The Bible and the Believer: How to Read the Bible Critically and Religiously

Open up Preview

Meet a Trouble?

Nosotros'd beloved your help. Allow the states know what's incorrect with this preview of The Bible and the Believer past Marc Zvi Brettler.

Thanks for telling us about the problem.

Friend Reviews

To come across what your friends idea of this book, please sign up.

Community Reviews

· 107 ratings · xx reviews

Showtime your review of The Bible and the Believer: How to Read the Bible Critically and Religiously

Apr 02, 2013 Bob Price rated it actually liked it

A rabbi, a priest, and a minister walk into a volume.....

What sounds similar the starting time 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 3 very dissimilar traditions read the Bible, specifically the Former Testament (or Hebrew Bible).

The book is really a compilation of three essays, written by Marc Zvi Brettler, Daniel J. Harrington, and Peter Enns. Each write their own contributi

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 word on how believers should read the Bible. The Bible and the Believer provides unique insight into how three very unlike traditions read the Bible, specifically the Quondam Testament (or Hebrew Bible).

The book is actually a compilation of three essays, written past Marc Zvi Brettler, Daniel J. Harrington, and Peter Enns. Each write their own contribution from their own point of view and and so the other ii give a short response.

Equally a Protestant, I was interested very much in reading Brettler's arroyo 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 every bit Enns can't speak for all Protestants. But he does a practiced task at balancing his arroyo and addressing the larger bug that face up the Jewish community. In detail Brettler describes the Jewish willingness to embrace difficulties in the text, because they were non as concerned as getting the correct estimation 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 non that Brettler and Enns were not coherent, but they were not as tied to a specific community. Harrington mentions the rising of Biblical criticism and the Church building'south willingness to appoint with information technology, at least to some degree. The style around the tension betwixt the disquisitional studies and the religious reading seems to be willing to subordinate the critical studies under the religious and to remember that the primary loonshit of interpretation is the Church. What I establish particularly interesting was Brettler's disclaimer that Roman Catholics were non 'people of the book,' in the manner 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 fourth dimension. His approach brings the question of critical studies to touch on the Bible. Perhaps Enns is better at raising questions than offering answers, just in a sense his questions are answers, of a sort. What is the believer to brand of the similarities betwixt the OT and the Ane texts? How should we approach the NT use of the OT? Enns seems willing to forgo and peradventure hold that a dialogue is better than a correct answer, but unwilling to suggest that at that place is NO correct respond. For Enns, Christ provides the unique primal to understanding the OT, fifty-fifty if this changes the original historical disquisitional estimation of a text. He sees the OT through the lens of NT and suggests that this is the right mode to translate it.

Each author had to respond 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 organisation, stands alone equally its own book. While the Catholics and Protestants have identical New Testaments, their Old Attestation collections and roots differ significantly.

Overall this was a well done book. All of the authors write accessibly and like shooting fish in a barrel plenty 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 absenteeism of a fourth vox, perhaps of a more Biblicist evangelical.

This book is going to resonant mainly with Pastors or those with a deep interest in the Sometime Testament. Yet, I would recommend it as a supplemental text for Christians who are start to seriously study the religion.

Grade: A-

...more

Sep 14, 2017 Steve rated it really liked information technology

I more often than not appreciated Pete Enns and Marc Zvi Brettler's sections. The Protestant and Jew respectively. The catholic contributor was the weakest in my listen, but overall, a solid book nearly historical and textual criticism and how it affects the practitioners of each faith. I more often than not appreciated Pete Enns and Marc Zvi Brettler'south sections. The Protestant and Jew respectively. The catholic contributor was the weakest in my mind, but overall, a solid volume virtually historical and textual criticism and how information technology affects the practitioners of each faith. ...more

I bought this book because I honey Peter Enns' writing. This book felt more academic than his others—possibly in role because he was a coauthor, but fifty-fifty his department of this book had a unlike feel to other writings of his.
I liked the unlike comparisons between Jewish, Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Hebrew Bible. I bought this book because I dearest Peter Enns' writing. This book felt more than academic than his others—perchance in role because he was a coauthor, merely even his section of this book had a different experience to other writings of his.
I liked the different comparisons between Jewish, Catholic and Protestant understandings of the Hebrew Bible. ...more than

Cracking, smart writers, simply the book is a bit strange in terms of its format, which are talks-made-into-essays-with-brief-responses. I think every bit 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 past the contributing authors, who really are nifty, respected, thoughtful writers and scholars. I much preferred Kugel's long book to this simply am reading Brettler's boo Dandy, smart writers, but the book is a fleck strange in terms of its format, which are talks-made-into-essays-with-brief-responses. I remember equally a quick intro to the writing manner of the authors, the book is useful, merely people who are actually wanting to get into the topic would probably be improve 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 volume to this only am reading Brettler's volume and looking at the other two every bit possibilities. ...more

