Book Review: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

Abstract

     Utilizing a historical-critical perspective, Bart Ehrman provides a comprehensive introduction to the New Testament and many non-canonical writings. Chapter one is a broad look at the New Testament, including its canon and layout with an emphasis on early Christian diversity. Chapter two is a look of the New Testament world, historically, socially, and religiously, while chapter three focuses on its Jewish context and chapter four focuses on the Greco-Roman context. Chapter five examines the “Christian” Gospels from a literary perspective and chapter six treats Marks specifically. The Synoptic problem is addressed in chapter seven. Chapters eight and nine cover Matthew and Luke, respectively, while chapter ten discusses the Acts of the Apostles, Luke’s second volume. Chapter eleven deals with John’s Gospel and chapter twelve deals with John’s epistles and their relationship to Gnosticism.
     Chapter thirteen introduces the reader to non-canonical gospels and chapter fourteen addresses sources and problems with historical Jesus studies. Chapter fifteen is a brief excursus on history and miracles and chapter sixteen places Jesus in the context of first century Palestine. Chapter seventeen addresses Jesus’ role as an apocalyptic prophet and chapter eighteen surmises that Christianity began by deluded apostles instead of the resurrection of Jesus. Chapters nineteen through twenty-one introduce readers to Paul and his undisputed epistles while chapter twenty-two addresses his magnum opus, the epistle to the Romans. Chapter twenty-three examines possibilities in the origin of Christian tradition and chapter twenty-four covers the “deutero-pauline” epistles. Chapter twenty-five addresses the situation of women in early Christianity and chapter twenty-six, by examining the epistles to the Hebrews and of Barnabas, deals with “Christians and Jews.” Chapter twenty-seven treats early Christian apologetic writings, chapter twenty-eight deals with “Christians and Christians” (works like James and the Didache), chapter twenty-nine addresses early Christian apocalypses, and the epilogue presents the problem of textual criticism.

Strengths

     From the start, Ehrman’s writing and lucid and detailed. Written for the novice, Ehrman’s paragraphs take time to elaborate on important points but leave enough unanswered to whet the reader’s appetite. Without being condescending, the author assumes the reader’s ignorance in the areas of discussion, which is a great method for reaching students. Supplementing this quite well is the book’s aesthetically pleasing colors, maps, diagrams, and charts.
     The author, however, is not afraid to go into detail. One valuable insight he provides is clearing misconceptions about how Jews viewed the Torah (p. 39). Omitting recent discussions on “covenantal nomism,” Erhman simply states that the Torah was a joy for Jews to keep because it was the covenant between them and Yahweh. They had already been blessed and keeping the Torah was pleasant.
     Before the author commences his attack on the New Testament, two chapters that are especially profitable are chapters two and three which are dedicated to background studies in the Jewish and Greco-Roman world. These chapters certainly contain a latent disregard for Jesus and Christianity, but the material regarding other ancient religions is well-written and detailed. Along these lines, Ehrman’s summary of Gnosticism (p. 196-201) is detailed and cogent.
     Though Ehrman assumes the existence of Q, he does not attempt a subjective reconstruction of what this supposed document may have contained. Instead, he appears to use this to refer to material not in Matthew or Luke. In this he may be commended for his “conservative” view on the subject. On the other hand, at times he swings in the other direction, espousing the four-source theory (p. 94).
     Ehrman’s skepticism is hard to miss, but his occasional “defense” of Christianity is surprising. For example, Ehrman refutes the claim that Matthew or even Christianity in general is anti-Semitic (p. 118), though strangely on the same page he questions if Matthew was even a Jew (box 8.5). Likewise, the author argues against Paul being the true founder, second founder, or even co-founder of Christianity (p. 156), a surprising claim from a liberal scholar. Further, though Ehrman is not fearful of noticing supposed discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, he admits that the differences in the accounts of the temptation of Jesus in Matthew and Luke may be accounted for by different thematic purposes (p. 129-130).
     One of the best strengths of the book is Erhman’s illustration of different interpretive methods in his overviews of the New Testament books. For example, he used the literary-historical method for Mark, the redactional method for Matthew, and the comparative method for Luke. In this way, the author both summarizes the text and illustrates the use of these different methods, which saved another chapter that could have been devoted to these methods.
     One strength of this book especially appreciated by neophytes is the nice bibliography at the end of each chapter. While not overwhelming, each bibliography contains about eight books that direct students further in their interests and studies. Longer chapter have more works to reference, but good bibliographies are gold for students interested in learning more.

