Suggestions for A good handbook to the Bible?

[Yeshua1]

One that covers how to read/study the bible?

 

[TC]

http://www.christianbook.com/read-bible-for-all-its-worth/gordon-fee/9780310246046/pd/46043

 

[Greektim]

http://www.christianbook.com/read-bible-for-all-its-worth/gordon-fee/9780310246046/pd/46043

Perhaps a little more advanced but has been getting awesome reviews (especially on the campuses of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary & Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Peter Leithart's Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture.

You can read a brief review I wrote about it here.

 

[Deacon]

Hey Tim that one looks great, I just put it on my wish list.

Here's another one.

All Roads Lead to the Text: Eight Methods of Inquiry into the Bible

This one is a bit more basic than the others mentioned above.
It provides a couple of simple study methods anyone who studies the bible can use.

Good for first time discipleship of new believers.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps a little more advanced but has been getting awesome reviews (especially on the campuses of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary & Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Peter Leithart's Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture.

You can read a brief review I wrote about it here.

What did you mean by the references to Fundamentals and to pre/post critical thinking as regards the scriptures in your review?

 

[Yeshua1]

http://www.christianbook.com/read-bible-for-all-its-worth/gordon-fee/9780310246046/pd/46043

that was the very book required for reading by College!

 

[Greektim]

What did you mean by the references to Fundamentals and to pre/post critical thinking as regards the scriptures in your review?

2 different issues (though overlap in some places).

Fundamentalism, is in my estimation, stuck in modernity and even a harsh response to modernity and the age of critical scholarship. It clings to objectivism and certainty (moreso than truth). Ironically, since it is a reaction to critical scholarship, then scholarship is the antithesis to fundamentalism. Thus you have way more fundamental bible colleges rather than highly accredited theological seminaries. You also have a disdain for higher academics outside of the realm of fundamentalism.

The overlap comes in with modern evangelicalism moving away from critical scholarship (and even answering critical scholarship since so much has been done on that front) and critical and modern views of the Bible and interpretation and towards a renewal of a pre-critical understanding (i.e. pre-modernism) or a development of that into a post-critical understanding.

To better understand pre-critical exegesis, look at this article.

What I like about Leithart is that he engages the text canonically (TIS) and intertextually seeing things in the text that are not just explicitly stated as if the writers of the Bible were literary dolts who have no clue how to say something without writing it explicitly. A good example of this is a book I am currently reading, How God Became King by N. T. Wright. He is bringing to light (although he's not the first or last to be sure) what many have not seen. Stuck with only the basics or Pauline Xianity, many miss the story the evangelists were telling b/c they only look for the words on the page or to prove pet doctrines. There is rich theology in the 4 accounts that we have so often missed.

 

[Yeshua1]

2 different issues (though overlap in some places).

Fundamentalism, is in my estimation, stuck in modernity and even a harsh response to modernity and the age of critical scholarship. It clings to objectivism and certainty (moreso than truth). Ironically, since it is a reaction to critical scholarship, then scholarship is the antithesis to fundamentalism. Thus you have way more fundamental bible colleges rather than highly accredited theological seminaries. You also have a disdain for higher academics outside of the realm of fundamentalism.

Do you mean "Fundamentalism" as those holding to what was called inerrant/infallible bible? that held to the theolgy held by Historical church before the PostModern era?

The overlap comes in with modern evangelicalism moving away from critical scholarship (and even answering critical scholarship since so much has been done on that front) and critical and modern views of the Bible and interpretation and towards a renewal of a pre-critical understanding (i.e. pre-modernism) or a development of that into a post-critical understanding.

Are you stating the church accepting critical thought as regards to how canon was made, how books came together, to a degree disregarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the Bible?

To better understand pre-critical exegesis, look at this article.

What I like about Leithart is that he engages the text canonically (TIS) and intertextually seeing things in the text that are not just explicitly stated as if the writers of the Bible were literary dolts who have no clue how to say something without writing it explicitly. A good example of this is a book I am currently reading, How God Became King by N. T. Wright. He is bringing to light (although he's not the first or last to be sure) what many have not seen. Stuck with only the basics or Pauline Xianity, many miss the story the evangelists were telling b/c they only look for the words on the page or to prove pet doctrines. There is rich theology in the 4 accounts that we have so often missed.