Mar nineteen, 2014 Aya Hayashi rated it really liked it

Slow (but good) read. I felt similar at that place was much to chew mentally on with these three authors. And I'yard realizing only how much of my own personal wrestling with the Bible is rooted in being raised Protestant. Slow (but skilful) read. I felt similar there was much to chew mentally on with these iii authors. And I'm realizing merely how much of my own personal wrestling with the Bible is rooted in beingness raised Protestant. ...more

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 accurateness. Suffice information technology to say that scholars take establish all-encompassing evidence that many of the events in the Quondam Testament did non happen, or that if they did, they did non happen in the exact fashion they are portrayed in the Old Testament.

This volume was written from three perspectives, from t

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 information technology to say that scholars accept constitute extensive evidence that many of the events in the Quondam Attestation 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 Cosmic 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 non primary - what could be learned from the stories was master." (p. 52) In other words, from Brettler's perspective, the issue isn't whether something in the Erstwhile Attestation really happened, rather, what does this story teach you well-nigh your relationship with God? With your beau man? What tin yous take abroad from this text?

I like how Marc Brettler quotes Natan Slifkin, an Orthodox Jew, when he says, "It (scientific discipline) enhances our appreciation of God's handiwork... It is a more noble way for God to create and run His earth than via supernatural miracles... Genesis is all-time understood not as a scientific account but rather every bit a theological cosmogony... While sure inferences that some people draw from a theory (of evolution) practise stand in conflict with religion, the bodily theory itself does not." (p. 53)

I like this quote - we all find evidence as we get down the scholarly rabbit holes that both support and detract from our religious beliefs. I do non believe in a God that would intellectually compel me to believe in him, that goes confronting the programme, and would interfere with my bureau. He would not stack all of the prove on 1 side. So at effect is not necessarily the prove we discover, but rather, how we interpret information technology (the inferences we make) from this show. Some people encounter the humanity in the Biblical text, and decide to reject information technology every bit revelation. Others see the evidence that God worked with mannind in his civilization, in his place and fourth dimension, and they encounter divinity. Either way, the evidence is what it is. Nosotros cull what inferences to make on this evidence.

I did find information technology interesting that Marc Brettler said, "I have well-nigh concluded this essay without having discussed divine inspiration. I practice not know what it means for a book to be divinely inspired." (p. 55-56). This made me distressing, to recall 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. Every bit I take discussed what revelation is and how it is operative in our lives with people of other faiths, I accept found some to take a difficult time explaining how they know things to exist truthful, how they know God is real, the gospels are real, etc. I would call back that existence able to explain this to a nonbeliever to exist of utmost importance. For example, if this volume is non inspired, why is it more than important than Village or the Illiad?

The more I read Peter Enns, the more than I capeesh his careful approach to higher criticism. He says, "Archaeological studies take greatly and permanently affected how mod 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 instance, information technology is one matter to conclude, correctly, that ancient Mesopotamia creation myths and Genesis i-3 share similar ideologies that (along with other reasons) indicate that the latter are not be exist read every bit historical. It is quite another matter, however, to say that acknowledging the mythic nature of the story ways that information technology 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 every bit to express deep truth in mythic means. Oddly, this precommitment is shared by both fundamentalists and liberals, which is a lesson to all of united states of america that bad philosophy tin exist found at either stop of the ideological spectrum." (p. 118-119)

Peter Enns' clarification of the "battle for the Bible" as outlined in pages 134-139 is first-class. He sums it up in a short space. I similar how he addressed how the early Christians reinterpreted or recontextualized the Old Testament, and I would concord with his conclusions. I as well liked his bit on the "moving rock" that I accept read in other works (run into p. 158). The idea of a moving water fountain in Saudi Arabia has always interested me (run across 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

Overall, if you lot know nothing about higher criticism and the Bible, this is a good volume. If you are LDS and want to read more about higher criticism, don't read this book first. Get-go with "Authoring the Old Testament" by David Bokovoy. This would exist where I would offset, so you will want to read this book.

...more

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 determine 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 every bit they do. Guess which 1 gets more attention? The fact that th 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 organized religion and critical scholarship. Seeing that their views are generally in harmony with each other despite their varying backgrounds, they make up one's mind to write a book together thinking that as agreeing individuals they can encourage people to exist both "religious" and critical by approaching the Bible equally they do. Judge which i gets more attention? The fact that this volume of nearly 200 pages can exist reduced to a joke almost 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 fault, this volume is not very adept, simply it is bad in a style that is deeply instructive about the way that critical scholarship erodes the religion of people who study in many seminaries and makes them ineffective at preaching the Gospel since they are trained to have such serious doubts well-nigh the Bible's reliability and authority by showing some of the sad remnants of such a benighted religious teaching.