Weaknesses 

     Right out of the gate, Ehrman assumes that division in early Christianity was normative (p. 2, 13). As the Nag Hammadi library and the legacy of Marcion reveal, there was a diversity of beliefs within Christianity, but Ehrman overstates his case. Many forgeries do not invalidate the possibility of an authentic belief or faith. Ehrman’s presupposition reminds one of Baur’s fateful presupposition based on Hegel’s philosophy.
     Though Ehrman’s textbook is obviously written with undergraduates in mind, his ambiguous citations are troublesome. “Some scholars,” “most scholars,” “many scholars” are frequently referenced but rarely specifically (p. 7, 142, 293, for example). Granted, this is an introductory work, but citations such as occasional endnotes may be helpful to substantiate his claims.
     Ehrman’s skeptical presuppositions are hard to miss because the evidence he presents is often “lop-sided.” Though he presents material well and raises good questions worthy of discussion, he frequently ignores rational answers that “many scholars” have provided, allowing reader to see his side only. On page 11 (box 1.5), Ehrman raises his familiar argument concerning textual variants and scribal errors. Likewise, he ignores rational solutions to the problem of dating the death of Jesus in light of Mark and John (p. 63-65). Other examples are his frequent references to figures “like Jesus” such as Apollonius of Tyana (whom he mentions more than once), Honi the Circlemaker, and Hanina ben Dosa, but the author neglects to provide reasons the accounts of these men differ considerably from Jesus. Along these lines, the author places Christianity and Judaism right alongside the “myths” and “traditions” of other ancient religions (chs. 2-3). Comparative studies are valuable, but Ehrman shows at best ambivalence toward the Judeo-Christian religion (p. 39).
     Other times Ehrman is skeptical without even giving his own reasons. For example, he questions that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke (p. 57), but who would fabricate that an obscure figure like Luke would have written a Gospel account? Likewise, the author doubts that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark yet gives no evidence that he did not. This is certainly strange in light of the support of Markan authorship from the early Church Fathers.
     One of the author’s methods of undermining trust in the reliability of the New Testament is by emphasizing the lack of reliability in oral tradition (p. 59). Truly, oral tradition carried the Gospel abroad for about three decades before the Gospels were written, but this certainly does not mean details were easily overlooks or glossed. Luke’s great attention to detail should not be overlooked, nor should modern lack of memorization be read back into the first century. Papias actually preferred the spoken word to the written word. It may be said that an uneducated Jew, due to the immense memorization he was required to have at home, received an education comparable to others.
     The author attempts to disregard Mark’s account of Pharisaical resistance to Jesus by arguing the Pharisees were not as populous in the time of Jesus to “stand at every wheat field to spy out itinerant preachers on the Sabbath” (p. 80, box 6.3). However, about a century before Jesus, Alexander Jannaeus, upon his deathbed, counseled his wife to win the support of the Pharisees (Josephus, Antiquities, 13:400). Though this was the high point of Pharisaical influence, they remained the “popular party.”
     Strangely, Erhman argues that Luke did not think salvation is through Jesus’ death and resurrection, citing repentance and remission of sins as the reasons for salvation (p. 154). However, he neglects that Acts 2:38 records Peter preaching that repentance and baptism must be done “in the name of Jesus.” Further, salvation is only in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12).

Summary 

     Ehrman’s textbook on the New Testament is an easy to read and aesthetically pleasing book. It is full of good research, valuable illustrations, and profitable discussions. However, many of the conclusions of the book are hasty and unwarranted. Regrettably, the author’s skepticism outweighs his scholarship.

Biographical Information for Bart D. Ehrman 

     Ehrman is a graduate of Wheaton College and received his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He taught at Rutgers University for four years before moving to University of North Carolina in 1988. He is currently James A. Gray Distiguished Professor of Religious Studies at UNC. He has published many popular books including The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot (2006), Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (2006), Misquoting Jesus (2005), and Jesus, Interrupted (2009). He has also published many scholarly articles and served various posts within the Society of Biblical Literature.

