Christopher Bryan

This small volume by Christopher Bryan is perhaps one of the most clear-eyed analyses of the difficulties presented by the historical-critical paradigm of biblical interpretation and its always-attendant "hermeneutic of suspicion." Though he does not deny the importance of the questions such methods address, he makes a compelling case that we have here a poster-child of the law of diminishing returns. Perhaps the most dangerous effect has been the divorce of the academy and the church.
Bryan's solution is, then, two-fold. He seeks to reclaim the Bible as the Church's Book that must be read, if it is to be read correctly, from the perspective of the historic faith and claims of the Church that gave us the canon. He also seeks to promote the literary study of Scripture as an antidote to the abusive overreach of earlier methods. The Bible, Bryan argues, must be understand as the literature of faith, if it is to be truly understood at all.
Bryan reaches this conclusion because his own academic training is as a literary critic. (I suppose in many ways, then, it could be said he is traveling the path blazed by Robert Alter.) But the final chapter of the book takes an interesting turn, as Bryan begins to discuss the importance of new advances in our understanding or orality and oral culture (especially as presented in the work of Walter Ong) to our conception of what it means to "interpret" Scripture. At the end, Bryan argues for a new kind of "participatory exegesis" (Matthew Levering's phrase), focused on "performing" or, better, "re-embodying" the text. Such exegesis creates the opportunity to re-open the questions: "What should we believe…what should we do…and what should we hope for?" These formed the key concerns of medieval exegesis and ensured the Bible is received as a "living" Book.
Much of what I've read here—the summaries, the critiques, the proposals—was familiar to me from other authors, though I've rarely seen these arguments made with such concision and clarity. Bryan definitely has a firm grasp on the underlying assumptions and problematic issues and cuts right to them.
For me, the most valuable part of the book was David Landon's appended guide to liturgical reading, a series of exercises based on 1 Corinthians 13 designed to aid those who wish to learn the art of "reading aloud" the Sacred Text. This section is broken up into 10 lessons, each with a set of creative and helpful exercises, designed to teach us the power of oral performance of sacred texts as an interpretative process. Granted, Landon deals with the English translation; yet, the patterns of intonation and stress groups, the attention to proper variation of pitch, and the alertness to textual momentum served to illuminate not just the long-recognized rhetorical beauty but also the theological power. This appendix alone might well be worth the price of the book.… (más)

The characters were very well developed. And the storyline so vivid and surreal, it made you feel as though you were there. I especially loved how the story unfolded gradually, making me want to guess what would happen next but rarely getting it right. It made me want to read more as I turned each page. There was absolutely nothing predictable about this story. That is what I loved the most about this book. I think I literally gasped several times while reading.

I am so glad that I decided to read the book. And if you want to experience a very different type of book and you want every element of every genre, then this book is definitely one for you to read. You won't be sorry. I look forward to reading more Christopher Bryan and I have to thank him for introducing me to his work.

I was given this book from GoodReads.
… (más)

In Render unto Caesar, Professor Christopher Bryan gives a good but dry read on Roman imperialism and how Christ and his followers related to each other in 1rst century context. Bryan makes two pertinent statements concerning hermeneutical study of the Bible. One we should be very cautious to not read the 1rst Century world with 21rst Century sensibilities. Secondly the authors of the Gospels and Epistles most likely meant what they said and quite probably knew what they were talking about. One statement he made about slavery in the Roman Empire concerning slavery and the point that slaves don’t write history sounds a lot like what Dan Brown said in the DaVinci Code that only the Winners write history. In the book Bryan attempts to show that Christ and the Christians wanted for the most part to be good citizens of the Roman Empire, which they saw as ordained by God. This was illustrated when Christ stated render on to Caesar what is Caesar’s (Matthew 22:21).This idea is very much in contrast with the popular view of Jesus among Liberation Theological Thinkers as a Revolutionary whose attempt at overthrowing the rule of the Roman Empire ended with his martyrdom on the Roman Cross. IT was the Christians stubborn refusal to participate in the rituals of state sponsored paganism and Caesar worship continually put them in the predicament against the law to worship Caesar or Christ as Lord. Bryan makes a convincing case that Jesus and the early Christians were not revolutionaries, seeking to replace the empire but instead reformers. One thing Bryan mentioned which I did not think of before is the idea that Christianity in its infancy needed the Roman Empire. Christianity spread quickly due to the already Hellenized landscape of the Empire and the security of the safe roads and harbors etc. This was illuminating to see how this aided in the spurring on of Christianity. While there is something to be gained here, unless you are well-versed in the subject matter and really wanting to put your thinking cap this book does read like a dry dissertation. IT does amongst the pages provide content that will transform our understanding of early Christians and their relationship to Rome… (más)