<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: An overall balanced look at modern biblical criticism
Review: Professor Veselin Kesich gives a balanced, scholarly look at how modern biblical criticism has helped to give a clear picture of Jesus and the early Church. He contends that "the proper function of criticism is not to destroy the tradition of the Church, but to illumine it; it is not to reject old insights, but to open new avenues of understanding of God's ways and purposes in history." (p. 47) In attempting to illumine the Church's tradition, Kesich looks at the historical evidence for Jesus, the various forms of modern criticism, the writing of the canonical Gospels, the image of Christ presented by the four Gospels ("Four Perspectives, One Image"), the process of compiling the New Testament canon, Jesus' message, and the historical setting of the Gospel. I found particularly interesting his chapter on "The Drive to Objectivity". He points out that the presuppositions of a critic or theologian usually "influences his study of the Gospels more than anything else." (p. 39) Presuppositions about the dates, authorship, etc. of the Gospels and Epistles (none of which have been accurately established by historians) can drastically influence the conclusions that critics come to in their study of the Bible. The only problem I have with the book is that Kesich repeatedly states that the modern approach to biblical study is the best available today, pointing out that there are problems with much of the exegesis of the Church Fathers. Certainly, the Church Fathers were not perfect, but as an Eastern Orthodox Christian (Kesich is also Orthodox, Professor of New Testament at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary), I would say that it is still much more helpful to read the Church Fathers than modern critics. For instance, I find the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom of the Parables of Jesus much more useful than some modern critic's theories about the supposed date that John's Gospel was written. I do, however, believe that modern criticism can be very useful in putting the Gospels in context. I think Kesich does a great job of evaluating the recent historical and archaeological findings in light of the Tradition of the Church--findings which are often used to destroy the Church's Tradition.
Rating:
Summary: An overall balanced look at modern biblical criticism
Review: Professor Veselin Kesich gives a balanced, scholarly look at how modern biblical criticism has helped to give a clear picture of Jesus and the early Church. He contends that "the proper function of criticism is not to destroy the tradition of the Church, but to illumine it; it is not to reject old insights, but to open new avenues of understanding of God's ways and purposes in history." (p. 47) In attempting to illumine the Church's tradition, Kesich looks at the historical evidence for Jesus, the various forms of modern criticism, the writing of the canonical Gospels, the image of Christ presented by the four Gospels ("Four Perspectives, One Image"), the process of compiling the New Testament canon, Jesus' message, and the historical setting of the Gospel. I found particularly interesting his chapter on "The Drive to Objectivity". He points out that the presuppositions of a critic or theologian usually "influences his study of the Gospels more than anything else." (p. 39) Presuppositions about the dates, authorship, etc. of the Gospels and Epistles (none of which have been accurately established by historians) can drastically influence the conclusions that critics come to in their study of the Bible. The only problem I have with the book is that Kesich repeatedly states that the modern approach to biblical study is the best available today, pointing out that there are problems with much of the exegesis of the Church Fathers. Certainly, the Church Fathers were not perfect, but as an Eastern Orthodox Christian (Kesich is also Orthodox, Professor of New Testament at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary), I would say that it is still much more helpful to read the Church Fathers than modern critics. For instance, I find the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom of the Parables of Jesus much more useful than some modern critic's theories about the supposed date that John's Gospel was written. I do, however, believe that modern criticism can be very useful in putting the Gospels in context. I think Kesich does a great job of evaluating the recent historical and archaeological findings in light of the Tradition of the Church--findings which are often used to destroy the Church's Tradition.
<< 1 >>
| 