Book Review: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

F. F. Bruce

The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Pp. 135. Paperback.

Abstract of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 

     In his “firstborn” work, F. F. Bruce provides a “first-rate” defense of the reliability of the New Testament. Originally published in 1943, this book examines original sources, critiques modern interpretive methods, and thus bolsters the faith of many Christians. In the first chapter, Bruce sets forth the need for this study, stating that while the historical veracity of some world religions may not be vital for them, Christianity is based upon the actions of Jesus of Nazareth who walked the earth in the first century. The second chapter briefly examines the date and attestation of the New Testament documents, containing some of the most fascinating and exciting facts regarding the multiplicity of extant manuscripts compared to other ancient classics. Chapter three discusses the formation of the Christian canon, citing early documents that contain the Protestant canon and making the important point that the later councils did not decide the canon but merely recognized what had already been accepted by Christians.
     The fourth chapter, one of the lengthier sections of the book, gives a quite detailed examination of the gospels, their interconnection, individuality, and reliability. Chapter five is dedicated simply to the miracles of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels and emphasizes the importance of understanding the purpose of the miracles instead of attempting to verify them scientifically. Chapter six briefly introduces the evidence given by Paul’s writings and chapter seven discusses Luke’s invaluable contribution to history. Chapter eight provides additional archaeological evidence and chapter nine focuses on evidence in Jewish writings, mainly those of Josephus. The last chapter briefly notices the major, though unwitting contributions of Gentile authors toward the New Testament’s reliability. The book ends with a valuable appendix of resources for further research, suggesting books based on the subjects of the previous chapters.

Strengths of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 

     As with most books by F. F. Bruce, the strengths of this work outweigh the weaknesses. The greatest strength of this book may be its terseness coupled with surprising detail. Though the main content of the book weighs in at 124 pages, the author was able to pack it with many details without drowning the reader in a sea of facts. In about two and a half pages, Bruce dates nearly the entire New Testament (p. 6-9). The detail included in pages 20-21 concerning the canonization of the New Testament is equally impressive, including information such as the fact that the Pauline corpus, after being copied and collected, was designated simply as Apostolos while the Gospel accounts were designated Euangelion. Likewise, pages 63-65 contain a fine synopsis of explanations (Christian, Jewish, and pagan) for the resurrection of Jesus, leading the reader to reason through the Scriptures for himself instead of force-feeding the answer. But perhaps the most impressive example of this was Bruce’s reconstruction of the Gospel story simply be examining Paul’s epistles in four pages (p. 75-78).
     Bruce writes in a fashion that is directed toward students in the beginning of their studies, but he certainly captures the attention of intermediate students. For example, when dating the book of Luke (p. 6) based on Luke 3:1, the author slips in a footnote regarding the customs of dating the beginning of a king’s regnal years of kings in September-October, which is a very helpful fact in discerning the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The entire fourth chapter requires more attention and foundational knowledge in the reader than other chapters, but it makes terms like “form criticism” and “source criticism” less intimidating to those unacquainted with these fields. Similarly, Bruce is unafraid to discuss the “life-setting” of the early church, indicating that a “life-setting” in a “Matthean community” does not preclude a “life-setting” in the life of Jesus. But in this discussion Bruce is noticeably reluctant to use the common German phrase Sitz im Leben in preference for its more palatable translation for his readership.
     The author’s treatment of the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is one of the excellent sections of this book. Bruce clearly but scientifically compares the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament to that of other major historical works of antiquity, even stating that historians are more ready to accept the reliability of the New Testament than New Testament scholars are (p. 10). By comparing the multiplicity of manuscripts of the often scorned New Testament documents with the scarcity of manuscripts of the generally well-received documents of Tacitus, Herodotus, Thucydides, or Julius Caesar, the author presents a case that is far different from what is commonly heard about the Bible in the secular realm.
     The author’s use of original sources is thorough. Bruce was obviously conversant in the major historical, philosophical, and religious documents of antiquity. Especially interesting to this reader were Bruce’s quotations of Papias from Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiae, which provide a fascinating testimony to the early preservation of Scripture and dedication to accuracy, as well as indicating that Mark’s gospel was written under Peter’s tutelage or based on his teachings. But that is not the only example, for Bruce freely quotes Tacitus, Irenaus, Tertullian, and especially Josephus.
     In chapter 3, Bruce’s discussion of the canon was both logical and profitable to readers. In an attempt to combat the idea of an arbitrary selection of books into the canon by a council a few hundred years later, the author elucidates the reasons for the development of the canon. One of the reasons Bruce cites was the desire to distinguish which books were suitable for doctrine, not only for the purpose of instruction but also in order to fight heresy. Bruce also notes the liturgical motivation for a canon, indicating that church officials needed to know which documents to include in the public reading of Scripture. Further, in hostile periods of persecution, Christians needed to know which documents they could relinquish to the governing authorities who sought to confiscate their scriptures.
     In addition to being readable and profitable, Bruce’s reasoning is quite balanced. When one begins reading about the various forms of criticism in biblical scholarship, one may be tempted to gravitate toward extremes with fundamentalists who avoid any discussion of hermeneutics or with liberals who deny the authority and inspiration of the text. Bruce, however, is balanced in the middle where his belief in the authenticity of the Scriptures does not require him to sacrifice his critical mind. For instance, when the author discusses the Gospels in chapter 4, he appeals to the benefit of form criticism for establishing the reliability of the New Testament text, explaining that early form critics were thought to have the key to dismantling the Bible but actually proved themselves wrong. Bruce argues that the stereotyped style of the Gospel records, though not always identical, actually serve to guarantee the accuracy of their records, comparable to a police officer adhering closely to a certain “form” while giving evidence in court (p. 29). Further, Bruce argues that form criticism has shown that regardless of how far back one looks in search of early oral traditions, he will “never arrive at a non-supernatural Jesus” (p. 29).