Doesn't he though have a view that almost places Judaic theology of that era on par with inspired scripture? That he sees the church for 2000.00 years pretty much misunderstanding the concepts of election/justification from paul?

think that the problem here is that critical thinking as regarding the canon/revelation/salvation etc tend to lead modern Christianity to becoming a post modern watered down version of uts former self!

it almost seems that modern views would be placing us back into seeing not the literal intending meaning of the Bible, but trying to "read into" some spiritual truths lying beneath the obvious meaning of a plain reading of the text!

 

[thomas15]

.........Fundamentalism, is in my estimation, stuck in modernity and even a harsh response to modernity and the age of critical scholarship. It clings to objectivism and certainty (moreso than truth).

Outside of the Word of God there is no truth, not even in the words of N.T. Wright! An individual either believes the Bible or they don't.

 

[Yeshua1]

Outside of the Word of God there is no truth, not even in the words of N.T. Wright! An individual either believes the Bible or they don't.

Interesting that many are trying to see the new understandings for the canon/Justification etc, but think are straining in a mighty fashion to in a 'spiritual" way undercut the historic theology of the Church!

 

[Greektim]

I didn't mean to detract from this thread. I'll try to keep this short so we can get back to the OP.

Do you mean "Fundamentalism" as those holding to what was called inerrant/infallible bible? that held to the theolgy held by Historical church before the PostModern era?

Yes and no (postmodern enough for you ). Yes in the sense of how inerrancy has been understood by some radicals on the conservative side. For instance, those who are adhere to ipsissima verba not ipsissima vox.

But no in the sense that I was referring to the radical right-wing conservatism called fundamentalism. IFB is one sect of it, which I came out of.

Are you stating the church accepting critical thought as regards to how canon was made, how books came together, to a degree disregarding the work of the Holy Spirit in the Bible?

Read closely. I'm promoting a pre-critical understanding. Not sure what canonicity has to do with anything, although the composition theorists (of which is certainly not part of a modern-critical approach) definitely highlight the pre-critical understanding of canonicity and interpretation.

Doesn't he though have a view that almost places Judaic theology of that era on par with inspired scripture? That he sees the church for 2000.00 years pretty much misunderstanding the concepts of election/justification from paul?

Not at all. And his view of justification (not election) is a rediscovery not an invention (in his estimation). He is reforming the view developed at the time of the reformation. He makes a convincing argument for people willing to listen (i.e. those who are not bound to objectivity and certainty like the modernist in critical scholarship and fundamentalism-case and point Thomas15, I believe). Wright is an excellent scholar and has done much to advance our understanding of the NT especially from a historical point of view. But his theological conclusions are what intrigue me most.

think that the problem here is that critical thinking as regarding the canon/revelation/salvation etc tend to lead modern Christianity to becoming a post modern watered down version of uts former self!

it almost seems that modern views would be placing us back into seeing not the literal intending meaning of the Bible, but trying to "read into" some spiritual truths lying beneath the obvious meaning of a plain reading of the text!

I disagree. I think modern Christianity (its watered down form) is the direct result of modernity not postmodernity. 20th century American evangelicalism is the prime example of this.

And it is not "modern" views in the sense of modernity but "modern" in the sense of current. There is a current rejection of sole reliance on the historical-grammatical hermeneutic and a movement toward a theological, literary, and canonical hermeneutic (one that sees text integration, allusions, intertextuality, intratextuality, etc) as a big part of that hermeneutic. It could be said that the age of systematic theology is waning and biblical theology (I hope you understand the distinction) is on the rise in a big way.

In short, "the literal intending [sic] meaning" and "the obvious meaning of a plain reading" is a result of modernistic thinking. Postmodernity's response is gross subjectivity or complete lack of certainty. A return to premodernity is to highlight how the church has interpreted the text of Scripture its first 1,500 years of its inception. It is to recognize that there is ultimately one author - God. And that author has weaved together a great story of kingdom, temple, redemption, exodus, and creation-to-new creation into 1 great drama of Scripture (to borrow the term from Goheen and Bartholomew and others like Wright and Vanhoozer).

