Scan barcode
jimmacsyr's review against another edition
4.0
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
kstep1805's review against another edition
4.0
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.
ben_smitty's review against another edition
4.0
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.
kstep1805's review against another edition
4.0
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.
giantarms's review against another edition
5.0
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.
More...