Weaknesses of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 

     Though this book is a classic and was not intended to be exhaustive, a little more detail would have been nice at times. For example, on page 27 Bruce lists the differences and similarities of the Gospel accounts by comparing the number of verses in Mark that appear in Luke and others. While this achieved the goal of concisely presenting the material, it does not list specific examples but merely provides the number of verses similar in each account, thus leaving the reader with his appetite whet. Perhaps this was the author’s goal, but the curious mind can be impatient at times.
     Likewise, in discussing the reliability of Luke-Acts, the author states the some of Luke’s material could indicate an Aramaic source in Palestine while other material may have originated from Christian Hellenists (p. 39-40). Earlier on the page Bruce speculated that Luke may have received much of his information about the Herod family from Manaen, Antipas’ foster-brother and teacher in the Antioch church. After reading such a fascinating theory, the reader was set up for more when mention of Aramaic and Hellenistic sources were made, but the author progressed to another topic.
     A slightly greater complaint may be aimed at Bruce’s usage of “Q” in reference to gospel origins (p. 34, 38). The author is careful never to affirm Q’s existence but states the convenience of using this letter as a designation for “non-Markan material common to Matthew and Luke” (p. 34). While this is convenient, it is potentially confusing. However, the author seems to clear any confusion when he states that Matthew and Luke using the same documentary source is unlikely (p. 38).

Summary 

     This book is a great resource for introducing curious minds to the reliability of the New Testament. It is brief without sacrificing great detail and can strengthen one’s faith in the New Testament while equipping him for further research in not-so-friendly waters. The fact that it has been through six editions after nearly seventy years and retains a great deal of popularity is a testimony to its quality.

Book Review: The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel

Craig L. Blomberg

The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Pp. 346. Hardback.

