What do you think?
New Collegeville Bible Commentary: Old Testament #1
Introduction to the Bible
When we first pick it up and open it, the Bible can seem confusing and perhaps even frightening. Here is this bulky book, made up of seventy-three sections with unfamiliar titles such as Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Colossians, and Corinthians, with numbers in front of almost every sentence, rarely any pictures, and perhaps a few maps of ancient areas such as Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Judah. Since the Bible looks like a book, we may start to read it as we would any other book, hoping to move from cover to cover. Then we begin to wonder, “Who wrote this? When was it written? What kind of writing is this: History? Science? Biography? Fiction? What am I supposed to get out of it?” As (or if) we keep reading the Bible page by page, section by section, we soon realize that this is no ordinary run-of-the-bookshelf volume. Without a guide the Bible is likely to remain the book most often purchased but not very often read and even less often understood.
To rescue Bible readers and students from turning their initial enthusiasm into boredom, Gregory Dawes gives us this Introduction to the Bible, the indispensable prologue to the entire series of the New Collegeville Bible Commentary. Dividing the contents into two parts, the author first describes how the Old and New Testaments came to be put together, and then explores how their stories have been interpreted over the centuries. In the words of Dawes, this “very broad overview of a very complex history offers the general reader a helpful framework within which to begin to understand the Bible.” The author writes clearly, frequently seasoning his explanations with crisp examples. This book anchors individual and group Bible study on the solid foundation of basic biblical vocabulary and concepts.
To rescue Bible readers and students from turning their initial enthusiasm into boredom, Gregory Dawes gives us this Introduction to the Bible, the indispensable prologue to the entire series of the New Collegeville Bible Commentary. Dividing the contents into two parts, the author first describes how the Old and New Testaments came to be put together, and then explores how their stories have been interpreted over the centuries. In the words of Dawes, this “very broad overview of a very complex history offers the general reader a helpful framework within which to begin to understand the Bible.” The author writes clearly, frequently seasoning his explanations with crisp examples. This book anchors individual and group Bible study on the solid foundation of basic biblical vocabulary and concepts.
80 pages, Paperback
First published August 15, 2007
About the author
Gregory W. Dawes
11 books11 followersGreg gained his first graduate degree at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome before returning to New Zealand to complete a PhD in Biblical Studies at the University of Otago. He has more recently completed a second PhD, in the Philosophy of Religion, and now teaches in both Religion and Philosophy. Having two young daughters, Anna and Kathryn, he is continually reminded of the truth of Quine's remark that the major questions of philosophy are asked by age five.
Greg is currently working on a new book entitled After Copernicus: Religion, Science, and Magic in Early Modern Europe.
I have a particular interest in the methodological naturalism or (more precisely) the methodological atheism of the modern sciences. In both history and the natural and social sciences, no proposed explanation that appealed to a divine action would be taken seriously. The creationist and intelligent design movements of today question this stance, arguing that it arises from nothing more than atheist prejudice.
My recent PhD examined and rejected this claim, arguing that the methodological naturalism of the sciences is well founded. Even if appeal to a divine agent could be shown to have explanatory force, there would still be reason to prefer a natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanation.
My earlier work focused on the assumptions that underlie the historical Jesus debate. The interesting philosophical question here is: What happens when religious and theological explanatory claims come into conflict? More precisely, what happens to religious belief when the phenomenon of religion itself can be explained without reference to a god?
Greg is currently working on a new book entitled After Copernicus: Religion, Science, and Magic in Early Modern Europe.
I have a particular interest in the methodological naturalism or (more precisely) the methodological atheism of the modern sciences. In both history and the natural and social sciences, no proposed explanation that appealed to a divine action would be taken seriously. The creationist and intelligent design movements of today question this stance, arguing that it arises from nothing more than atheist prejudice.
My recent PhD examined and rejected this claim, arguing that the methodological naturalism of the sciences is well founded. Even if appeal to a divine agent could be shown to have explanatory force, there would still be reason to prefer a natural (as opposed to supernatural) explanation.