This book's organization is extremely simple, and it gives me an idea of the sort of book I would desire 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 every bit the liberal Jew who tries to signal out how disquisitional 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 bourgeois 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 religion, and Daniel J. Harrington, a Jesuit who praises both critical theory and the magisterial arroyo of the Catholic Church towards highly centralized religious dominance. Each of them gives an attempt at syncretism between the critical approach and their own faith tradition and so comments on the efforts of the other 2, and all of them end upwardly pretty chummy with each other and thinking that there is no keen 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 organized religion is non Bible-based at all but a faith in their own skill and those of others who share their approach every bit textual critics. By approaching the Bible equally judges of the text and its veracity based on their own standards and not as those who arroyo the Bible as a presentlyhoped-for bedevilled felon approaches the bench and hopes for a merciful judgment, their organized religion is useless and worthless. Past bold all kinds of things nigh the Bible and its supposed contradictions and its imaginary sources and fictive authors like Second and 3rd Isaiah and then on, the authors show that the sort of faith that one can take as a critical scholar is not the religion that anyone wants, nor is it the sort of religion that tin 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 discover no slap-up difference between the approach of the others, but their approach is quite distinct from a genuinely godly and biblical one.

[1] Meet for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.weblog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.weblog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

...more than

Jun 01, 2020 Sarah rated information technology it was astonishing

Were you brought up fundie? Did you endure sermon after sermon railing confronting the Jews for not beingness able to effigy out who the Levites were or railing against the Catholics for calling their priests "begetter"? Are y'all completely baffled by the notion that somebody might read the aforementioned Bible every bit you and all the same come up with a different determination?

The church building 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 chu

Were yous brought upward fundie? Did you endure sermon after sermon railing against the Jews for not beingness able to figure out who the Levites were or railing confronting the Catholics for calling their priests "begetter"? Are you completely baffled by the notion that somebody might read the same Bible as you and nonetheless come with a different conclusion?

The church I was raised in spent an atrocious lot of time telling us that everybody was doing religion wrong with niggling explanation why. And when I left the church building, one of the reasons I felt comfy doing and then was because I had learned nearly the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible. I was at a point where I couldn't understand how anybody could take the Bible upper-case letter-S Seriously. Only 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 then trivial most the foundations of Jewish faith other than the obvious "Torah seems important, just there'southward rabbis?" The Protestant guy had the hardest lifting to exercise, simply 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?" Just in his own essay, I was impressed at how he laid out the challenges of his faith in a very practical and disquisitional way.

This isn't a book where the iii faiths battle about who's right, but information technology is a volume where each representative of that organized religion has the opportunity to describe and explicate in a manner non intended to convince everyone of anything. Their intention is to answer the question "what do they believe and why?" and I really capeesh it anytime I become a run a risk to understand something. I'g far enough away from my own past that it's time to come to peace with it, and this book has helped me.

...more

A great case of interreligious dialogue, Brettler (Jewish), Enns (Protestant), and Harrington (Catholic) discuss their approaches to reconciling the historical-disquisitional study of the Bible with a religious worldview. All three essays are brief introductions on how each would arroyo the Scripture with their respective camps (which also includes a brief history of interpretive approaches) and a answer from each contributor.

These essays are useful in getting a feel for how a comparative study o

A great case of interreligious dialogue, Brettler (Jewish), Enns (Protestant), and Harrington (Catholic) discuss their approaches to reconciling the historical-disquisitional study of the Bible with a religious worldview. All iii essays are cursory introductions on how each would arroyo the Scripture with their respective camps (which likewise 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 similar. Are they useful references? Yes, simply again, for introductions. Are they enlightening? Not actually. Just it was still a good refresher yet.

...more

Brettler's essay is actually good, Harrington's was adequately standard, only 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 upward most of his essay, and he didn't do much in terms of showing a way forward. I retrieve there are other scholars who could accept (and accept) addressed the question meliorate. Brettler's essay is really expert, Harrington's was fairly standard, but I thought Enns' didn't say much of event. It felt like he was problematizing things that aren't bug and that evangelical scholars practice appoint with regularly. That took up most of his essay, and he didn't practice much in terms of showing a way forrard. I call up there are other scholars who could have (and have) addressed the question better. ...more

This review has been subconscious considering it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This was fine. I took a few notes but I probably wouldn't revisit. Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars each write an essay about mod Biblical criticism, and how it intersects or conflicts with their tradition's views on the Bible. They each answer to each other as well. Neat thought but it didn't knock my socks off. This was fine. I took a few notes but I probably wouldn't revisit. Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars each write an essay near modern Biblical criticism, and how it intersects or conflicts with their tradition's views on the Bible. They each respond to each other likewise. Slap-up idea but it didn't knock my socks off. ...more

Helpful and Insightful

As a Christian laic, I loved the varied perspectives from Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism on how the Bible may be read both critically and spiritually.