Abstract of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     Craig Blomberg seeks to restore confidence in the historical reliability of the gospel of John after years of skepticism have eroded trust in John’s historicity. The initial skepticism of 19th century scholarship took Clement of Alexandria’s quote very seriously, believing that John’s “spiritual gospel” focused on theological matters at the expense of historical accuracy. The more recent “quest” for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar have likewise discredited John along with the other gospels. Though manuscript discoveries in the 19th century restored a good measure of confidence in John’s reliability, the author seeks to offer an updated discussion on the matter.
     Blomberg’s methodology is seen in the two parts of the book. Part one deals with introductory considerations such as authorship, date and provenance, sources, John’s relationship to the Synoptics (omissions, interlocking accounts, outlines), audience and purpose, and a discussion of literary genre. Part two of the book is a commentary on the text, focusing on matters of historical reliability. Naturally, this part of the book is quite longer than the introductory section because it examines each passage in the book of John in light of historicity, which is where the bulk of the arguments arise and, thus, the author spends more time with more details than an introduction could afford. Part two, then, asks two questions: what evidence exists that shows the actions and words of John’s characters to be authentic; and, is there anything in the given text that would be implausible within its historical context? 

Strengths of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     Early in his book, Blomberg cites several scholarly movements and works that suggest a considerable number of scholars do not doubt John’s credibility (p. 20). That is, after mentioning Robinson’s “new look” and the Dead Sea Scrolls’ witness to the early composition of John, the author lists several articles and commentaries that defend the historicity of the gospel of John. This is not a vital argument in the book but is helpful because it reveals that Johannine skepticism is not as widely spread as some may believe and it provides a list of reputable works, something always helpful to information-hungry readers.
     Another credit to make in Blomberg’s favor is his attempt to be fair in his analysis of various positions. He does not sacrifice critical analysis for the sake of fairness or “courtesy,” but he presents both sides of an argument before analyzing them and offering his suggestions. For instance, the “signs-source” set forth by Bultmann has been accepted by many scholars so Blomberg cites Van Belle’s summary of its strengths and weaknesses, noting that John’s numbering of the first two signs and the possibility that 20:31 could have been the conclusion of the supposed signs-source may give the hypothesis some credit, but the subjectivity of numbering the first two signs, the possibility that chapter 21 is an epilogue, and the fact that the signs in John have more similarities to the text than differences all indicate that the “signs-source” hypothesis has too little evidence to be credible.
     Also, the author is not reluctant to discuss the distinctions and apparent discrepancies in the gospel of John that have led many to doubt its historical reliability. For example, he notes John’s selection of material (which omits Jesus baptism, the calling of twelve, exorcisms, etc.), the absence of the disciples’ slow understanding of who Jesus is (which is common in the Synoptics), and, even more unique, John’s chronology, which is vastly different from the Synoptics (Jesus’ ministry in the former is marked by the passing of at least two Passovers while His ministry as depicted in the latter could have started and ended within a few months.
     The author defends traditional Johannine authorship, wisely noting that the unanimous external evidence for Johannine authorship cannot be dismissed easily. He also argues that the silence of the second century witnesses is not as telling as those who deny Johannine authorship make it because the style and purpose of an individual like Ignatius writing to Ephesus would not necessarily demand he include words about John’s gospel (p. 23). Charlesworth’s strange theory that the author of this gospel could be Thomas is striking in light of the aforementioned external evidence but Blomberg’s critique was detailed and quite enjoyable to read.
     Blomberg makes an insightful argument regarding the uniqueness of John’s style and thought compared to the Synoptics. While some who are anxious to discredit John’s gospel would immediately see inauthenticity in passages that clearly reveal John’s style and thought, Blomberg reminds his readers that even Josephus felt free to paraphrase himself in The Antiquities of the Jews, a work that relied on his previous work, The Jewish War. This is said because modern scholarship’s intense desire to know every word that Jesus uttered ignores the style and purpose of the individual gospel writers. As Blomberg said, there is no way to know that John intended to translate Jesus’ Aramaic words as literally as possible (p. 65).
     This reader appreciated Blomberg’s jab at the circular reasoning of the Jesus Seminar on page 66. He does not subscribe to the view that only a fragment of what Jesus said in the Synoptics is authentic, in part because it creates a “vicious cycle” of not trusting portions of the Synoptics which rely on John’s gospel, which is held to be unreliable because it is so different from the authentic sections of the Synoptics! Blomberg is professional and controlled here and elsewhere, but the subtly snide remark did not go unappreciated.
     Blomberg’s treatment of the seemingly suspicious exchange between Jesus and His brethren (7:1-10) reveals a more natural interpretation that does not make Jesus suspect of contradiction or, at least, fickleness. At first glance, it may seem that Jesus was being deceitful about His intentions because when His brethren told Him to go to the feast, He replied that His hour had not yet come. But, surprisingly, He did the very thing it seems He denied! The author here reasons that readers should not assume Jesus went back on His word but that His intention was never not to go. Instead, Blomberg says, it is more natural to see Jesus telling His brothers that His going to Judea would not be as they requested but, as always, would be in subjection to the Father and no one else, not even family. Indeed, this account is reminiscent of the Lord’s gentle rebuke of His mother regarding the wine that was followed by Jesus turning water to wine(John 2:4-6). Jesus operates by the direction of His Father and no one else.
A puzzling verse in the final discourse of Jesus is the seemingly out-of-place phrase, “Arise, let us go hence” (14:31). Blomberg handles this quite well, admitting that this is “the single biggest problem for supporters of the unity and authenticity of this discourse” because Jesus continues His speech until 18:1 (p. 204). The author opts for the view that Jesus began to lead the disciples out of the upper room but continued His speech as they walked. To bolster this argument, Blomberg notes that Jesus may have used the “vine and branches” imagery in chapter 15 as He and the disciples passed the vineyards near the temple, a location that they would have passed on their way to the Gethsemane. Further, the statement in 18:1 that He went over the brook Kidron with His disciples could simply indicate the moment when they actually crossed and not the moment they left the Upper Room.
     Likewise, the author’s treatment of John 18:28 is detailed and done well. Instead of this comment about the Jews avoiding Pilate’s palace in order to “eat the Passover” meaning that what Jesus had done with the disciples in chapter 13 was not the Passover, Blomberg suggests, along with others, that the Jews in this verse were likely referring to later festival meals during the Passover festival, perhaps specifically the lunchtime meal on Friday. Because their uncleanness would have only lasted until sundown, they would have been able to eat the Friday evening supper anyway. Thus, Blomberg correctly argues that the more natural interpretation is to see this as a reference to a later festival meal and not “the” Passover meal.