My earlier work focused on the assumptions that underlie the historical Jesus debate. The interesting philosophical question here is: What happens when religious and theological explanatory claims come into conflict? More precisely, what happens to religious belief when the phenomenon of religion itself can be explained without reference to a god?
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
September 12, 2026
I was confused when I saw that the New Collegeville Bible Commentary on Genesis was volume 2 in this series. What comes before Genesis? I had to google to learn of this volume, which the back cover says is an "indispensable prologue to the entire series of the New Collegeville Bible Commentary." Whoops! I had already read 8 volumes in this series before reading this supposedly indispensable prologue.
Actually it is not indispensable. It actually doesn’t have much to do with the commentaries that follow at all. This prologue consists of two parts: a section on the origins of the Bible which is about 20 pages and a much longer section which is about the history of biblical interpretation. While longer biblical commentaries may examine these questions in some depth, the New Collegeville Bible Commentaries are too short to go into any detail about these historical questions. In fact, in Patrick Hartin's commentary on James, where you think he might bring up Luther's dislike of that letter, he fails to do so.
I didn’t find much to write into my notes about the origins of the Bible. Most of it was standard stuff. I was impressed that Dawes pointed out the importance of Marcion in forming the Canon, and also that Dawes described Marcion as an early Christian thinker, rather than a heretic. I also was impressed that Dawes admitted that we cannot be sure we have accurate copies of the original documents.
The history of biblical interpretation is divided into four periods: the Patristic and Medieval periods, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, The Bible in the Modern Era, and Postmodern Biblical Interpretation. Dawes lumps the Patristic and Medieval periods together because they share three basic assumptions about biblical interpretation: harmony in the message of the Old Testament and New Testament, harmony between the message of the Bible and that of the church, and harmony between sacred and secular knowledge.
In the period of the Reformation, Dawes points out that the second of these assumptions begins to be challenged by the reformers as they question the authority of the church to interpret the Bible. Instead, the reformers emphasize three aspects of biblical interpretation: the Bible interprets itself, the Bible authenticates itself, and the Bible has a single meaning. The fact that the Bible interprets itself has a corollary that the meaning of the Bible is clear, an assumption still commonly held that I find dubious.
The Bible in the Modern Era tracks the rise of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, and most interestingly, its gradual acceptance by the Catholic Church. One would expect Dawes to be particularly interested in this; these are Catholic commentaries after all. He reviews a number of papal proclamations. Particularly interesting was the 1893 encyclical letter *Providentissimus Deus* by Leo XIII. According to Wikipedia, with this encyclical Pope Leo gave the first formal authorization for the use of critical methods in biblical scholarship. Given the suspicion with which conservative evangelicals view critical methods, I think I prefer Catholic scholarship to evangelical! It is also encouraging to see that Dawes recognizes creationism as an extreme view.
The most interesting section for me was the section on postmodern biblical criticism. Dawes divides this into three main topics: part and whole, the historical context, the "intentional fallacy", text and reader, and a hermeneutics of suspicion. Part and whole simply says that that the text gives us only a glimpse of the whole picture, and we must expand our horizons to better understand the text. This process is called a hermeneutical circle, because in the process, we will inevitably find other contexts relevant to our interpretation.
The intentional fallacy argues that since the intent of the author is unknown to us, the meaning comes from the words on the page, the structure, and the language used, not from the author's psychological state.
A hermeneutics of suspicion simply states that readers may claim to be neutral, when in fact they are not.
I would like to learn more about postmodern biblical criticism. I don’t think I’ve ever read a Bible commentary employing postmodern techniques and I’ve read quite a few. The only book I’ve been able to find on postmodern biblical criticism is the short book *What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism* by A. K. M. Adam. I promptly ordered it from Amazon and I hope it will point me to more substantial resources.
Again, a word must be said about the cover art of these volumes, done mostly by Donald Jackson. Donald Jackson led a team of artists and calligraphers in creating the Saint John's Bible. My first exposure to his work was the painting Pentecost, featured on the commentary on Acts. Jackson's work tends towards the abstract. I’m usually a pretty big fan of abstract art, but at first I felt it to be rather jarring on a Bible commentary. I have since grown accustomed to Jackson’s style, and can confidently say I’m a fan. I especially like his geometric designs, such as Ezekiel's temple on the Ezekiel commentary. *Introduction to the Bible* also has a very nice geometric designs, featuring 7 panels representing the days of the creation week.
Actually it is not indispensable. It actually doesn’t have much to do with the commentaries that follow at all. This prologue consists of two parts: a section on the origins of the Bible which is about 20 pages and a much longer section which is about the history of biblical interpretation. While longer biblical commentaries may examine these questions in some depth, the New Collegeville Bible Commentaries are too short to go into any detail about these historical questions. In fact, in Patrick Hartin's commentary on James, where you think he might bring up Luther's dislike of that letter, he fails to do so.
I didn’t find much to write into my notes about the origins of the Bible. Most of it was standard stuff. I was impressed that Dawes pointed out the importance of Marcion in forming the Canon, and also that Dawes described Marcion as an early Christian thinker, rather than a heretic. I also was impressed that Dawes admitted that we cannot be sure we have accurate copies of the original documents.
The history of biblical interpretation is divided into four periods: the Patristic and Medieval periods, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, The Bible in the Modern Era, and Postmodern Biblical Interpretation. Dawes lumps the Patristic and Medieval periods together because they share three basic assumptions about biblical interpretation: harmony in the message of the Old Testament and New Testament, harmony between the message of the Bible and that of the church, and harmony between sacred and secular knowledge.
In the period of the Reformation, Dawes points out that the second of these assumptions begins to be challenged by the reformers as they question the authority of the church to interpret the Bible. Instead, the reformers emphasize three aspects of biblical interpretation: the Bible interprets itself, the Bible authenticates itself, and the Bible has a single meaning. The fact that the Bible interprets itself has a corollary that the meaning of the Bible is clear, an assumption still commonly held that I find dubious.
The Bible in the Modern Era tracks the rise of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation, and most interestingly, its gradual acceptance by the Catholic Church. One would expect Dawes to be particularly interested in this; these are Catholic commentaries after all. He reviews a number of papal proclamations. Particularly interesting was the 1893 encyclical letter *Providentissimus Deus* by Leo XIII. According to Wikipedia, with this encyclical Pope Leo gave the first formal authorization for the use of critical methods in biblical scholarship. Given the suspicion with which conservative evangelicals view critical methods, I think I prefer Catholic scholarship to evangelical! It is also encouraging to see that Dawes recognizes creationism as an extreme view.
The most interesting section for me was the section on postmodern biblical criticism. Dawes divides this into three main topics: part and whole, the historical context, the "intentional fallacy", text and reader, and a hermeneutics of suspicion. Part and whole simply says that that the text gives us only a glimpse of the whole picture, and we must expand our horizons to better understand the text. This process is called a hermeneutical circle, because in the process, we will inevitably find other contexts relevant to our interpretation.
The intentional fallacy argues that since the intent of the author is unknown to us, the meaning comes from the words on the page, the structure, and the language used, not from the author's psychological state.
A hermeneutics of suspicion simply states that readers may claim to be neutral, when in fact they are not.
I would like to learn more about postmodern biblical criticism. I don’t think I’ve ever read a Bible commentary employing postmodern techniques and I’ve read quite a few. The only book I’ve been able to find on postmodern biblical criticism is the short book *What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism* by A. K. M. Adam. I promptly ordered it from Amazon and I hope it will point me to more substantial resources.
Again, a word must be said about the cover art of these volumes, done mostly by Donald Jackson. Donald Jackson led a team of artists and calligraphers in creating the Saint John's Bible. My first exposure to his work was the painting Pentecost, featured on the commentary on Acts. Jackson's work tends towards the abstract. I’m usually a pretty big fan of abstract art, but at first I felt it to be rather jarring on a Bible commentary. I have since grown accustomed to Jackson’s style, and can confidently say I’m a fan. I especially like his geometric designs, such as Ezekiel's temple on the Ezekiel commentary. *Introduction to the Bible* also has a very nice geometric designs, featuring 7 panels representing the days of the creation week.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review