does not." (p. 53)
I like this quote - we all find evidence as we go down the scholarly rabbit holes that both support and detract from our religious beliefs. I do not believe in a God that would intellectually compel me to believe in him, that goes against the plan, and would interfere with my agency. He would not stack all of the evidence on one side. So at issue is not necessarily the evidence we find, but rather, how we interpret it (the inferences we make) from this evidence. Some people see the humanity in the Biblical text, and decide to reject it as revelation. Others see the evidence that God worked with mannind in his culture, in his place and time, and they see divinity. Either way, the evidence is what it is. We choose what inferences to make on this evidence.
I did find it interesting that Marc Brettler said, "I have almost concluded this essay without having discussed divine inspiration. I do not know what it means for a book to be divinely inspired." (p. 55-56). This made me sad, to think one could spend their life looking at these religious texts, and not even know what this means. I wish he would have written more about what he meant by this. As I have discussed what revelation is and how it is operative in our lives with people of other faiths, I have found some to have a hard time explaining how they know things to be true, how they know God is real, the gospels are real, etc. I would think that being able to explain this to a nonbeliever to be of utmost importance. For example, if this book is not inspired, why is it more important than Hamlet or the Illiad?
The more I read Peter Enns, the more I appreciate his careful approach to higher criticism. He says, "Archaeological studies have greatly and permanently affected how modern readers interpret Scripture, but the data also have to be interpreted, and this is where what one brings to the text must be made plain. For example, it is one thing to conclude, correctly, that ancient Mesopotamia creation myths and Genesis 1-3 share similar ideologies that (along with other reasons) indicate that the latter are not be be read as historical. It is quite another matter, however, to say that acknowledging the mythic nature of the story means that it has no abiding theological value. To speak this way reveals a philosophical precommitment, that historical accounts are of more religious value than nonhistorical, or that any God worth his salt would never stoop so low as to express deep truth in mythic ways. Oddly, this precommitment is shared by both fundamentalists and liberals, which is a lesson to all of us that bad philosophy can be found at either end of the ideological spectrum." (p. 118-119)
Peter Enns' description of the "battle for the Bible" as outlined in pages 134-139 is excellent. He sums it up in a short space. I like how he addressed how the early Christians reinterpreted or recontextualized the Old Testament, and I would agree with his conclusions. I also liked his bit on the "moving rock" that I have read in other works (see p. 158). The idea of a moving water fountain in Saudi Arabia has always interested me (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).
Overall, if you know nothing about higher criticism and the Bible, this is a good book. If you are LDS and want to read more about higher criticism, don't read this book first. Start with "Authoring the Old Testament" by David Bokovoy. This would be where I would start, then you will want to read this book.
April 18, 2018
Stop me if you've heard this one before. A Jew, a Jesuit, and a Protestant critical scholar walk into a bar and have a dialogue about faith and critical scholarship. Seeing that their views are generally in harmony with each other despite their varying backgrounds, they decide to write a book together thinking that as like-minded individuals they can encourage people to be both "religious" and critical by approaching the Bible as they do. Guess which one gets more attention? The fact that this book of nearly 200 pages can be reduced to a joke about people walking into a bar and on the slippery nature of textual criticism [1] suggests a deep failure on the part of the authors. Let us make no mistake, this book is not very good, but it is bad in a way that is deeply instructive about the way that critical scholarship erodes the faith of people who study in many seminaries and makes them ineffective at preaching the Gospel since they are trained to have such serious doubts about the Bible's reliability and authority by showing some of the sad remnants of such a benighted religious education.
This book's organization is extremely simple, and it gives me an idea of the sort of book I would want to write myself in collaboration with others where the conversation itself becomes text. The three perspectives of the book are represented, respectively, by Marc Zvi Brettler, who serves as the liberal Jew who tries to point out how critical scholarship has spread like a metastatic cancer through the Conservative and even Orthodox perspectives of his faith, Peter Enns, who laments the hostility of so many Evangelicals and conservative protestants to the critical theory he represents even as he tries to paint the corruption of such an approach as a necessary part of genuine faith, and Daniel J. Harrington, a Jesuit who praises both critical theory and the magisterial approach of the Catholic Church towards highly centralized religious authority. Each of them gives an attempt at syncretism between the critical approach and their own faith tradition and then comments on the efforts of the other two, and all of them end up pretty chummy with each other and thinking that there is no great gulf between their own belief systems.
The problem is that the similarity of the particular people involved (and others of their ilk) is that their genuine faith is not Bible-based at all but a faith in their own skill and those of others who share their approach as textual critics. By approaching the Bible as judges of the text and its veracity based on their own standards and not as those who approach the Bible as a soon-to-be convicted felon approaches the bench and hopes for a merciful judgment, their religion is useless and worthless. By assuming all kinds of things about the Bible and its supposed contradictions and its imaginary sources and fictive authors like Second and Third Isaiah and so on, the authors show that the sort of faith that one can have as a critical scholar is not the faith that anyone wants, nor is it the sort of faith that can serve to challenge our own chronological snobbery and the fashionable vices and injustice of our own times. These authors may be able to pal around with each other and find no great difference between the approach of the others, but their approach is quite distinct from a genuinely godly and biblical one.