May 13, 2019 Jimmacc rated it really liked information technology

I enjoyed this volume very much. Especially, I enjoyed the discussion on how the iii 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

A very interesting look into the triumphs and fallacies of Biblical Criticism. All 3 scholars bring a questioning view into the fence, but only the protestant, Enns, seems to comport his criticism even close to its final conclusion. The Jewish Brettler, ultimately turns to the Rabbi's writings and interpretation, equally does Harrington, relying on the Catholic Church building's ultimate interpretation of scripture. Enns seems to finish up at a identify where he believes because he wants to, not because his view A very interesting expect into the triumphs and fallacies of Biblical Criticism. All three scholars bring a questioning view into the contend, just only the protestant, Enns, seems to carry his criticism even close to its terminal determination. The Jewish Brettler, ultimately turns to the Rabbi'southward writings and interpretation, equally does Harrington, relying on the Cosmic 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-abroad from this volume is that we all make assumptions near the Bible and God'south involvement of the Bible meeting. In one case those assumptions are made, whether those assumptions are that the Bible was written past men or written by God, that God has the ability to interact with this world in a miraculous mode 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 past a person who accepts different assumptions. This is a keen book to bring that point home. ...more

October 16, 2019 Hampton rated information technology it was ok

Attempts to reconcile a historical-critical reading with a religious reading of the Bible leave unacknowledged how profoundly corrosive the onetime is to the latter. The three essays neglect to satisfactorily reconcile these discrepant exegeses.

Have Dr. Enns' section on Exodus. We're told that the mass exodus from Egypt is highly doubtable, especially if the numbers described in the Bible are taken at confront value; that Moses isn't a historical figure; that the cosmic boxing betwixt Yahweh and Pharaoh i

Attempts to reconcile a historical-critical reading with a religious reading of the Bible exit unacknowledged how profoundly corrosive the former is to the latter. The three essays fail to satisfactorily reconcile these discrepant exegeses.

Accept Dr. Enns' department on Exodus. We're told that the mass exodus from Egypt is highly suspect, especially if the numbers described in the Bible are taken at face value; that Moses isn't a historical figure; that the cosmic boxing betwixt Yahweh and Pharaoh is merely the mythological idiom of the Aboriginal Near East; etc. I don't incertitude any of this, of form, simply I recall Dr. Enns doesn't quite acknowledge the theological implications of these criticisms. It should exist said frankly: the historical-disquisitional exegesis has a debasing result. Forth with advancements in science and archeology, the College Criticism of the Bible has occasioned a paradigm shift in how nosotros view scripture.

For as much as liberal theologians jeer fundamentalists for their doctrinairism, the inerrant view of scripture, however untenable in light of modern scholarship, is clearly a ameliorate epistemological foundation to ground a Christian worldview.

...more

January 16, 2014 BHodges rated information technology it was amazing

Bookish scholarship on the Bible need not undermine religious religion, merely it can pb to adapted 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 autho Academic scholarship on the Bible demand not undermine religious faith, but it can atomic number 82 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 ascent of biblical studies, then each writer contributes a chapter from the perspective of their own faith tradition. Each chapter likewise includes a response from the other two contributors, bringing unlike approaches to biblical interpretation into useful dialogue. I expect forward to using this book in the future for my own personal study. I only wish there was a chapter from my own organized religion tradition in it highlighting the interesting similarities and differences. Correct now, the closest thing in the Mormon tradition is Philip Barlow'due south "Mormons and the Bible." ...more

April 14, 2013 K rated it really liked it

The reading was heavy although for the nearly part each section was a survey of how iii faith traditions handle historical criticism of their holy books. I gained the about from the Jewish section and don't necessarily come across it advertizement incompatible with Christian readings of the Sometime Testament. The Protestant section was interesting only mort of his conclusions I already had arrived at based on my ain studies, though he provided much more solid data upon which I tin stand. All I tin can say after this The reading was heavy although for the near part each section was a survey of how three religion traditions handle historical criticism of their holy books. I gained the virtually from the Jewish section and don't necessarily see it ad incompatible with Christian readings of the Onetime Testament. The Protestant section was interesting simply 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 tin can say subsequently this book is: tell me more. ...more than