Outside of the Word of God there is no truth, not even in the words of N.T. Wright! An individual either believes the Bible or they don't.

This is an example of fundamentalism adhering to objectivity and certainty. NT Wright adheres and submits himself to Scripture. So that's really not the issue. I agree w/ sola scriptura, but not in the fundie sense that really has no relationship to the 5 sola's of the reformation.

 

[Yeshua1]

I didn't mean to detract from this thread. I'll try to keep this short so we can get back to the OP.


Yes and no (postmodern enough for you ). Yes in the sense of how inerrancy has been understood by some radicals on the conservative side. For instance, those who are adhere to ipsissima verba not ipsissima vox.

Would ypu hold that the originals were though recorded down fully verbal inerrant?

But no in the sense that I was referring to the radical right-wing conservatism called fundamentalism. IFB is one sect of it, which I came out of.

can't one be a conservative Evangelical, affirming the traditional views as regarding the inerrancy/inspiration/infallibility of the scriptures without being a Fundamentalist>

Read closely. I'm promoting a pre-critical understanding. Not sure what canonicity has to do with anything, although the composition theorists (of which is certainly not part of a modern-critical approach) definitely highlight the pre-critical understanding of canonicity and interpretation.


Not at all. And his view of justification (not election) is a rediscovery not an invention (in his estimation). He is reforming the view developed at the time of the reformation. He makes a convincing argument for people willing to listen (i.e. those who are not bound to objectivity and certainty like the modernist in critical scholarship and fundamentalism-case and point Thomas15, I believe). Wright is an excellent scholar and has done much to advance our understanding of the NT especially from a historical point of view. But his theological conclusions are what intrigue me most.

Except that he looks upon ealy Judaisc sources/beliefs as almost on par with scriptures, and is treating paul as IF he was teaching off a Pharisee model for viewing salvation and NOT as one having direct revelation from God!

His corporate election views also require us to agree with him on a basis of Covenant theolgy, which many of us do not adhere with!

I disagree. I think modern Christianity (its watered down form) is the direct result of modernity not postmodernity. 20th century American evangelicalism is the prime example of this.

The decline of current christianity theolgy started in IMHO with the theology of multiply sources in the OT end of of the 1800's, as attempt to accomodate Evolutionary process, hastened with German critical thinking 1930's, and complete when Seminaries like Fuller backing off full inerrancy/infallibilty of the Bible!

And it is not "modern" views in the sense of modernity but "modern" in the sense of current. There is a current rejection of sole reliance on the historical-grammatical hermeneutic and a movement toward a theological, literary, and canonical hermeneutic (one that sees text integration, allusions, intertextuality, intratextuality, etc) as a big part of that hermeneutic. It could be said that the age of systematic theology is waning and biblical theology (I hope you understand the distinction) is on the rise in a big way.

Shouldn't BOTH disciples of theology be used today still?

In short, "the literal intending [sic] meaning" and "the obvious meaning of a plain reading" is a result of modernistic thinking. Postmodernity's response is gross subjectivity or complete lack of certainty. A return to premodernity is to highlight how the church has interpreted the text of Scripture its first 1,500 years of its inception. It is to recognize that there is ultimately one author - God. And that author has weaved together a great story of kingdom, temple, redemption, exodus, and creation-to-new creation into 1 great drama of Scripture (to borrow the term from Goheen and Bartholomew and others like Wright and Vanhoozer).

Again, you have to assume their presumptions regarding Covenant in their understanding of the biblical message!

Also, the "plain and literally meaning of the text" is what we should strive for isn't it?[/quot]



This is an example of fundamentalism adhering to objectivity and certainty. NT Wright adheres and submits himself to Scripture. So that's really not the issue. I agree w/ sola scriptura, but not in the fundie sense that really has no relationship to the 5 sola's of the reformation.

Nt Wright though does NOT adhere to a conservative/traditional viewpoint as regards to the scriptures!

 

[Greektim]

Would ypu hold that the originals were though recorded down fully verbal inerrant?