[1] See for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
This book's organization is extremely simple, and it gives me an idea of the sort of book I would want to write myself in collaboration with others where the conversation itself becomes text. The three perspectives of the book are represented, respectively, by Marc Zvi Brettler, who serves as the liberal Jew who tries to point out how critical scholarship has spread like a metastatic cancer through the Conservative and even Orthodox perspectives of his faith, Peter Enns, who laments the hostility of so many Evangelicals and conservative protestants to the critical theory he represents even as he tries to paint the corruption of such an approach as a necessary part of genuine faith, and Daniel J. Harrington, a Jesuit who praises both critical theory and the magisterial approach of the Catholic Church towards highly centralized religious authority. Each of them gives an attempt at syncretism between the critical approach and their own faith tradition and then comments on the efforts of the other two, and all of them end up pretty chummy with each other and thinking that there is no great gulf between their own belief systems.
The problem is that the similarity of the particular people involved (and others of their ilk) is that their genuine faith is not Bible-based at all but a faith in their own skill and those of others who share their approach as textual critics. By approaching the Bible as judges of the text and its veracity based on their own standards and not as those who approach the Bible as a soon-to-be convicted felon approaches the bench and hopes for a merciful judgment, their religion is useless and worthless. By assuming all kinds of things about the Bible and its supposed contradictions and its imaginary sources and fictive authors like Second and Third Isaiah and so on, the authors show that the sort of faith that one can have as a critical scholar is not the faith that anyone wants, nor is it the sort of faith that can serve to challenge our own chronological snobbery and the fashionable vices and injustice of our own times. These authors may be able to pal around with each other and find no great difference between the approach of the others, but their approach is quite distinct from a genuinely godly and biblical one.
[1] See for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
June 1, 2020
Were you brought up fundie? Did you endure sermon after sermon railing against the Jews for not being able to figure out who the Levites were or railing against the Catholics for calling their priests "father"? Are you completely baffled by the notion that somebody might read the same Bible as you and yet come up with a different conclusion?
The church I was raised in spent an awful lot of time telling us that everybody was doing religion wrong with little explanation why. And when I left the church, one of the reasons I felt comfortable doing so was because I had learned about the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible. I was at a point where I couldn't understand how anybody could take the Bible capital-S Seriously. But this book helped me to understand that there really are a lot of ways think about the Bible, and I don't mean that in a wishy-washy "personal interpretation" kind of way.
The chapter on the Jewish approach to the Bible was particularly interesting to me because I know so little about the foundations of Jewish faith other than the obvious "Torah seems important, but there's rabbis?" The Protestant guy had the hardest lifting to do, but I think he knew that. In his responses to the Jewish and the Catholic approaches I kind of felt like "oh who's this guy to talk to the ancients?" But in his own essay, I was impressed at how he laid out the challenges of his faith in a very practical and critical way.
This isn't a book where the three faiths battle about who's right, but it is a book where each representative of that faith has the opportunity to describe and explain in a manner not intended to convince anybody of anything. Their intention is to answer the question "what do they believe and why?" and I really appreciate it anytime I get a chance to understand something. I'm far enough away from my own past that it's time to come to peace with it, and this book has helped me.
The church I was raised in spent an awful lot of time telling us that everybody was doing religion wrong with little explanation why. And when I left the church, one of the reasons I felt comfortable doing so was because I had learned about the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible. I was at a point where I couldn't understand how anybody could take the Bible capital-S Seriously. But this book helped me to understand that there really are a lot of ways think about the Bible, and I don't mean that in a wishy-washy "personal interpretation" kind of way.
The chapter on the Jewish approach to the Bible was particularly interesting to me because I know so little about the foundations of Jewish faith other than the obvious "Torah seems important, but there's rabbis?" The Protestant guy had the hardest lifting to do, but I think he knew that. In his responses to the Jewish and the Catholic approaches I kind of felt like "oh who's this guy to talk to the ancients?" But in his own essay, I was impressed at how he laid out the challenges of his faith in a very practical and critical way.
This isn't a book where the three faiths battle about who's right, but it is a book where each representative of that faith has the opportunity to describe and explain in a manner not intended to convince anybody of anything. Their intention is to answer the question "what do they believe and why?" and I really appreciate it anytime I get a chance to understand something. I'm far enough away from my own past that it's time to come to peace with it, and this book has helped me.
Read
November 27, 2025I don’t rate theology and I cannot accurately rate the scholarship found in this book. It is a good introduction to Biblical criticism through the lens of the religious. It might be more difficult to understand if you’ve been taught the Bible is literal, which is my background. I enjoyed the essay/letter approach and conversation between widely differing religious viewpoints. I think the scary part is unraveling what you’ve been told and wrestling with the idea that some Biblical accounts maybe stories, folklore, what does that mean for faith? Jesus spoke in parables, there was no actual prodigal son, and people are not seeds. I think book really points out that our religious routines exist as such to create a bridge to an Almighty Creator. This book is a good gap fill for when religion and science don’t agree. We should be wrestling with scripture, it’s a beautiful mystery. This book has led me to Richard Freidman’s Who Wrote The Bible, which I just downloaded. I’m excited to keep learning.
