George Whitefield (1714-70) was one of the best known and most widely travelled evangelical revivalists in the eighteenth century. For a time in the middle decades of the eighteenth century; Whitefield was the most famous person on both sides of the Atlantic. An Anglican clergyman; Whitefield soon transcended his denominational context as his itinerant ministry fuelled a Protestant renewal movement in Britain and the American colonies. He was one of the founders of Methodism; establishing a distinct brand of the movement with a Calvinist orientation; but also the leading itinerant and international preacher of the evangelical movement in its early phase. Called the "Apostle of the English empire;" he preached throughout the whole of the British Isles and criss-crossed the Atlantic seven times; preaching in nearly every town along the eastern seaboard of America. His own fame and popularity were such that he has been dubbed "Anglo-America's first religious celebrity;" and even one of the "Founding Fathers of the American Revolution."This collection offers a major reassessment of Whitefield's life; context; and legacy; bringing together a distinguished interdisciplinary team of scholars from both sides of the Atlantic. In chapters that cover historical; theological; and literary themes; many addressed for the first time; the volume suggests that Whitefield was a highly complex figure who has been much misunderstood. Highly malleable; Whitefield's persona was shaped by many audiences during his lifetime and continues to be highly contested.
#417236 in Books imusti 1997-04-10 1997-04-10Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 5.38 x .72 x 8.44l; .87 #File Name: 0198269544336 pagesOxford University Press USA
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Metzger - a scholar par excellence - honest if a bit apologeticBy Misanthropeâ„¢B. M. Metzger is a scholar well suited to the task of discussing the history of the canon of the New Testament; the NT being his specialty.He spends the first portion of the book talking about the literature that has been published on the subject prior to this work; then goes into the history starting with the apostolic fathers. After the fathers; he goes into various heresies that had effect on the development of the canon; but he really does not give enough attention to this portion; seeming to play down the effects of differing ideas.After this; he talks about the development of the canon in the East and West; discusses apocryphal literature and why they did not make it into the canon; shows some early lists of canonical books; and discusses attempts to close the canon in the East and West.He closes with discussions of problems confronting the Church with regard to the canon; and adds many materials such as several important canonical lists back to the Muratorian Fragment and up to when the current state of the New Testament was settled almost 400 years after Jesus.While there is slight mention of issues with the canon not being the same with the sections of the Church all over the world; even today; and just as slight mention of questions of canon even up until today; he brushes over many of these problems and just gives the assumption from a theological point of view that the canon is settled and was settled completely by divine providence. In this respect; I believe the book by F. F. Bruce on the Canon of Scripture; where he discusses to some extent the entire Bible; rather than just the New Testament is a slightly better read. The latter scholar leaves it up to the reader to deduct what he or she will. Most scholars agree; nevertheless; that the books officially contained in the Bible are the most accurate (though that is not stating they are completely accurate...only that they are closer to the events; and are more likely to contain a better historical perspective than books not included).Metzger mentions in some places the embarrassment that the fathers commonly felt in regard to attacks by nonbelievers on the internal inconsistency of the biblical books; and that Celsus found many REAL and imagined contradictions (pg 200; n27). Though he is perfectly aware of many of the problems within scripture and the disagreement many passages have with each other; and gives examples of it; Metzger defends it and states "certainly the differences among the traditions within the New Testament must be acknowledged; and artificial attempts at harmonization should be resisted. At the same time; however; it is legitimate to ask the question why the New Testament should have to be consistent in all its parts. Why should all the writers have to think alike on allsubjects in order to be included in the canon?" (pg 278)Four stars for the accumulation of information appropriate for a true scholarly account; one being subtracted for the unrequested conclusion that may or may not make sense.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Scholarly But Accessable - Well Written And Worth The ReadBy David SorensenThis book is scholarly but accessible. Well written from a highly regarded scholar this is a fascinating read. Bruce Metzger - a highly regarded scholar - is also an excellent writer. This book is worth your time if you really want to know about the canon of the New Testament. I highly recommend it.18 of 20 people found the following review helpful. Great start for further study.By Ken SmithThe breadth and depth of Metzger's scholarship is little short of amazing. In this book he has gathered together nearly all the early patristic references which relate to the formation of the NT canon. If you have any questions about how the Church's canon came to be formed; this book will answer it for you. He covers the apostolic fathers; traces separately the growth of the canon in the eastern and western churches; and provides a detailed analysis of the earliest lists (such as the Muratorian canon; Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367; and so forth). Some of the details he provided about the "flexibility" of the canon with respect to certain "antilegoumena" well into the post-Reformation period were entirely new to me. (Prior to Luther; every German edition of the Bible had included the spurious "Epistle to the Laodiceans"; for instance.)My only critique is that the first two chapters of the book; while providing an excellent bibliography; are rather poorly written. In these chapters; Metzger tries to survey the post-Reformation and 20th century theological literature relating to the canon. Some of the information is valuable; but by the time he gets to 20th century authors; it degenerates into; "So-and-so said this; and then so-and-so said this." Unless you've read these authors; the description is so short as to be meaningless; and if you *have* read them; why do you need Metzger's one sentence summary? Scholars tend to do things like this; and I've never understood why: my theory is that they're showing off; but you may have your own.