For the NT and many OT books, sure! But I am leaning toward a compositional theory of OT inspiration. So I believe the final form is the inspired text. For example, individual psalms did not take on their full theological meaning until a compiler and editor arranged them in such a way to express great theological truth. It is at the time of composition that they are inspired to the fullest extent. It is good if we do not treat inspiration in the OT as we do for the NT. The process was much different.

can't one be a conservative Evangelical, affirming the traditional views as regarding the inerrancy/inspiration/infallibility of the scriptures without being a Fundamentalist>

That is partly the point. I would consider myself a conservative evangelical and NOT a fundamentalist. The moniker "fundamentalist" has today little to do w/ the "fundamentals of the faith" (whatever that is) and more to do with a mindset, worldview, philosophy, theology, and practice.

Except that he looks upon ealy Judaisc sources/beliefs as almost on par with scriptures, and is treating paul as IF he was teaching off a Pharisee model for viewing salvation and NOT as one having direct revelation from God!

His corporate election views also require us to agree with him on a basis of Covenant theolgy, which many of us do not adhere with!

I wonder how much of him you have read and how much of the above quote is you parroting his critics. What makes Wright a good scholar is in part that he is a good historian. He is pulling back the misguided lenses that scholarship has assumed so long (applying post-temple judaism to the Bible) and really understood 2nd temple judaism in its historical setting. It only appears that he treats 2nd temple text like Scripture b/c he is examining and exegeting them as he would the Bible. But he draws a distinction between canonical and non-canonical (especially between the canonical gospel accounts and non-canonical accounts).

As to his view of Paul, again, I would recommend reading him rather than parroting others. Just b/c Paul has revelation from God doesn't mean that he didn't follow former exegetical practices and continue in a tradition that he was well acquainted with. His interpretation of the OT (not the "literal" kind you like) demonstrates this. What Wright demonstrates is that modern Christianity has missed the fact that Paul is telling the Israel story and the Messiah story. Dispensationalists don't like that, but history and exegesis argue otherwise. This is where one has to stop clinging to objective certainty and allow for the fact that new data can help unveil truth that has been forgotten the past 300 years.

Plus, you can't write him off b/c he is not dispensational. BTW... I don't think he would say he adheres to covenant theology (not at least the brand you are familiar with). He adheres to a covenantal reading of Scripture, but then you have to read him to understand what that means. He doesn't refer to the concept of a covenant of grace or works. He deals in the terms of biblical theology and biblical covenants, primarily the Abrahamic covenant as the solution to the problem of Gen. 3-11 (that's why Paul calls it the gospel in Gal. 3:8!). Another example is that I am an ammillennialist, but not a covenanter in the covenant theology sense. I am covenantal in the biblical theology sense. Not sure of that helps though. Depends on your understanding of the terms and concepts.

The decline of current christianity theolgy started in IMHO with the theology of multiply sources in the OT end of of the 1800's, as attempt to accomodate Evolutionary process, hastened with German critical thinking 1930's, and complete when Seminaries like Fuller backing off full inerrancy/infallibilty of the Bible!

That is a matter of opinion, of course. Truth be told, there are multiple sources for the OT. Moses' is not the only hand that partook of the Torah. But fundamnetalism (w/ their NT concept of inspiration and canonizatoin applied back to the OT) will not allow for that. Again, certainty trumps truth in their case. And this composition theory has nothing to do with evolution either. That is just a false accusation or an easy scapegoat to avoid the real issue - that the text clearly indicates redaction and editorial notes. HOwever, I will grant that when seminaries (my own was a big problem) backed off of innerancy, it caused major problem. The conservative resurgence has helped a great deal, but you have to understand that there are various views of innerancy that many fundamentalists cannot agree with all of which are evangelical views.

Shouldn't BOTH disciples of theology be used today still?

Perhaps, but I would argue that systematic has participated in 2 problems: (1) prooftexting theology and (2) caused Christians to be uninterested in the story of the Bible and focus on incidentals that the Bible never clearly express. I much prefer biblical theology to systematic b/c it lets the text be the text. Systematic is too philosophical for my taste.

Again, you have to assume their presumptions regarding Covenant in their understanding of the biblical message!

Also, the "plain and literally meaning of the text" is what we should strive for isn't it?[/quot]



This is an example of fundamentalism adhering to objectivity and certainty. NT Wright adheres and submits himself to Scripture. So that's really not the issue. I agree w/ sola scriptura, but not in the fundie sense that really has no relationship to the 5 sola's of the reformation.

Which of course I am doing (noting the subtle difference). Modern day hermeneutics are pursing a "theological interpretation of Scripture" (TIS) reading the text canonically and intertextually. There is much meaning that the writers inserted without using explicitly words. If we truly believe that God is the author of the BIble, then we should not be surprised by this. Why limit Scriptural communication to man's limitations. Are we only giving lip serviced to inspiration when we do that (or using inspiration just as a proof for innerancy???)? I fear modernity has trained us for so long to read the text as minimalists. I want to be a maximalist, reading the text creatively, artistically, and skillfully.

Nt Wright though does NOT adhere to a conservative/traditional viewpoint as regards to the scriptures!

This is the point I would ask that you (1) define what you mean by a "conservative/traditional viewpoint" (which I fear you mean fundamentalist viewpoint) and (2) offer a proof for this accusation. I have read much of his current work, though not all of it. He seems to treat Scripture (and declares so) in very high regard. I want to read his Scripture and the Authority of God before I weigh in too much. I think it would do you well to read it too before you pass judgment on the man. But as far as I can tell (and I have now read 5 of his books, 2 of them being parts 1 & 2 of his Xian origins series and many of his articles and lectures), he treats the Scripture as the Word of God. He is a devout defender of the Jesus according to the gospel records and his resurrection. One with a less than "conservative/traditional viewpoint" of the Bible would probably not be this kind of apologist and in the arena he is in (the highest realm of academia and bible scholars and Bible critics).

 

[Yeshua1]

For the NT and many OT books, sure! But I am leaning toward a compositional theory of OT inspiration. So I believe the final form is the inspired text. For example, individual psalms did not take on their full theological meaning until a compiler and editor arranged them in such a way to express great theological truth. It is at the time of composition that they are inspired to the fullest extent. It is good if we do not treat inspiration in the OT as we do for the NT. The process was much different.

I hold that the OT books were all inspired revelation from God at time of their writting, and any 'editing" done afterwards would be in putting them together , NOT in adding/subtracting from them!

That is partly the point. I would consider myself a conservative evangelical and NOT a fundamentalist. The moniker "fundamentalist" has today little to do w/ the "fundamentals of the faith" (whatever that is) and more to do with a mindset, worldview, philosophy, theology, and practice.


I wonder how much of him you have read and how much of the above quote is you parroting his critics. What makes Wright a good scholar is in part that he is a good historian. He is pulling back the misguided lenses that scholarship has assumed so long (applying post-temple judaism to the Bible) and really understood 2nd temple judaism in its historical setting. It only appears that he treats 2nd temple text like Scripture b/c he is examining and exegeting them as he would the Bible. But he draws a distinction between canonical and non-canonical (especially between the canonical gospel accounts and non-canonical accounts).

Again , you are assuming that the church had misread paul past 2000 Years! believe that pauline justification was NOT just "add on' from his Pharisee background, but was a supernaturaql revelation from/by God!

As to his view of Paul, again, I would recommend reading him rather than parroting others. Just b/c Paul has revelation from God doesn't mean that he didn't follow former exegetical practices and continue in a tradition that he was well acquainted with. His interpretation of the OT (not the "literal" kind you like) demonstrates this. What Wright demonstrates is that modern Christianity has missed the fact that Paul is telling the Israel story and the Messiah story. Dispensationalists don't like that, but history and exegesis argue otherwise. This is where one has to stop clinging to objective certainty and allow for the fact that new data can help unveil truth that has been forgotten the past 300 years.

My concerns with NT Wright are in areas of:

elevates judaism to source material of Apostles, almost like another revelation
he views the Bible thru too much of a spiritual lense, seeing and tieing together things not meant to be
He seems to almost dislike the plain and literal meaning for some more exotic spiritual sense of the Bible!

Plus, you can't write him off b/c he is not dispensational. BTW... I don't think he would say he adheres to covenant theology (not at least the brand you are familiar with). He adheres to a covenantal reading of Scripture, but then you have to read him to understand what that means. He doesn't refer to the concept of a covenant of grace or works. He deals in the terms of biblical theology and biblical covenants, primarily the Abrahamic covenant as the solution to the problem of Gen. 3-11 (that's why Paul calls it the gospel in Gal. 3:8!). Another example is that I am an ammillennialist, but not a covenanter in the covenant theology sense. I am covenantal in the biblical theology sense. Not sure of that helps though. Depends on your understanding of the terms and concepts.

he does seem to adhere to reading into NT the concept of corporate election based upon a covenant relationship between God and isreal/church , as he tries to make a case for theKingdom of the King being right here and now, almost not holding out for a future one at coming of the return of Christ!
Does he hold to a literal future second coming?

That is a matter of opinion, of course. Truth be told, there are multiple sources for the OT. Moses' is not the only hand that partook of the Torah. But fundamnetalism (w/ their NT concept of inspiration and canonizatoin applied back to the OT) will not allow for that. Again, certainty trumps truth in their case. And this composition theory has nothing to do with evolution either. That is just a false accusation or an easy scapegoat to avoid the real issue - that the text clearly indicates redaction and editorial notes. HOwever, I will grant that when seminaries (my own was a big problem) backed off of innerancy, it caused major problem. The conservative resurgence has helped a great deal, but you have to understand that there are various views of innerancy that many fundamentalists cannot agree with all of which are evangelical views.

Moses penned the first 5 books of the OT, and Joshua would have added the last material, and later editor would have just put it all together!
And the concept of inerrancy would affirm verbal in originals, as we would hold that the Holy Spirit would be well able to make sure that all recorded info was complete and accurate in ALl things written!

Perhaps, but I would argue that systematic has participated in 2 problems: (1) prooftexting theology and (2) caused Christians to be uninterested in the story of the Bible and focus on incidentals that the Bible never clearly express. I much prefer biblical theology to systematic b/c it lets the text be the text. Systematic is too philosophical for my taste.

Well, the greatest Systematic theologian of all time was the Apsotle paul, so must be OK to use!

Which of course I am doing (noting the subtle difference). Modern day hermeneutics are pursing a "theological interpretation of Scripture" (TIS) reading the text canonically and intertextually. There is much meaning that the writers inserted without using explicitly words. If we truly believe that God is the author of the BIble, then we should not be surprised by this. Why limit Scriptural communication to man's limitations. Are we only giving lip serviced to inspiration when we do that (or using inspiration just as a proof for innerancy???)? I fear modernity has trained us for so long to read the text as minimalists. I want to be a maximalist, reading the text creatively, artistically, and skillfully.

problem is that when one goes away from a plain and literal/common understanding of the scriptures, we tend to veer off into areas that gets us theology not really intended to be seen in the Bible!

This is the point I would ask that you (1) define what you mean by a "conservative/traditional viewpoint" (which I fear you mean fundamentalist viewpoint) and (2) offer a proof for this accusation. I have read much of his current work, though not all of it. He seems to treat Scripture (and declares so) in very high regard. I want to read his Scripture and the Authority of God before I weigh in too much. I think it would do you well to read it too before you pass judgment on the man. But as far as I can tell (and I have now read 5 of his books, 2 of them being parts 1 & 2 of his Xian origins series and many of his articles and lectures), he treats the Scripture as the Word of God. He is a devout defender of the Jesus according to the gospel records and his resurrection. One with a less than "conservative/traditional viewpoint" of the Bible would probably not be this kind of apologist and in the arena he is in (the highest realm of academia and bible scholars and Bible critics).

not "judging" NT Wright, but would say that his treatment of the scriptures appears to be a critical modernistic view, that allows for it to be partially supernatural, but also areas where it can be condiered not as infallible, all truth!

I would define a sound view on the bible as being that the original manuscripts were complete/without errors, and truthful in all they affirmed, historical/doctrines etc...

The current greek/hebrew texts are extremely close to originals, and as such, can be seen as being infallible and true in all areas that they would affirm!

the translations off those texts would see to be the infallible word of god to us for today...

Interresting discussion, as they are different aspects to these questions!