Read
October 11, 2023Obviously can't speak for Jews or Catholics on this one, but as someone with a Protestant background, I think we need to stop asking how historical criticism fits in with existing frameworks—which generally rely on ideas by medieval European dudes who didn't have anywhere near the level of data we have today—and start asking how it can inform new orthodoxies that actually account for the past century of biblical scholarship. Pete Enns does a good job in his section of encouraging Christians to question and rethink a lot of their assumptions about the Bible... I just always want folks to go a little further in teasing out the implications re: plurality, authority, and the actively creative role of the reader.
November 25, 2017
A great example of interreligious dialogue, Brettler (Jewish), Enns (Protestant), and Harrington (Catholic) discuss their approaches to reconciling the historical-critical study of the Bible with a religious worldview. All three essays are brief introductions on how each would approach the Scripture with their respective camps (which also includes a brief history of interpretive approaches) and a reply from each contributor.
These essays are useful in getting a feel for how a comparative study of interpretation would look like. Are they useful references? Yes, but again, for introductions. Are they enlightening? Not really. But it was still a good refresher nonetheless.
These essays are useful in getting a feel for how a comparative study of interpretation would look like. Are they useful references? Yes, but again, for introductions. Are they enlightening? Not really. But it was still a good refresher nonetheless.
September 30, 2019
Brettler's essay is really good, Harrington's was fairly standard, but I thought Enns' didn't say much of consequence. It felt like he was problematizing things that aren't problems and that evangelical scholars do engage with regularly. That took up most of his essay, and he didn't do much in terms of showing a way forward. I think there are other scholars who could have (and have) addressed the question better.
March 21, 2021
This was fine. I took a few notes but I probably wouldn't revisit. Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars each write an essay about modern Biblical criticism, and how it intersects or conflicts with their tradition's views on the Bible. They each respond to each other as well. Neat idea but it didn't knock my socks off.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 8, 2018
Helpful and Insightful
As a Christian believer, I loved the varied perspectives from Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism on how the Bible may be read both critically and spiritually.
As a Christian believer, I loved the varied perspectives from Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism on how the Bible may be read both critically and spiritually.
May 13, 2019
I enjoyed this book very much. Particularly, I enjoyed the discussion on how the three faiths approach the text even without biblical criticism. The details of biblical criticism, particularly from Peter Enns. This book gave me a lot to mull over
October 26, 2013
A very interesting look into the triumphs and fallacies of Biblical Criticism. All three scholars bring a questioning view into the debate, but only the protestant, Enns, seems to carry his criticism even close to its final conclusion. The Jewish Brettler, ultimately turns to the Rabbi’s writings and interpretation, as does Harrington, relying on the Catholic Church’s ultimate interpretation of scripture. Enns seems to end up at a place where he believes because he wants to, not because his view of the evidence leads him to belief. The other two fall back on tradition to bring them to belief. The biggest take-away from this book is that we all make assumptions about the Bible and God’s involvement of the Bible coming together. Once those assumptions are made, whether those assumptions are that the Bible was written by men or written by God, that God has the ability to interact with this world in a miraculous way or not, that all religions are the same or that there is only one form of absolute truth, we are drawn to conclusions that cannot coexist with the conclusions made by a person who accepts different assumptions. This is a great book to bring that point home.
January 16, 2014
Academic scholarship on the Bible need not undermine religious faith, but it can lead to adjusted expectations and perspectives. If you're interested in reconciling academic approaches to scripture with religious belief, this book is a perfect little primer. It features three voices, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant, each discussing the challenges which biblical scholarship raises for believers. The well-written introduction gives the broad strokes of the rise of biblical studies, then each author contributes a chapter from the perspective of their own faith tradition. Each chapter also includes a response from the other two contributors, bringing different approaches to biblical interpretation into useful dialogue. I look forward to using this book in the future for my own personal study. I only wish there was a chapter from my own faith tradition in it highlighting the interesting similarities and differences. Right now, the closest thing in the Mormon tradition is Philip Barlow's "Mormons and the Bible."
May 3, 2013
The reading was heavy although for the most part each section was a survey of how three faith traditions handle historical criticism of their holy books. I gained the most from the Jewish section and don't necessarily see it ad incompatible with Christian readings of the Old Testament. The Protestant section was interesting but mort of his conclusions I already had arrived at based on my own studies, though he provided much more solid information upon which I can stand. All I can say after this book is: tell me more.
Read
May 17, 2021I don't remember anything about this book.
January 18, 2016
fascinating set of essays for three biblical scholars on the nature of biblical criticism and the believer.
November 17, 2015
This is a very odd little book which I really enjoyed, but I cannot think to whom I would recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews