Ancient Wisdom Today » Book Review

The Only True God

Maer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:30:23 +0000

There is at least one thing in common between Christianity and Judaism: monotheism. However, not everyone will agree with that. To many, Christianity’s claim that it is a monotheistic religion is at the very least a mix-up of categories. You cannot say that you worship only one God, but then define it in such a way that strains the definition to the max. The doctrine of the Trinity seems to be a way that Christians found to have their cake and eat it too.

But when we talk about monotheism, what are we really referring to? Are we certain that the way we’ve come to understand monotheism is the same way Jews and Christians understood it in the 1st century? That’s the main question James McGrath, associate professor of Religion at Butler University (see his blog Exploring our Matrix), poses to us in his book The Only True God. Simply assuming that the way we define monotheism today and the way it was defined two thousand years ago is a huge fallacy. We need to set aside our understanding of monotheism and let the texts that we have from that period define the term for us.

How to Read the Bible

Maer — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:49:03 +0000

James Kugel intends his book How to Read the Bible to be a guide to, and a tour through, the Hebrew Bible. With over eight hundred pages, the book showcases most of what professor Kugel knows about the Bible—and that is a lot! It was a little daunting for me to get through book as I found it almost impossible not to stop here and there to digest its content and to get better acquainted with some ancient interpreter, or conversant with a particular hypothesis of biblical scholarship. This is what the book does: it shows you how the Hebrew Bible was interpreted in the past by both Jews and Christians, and how biblical scholars understand the meaning of the same biblical texts today. Kugel also has a website dedicated to the book worth checking out. And, if you want to know how the book is being received by the public at large, you will probably appreciate the article by David Plotz in the New York Times entitled Reading Is Believing, or Not.

Rabbinic Parables

Maer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:31:10 +0000

I recently read a fascinating book entitled They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era by Harvey K. McArthur and Robert M. Johnston. The first part is a collection of selected parables of the תנאים (tannaim – the Rabbinic sages in the Mishnah from approximately 70-200 CE) and the second part comprised of essays on the nature of their parables and some comparisons with the parables of Jesus.

The rabbinic word for parable(s) is mashal/meshalim, and, to mark a literary item as a narrative mashal, the authors chose the following elements:

Explicit label. Often the introductory formulas to the items explicitly label them as meshalim. Some typical introductions are: “A parable”; “A parable: It is like unto . . .”; and “They parable a parable. Unto what is the matter like? It is like unto. . . .”

The Erosion of Inerrancy

Maer — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:15:25 +0000

G. K. Beale’s book The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority is a response to what he believes is a challenge to biblical authority that has arisen recently in evangelicalism. The book contains a response to Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation, a defense for the single authorship of Isaiah, and a discussion of Old Testament cosmology as opposed to its modern scientific understanding.

It was somewhat frustrating to read the first part of the book because I had already read Beale’s articles (and rejoinders) along with Enns’ responses. What you get in the first few chapters is basically this exchange (Enns’ responses are summarized) with some modifications. I do not understand why Beale chose this format having the benefit of Enns’ responses. His critique is extensive and Enns’ original responses are short (as responses should be) so, at the end, you do not get a balanced exchange (plus most people will probably not bother to read Enns’ articles although Beale encourages us to do so). I do not mean to imply that Beale isn’t asking good questions or doesn’t have some valid points (this back-and-forth is what should be happening). What I did not appreciate was the format and the fact that Beale seems to put Enns in the worst possible light. This part of the book will satisfy those who didn’t like Enns’ book and irritate those who did.

Read more on The Erosion of Inerrancy…

The God I Don’t Understand

Maer — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:21:37 +0000

Christopher Wright is a gifted writer. His book Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, which I read maybe two years ago, gave me a glimpse of the type of thinker he is. He is able to restate things that you either heard before or thought you knew from a new angle and often with fresh insights. His works on Old Testament ethics, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, and mission, The Mission of God, are on my bookshelf and I always feel guilty that I haven’t gotten around to reading them yet. Many people have sung high praises of The Mission of God as an unparalleled work on a biblical theology of mission (one that takes seriously what the OT has to say about it). I also enjoy listening to Wright’s preaching at All Souls which is available for free.

Unlocking Romans

Maer — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:58:30 +0000

Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008.

Unlocking Romans first came to my attention in a post by Foolish Tarheel Daniel Kirk’s New Book: Unlocking Romans. Although I was not planning to read anything on Romans now (since I had spent some time on it last year), I was impressed by FT’s recommendation of Daniel Kirk as a person and his work. FT thinks that Kirk’s exegesis is “careful and sensitive” and whose sensitivity spans from “historical, cultural, communal, and theological issues of the first century to missional, practical, theological, and pastoral concerns for both then and now.” With this recommendation and the fact that Daniel Kirk would probably interact with the New Perspective on Paul, I decided to read the book. I was not disappointed.

Three Views on the NT Use of the OT

Maer — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 01:20:38 +0000

Berding, Kenneth, Stanley N. Gundry and Jonathan Lunde, eds. Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2007.

Issues surrounding the NT use of the OT have been of great interest to me for a long time, so it was with equally great delight that I read yet another contribution to this complicated and yet fascinating field of study.

The structure of Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament is very simple. It contains an introduction, closing remarks by one of the editors and three essays followed by a response by the two other opposing views. Although the length of the essays were adequate, I wish more space had been given for the responses.

N. T. Wright and Paul’s Theology

Maer — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 01:23:16 +0000

Wright, N. T. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

A few years ago, a friend of mine recommended a book by N. T. Wright called “The Climax of the Covenant.” The author was unknown to me and the book’s title wasn’t particularly appealing. But because of some of the discussions we were having, he said that this book would help me see where he was coming from. I read the book and was captivated by it. I have to say that quite a bit of the book was way over my head and a lot just seemed like too much information for me to be able to process at the time. But I was able to get the gist of the issues involved and the solutions that Wright was attempting to put forth. This is one of the reasons why I need to read the Climax again because, since then, I have become more familiar with the issues and little more in tune with the process of exegesis. This is why I first started to read N. T. Wright. He was the author who really got me interested in N. T. exegesis and Paul in particular.

Reading the Old Testament with The Ancient Church

Maer — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:20:07 +0000

Heine, Ronald E. Reading the Old Testament with The Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation of Early Christian Thought. Grand Rapids, Michigan: BakerAcademics, 2007.

Although I am not particularly interested in the Church Fathers (CFs), there is something about their interpretation of the Bible, and in particular the OT, that fascinates me. Sometimes reading the CFs on particular issues or passages helps us understand the shape of our own hermeneutics. I also find quite interesting that people who value the contribution of the CFs tend to pick and choose the portions that they find helpful and almost ignore all the other things they have to say on other passages (often less palatable to our modern sensitivities). I will be honest, I haven’t read any complete work of any of the CFs, but I have read many of their sermons and commentaries on specific passages. Although I value their contribution to the development of Christendom and fight against heresies, I do not find them to be very helpful. This is especially true of their reading of the OT. That’s one of the reasons why I picked up this book.

The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?

Maer — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:33:06 +0000

Beale, G. K. The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts: Essays in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids Michigan: BakerBooks,1994.

This is a collection of 22 essays on the NT use of the OT. The authors have different perspectives on whether or not the NT writers respected the context of the OT passages they used. I especially liked the essays of Paul’s use of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3 because you could clearly see how the way one views this issue will change the interpretation of certain texts. I thought Morna D. Hooker’s essay was much better. I wish there were more essays of this type showing how authors with different perspective approach the same passage.