Weaknesses of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     While the purpose of his book was not to write a detailed, exegetical commentary on the gospel of John, one can not help but be disappointed in the lack of exegetical comments that explore more themes and theological issues in the second section of the book. Such expectations are likely not fair for a work that restricts itself to matters of historical trustworthiness (p. 22), yet the itch to dig deeper into a text is not quite satisfied in some of the comments in part two. Blomberg makes a valid point, however, by stating that historicity does have great implications for biblical authority and correct interpretation, even if it is not the most important area of focus.
     Blomberg’s openness to redaction should not be overstated, given that he clearly defends the authenticity of John, yet his belief that a separate editor “touched up the document throughout” is still disheartening. One cannot prove that redaction is not possible in John (the “beloved disciple” passages sound at first like someone other than or in addition to John is at work), but if there is an argument that is just as plausible and that does not sacrifice traditional Johannine authorship, it seems more reasonable that one should accept it instead of resorting to source theories. It is granted that highly conservative scholars are not completely closed to the idea of an editor or even amanuensis but one might expect that Blomberg’s aversion to subjectivity in other areas of the book would be present in this area, as well.
     Along this line, the author does not provide evidence of redaction but an appeal that it causes no harm to the idea of inspiration (p. 39, footnote 29). Truly, Paul wrote with an amanuensis (Rom. 16:22) and Luke apparently “followed all things closely” (Luke 1:3), but one cannot help but to think Blomberg’s reasoning sounds more like a concession than a conviction.

In the Mail

D.A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 160 pages.

Man, I'm excited about this book! Preachers like me often wonder which books they should add to their libraries but D.A. Carson provides this helpful survey of the strengths and weaknesses of many New Testament commentaries, both recent and dated.

I may provide a more detailed review in future, but just perusing the pages after opening the package has shown me this is all that I heard it was. Carson is a theological heavyweight and one of my favorite authors (though I by no means agree with all of his conclusions). He is not fearful to offer an honest critique of some of the biggest names in Biblical literature. For example, in his survey of the commentaries on Matthew, Carson offers a brief critique of N.T. Wright's two volume set, saying it is written with "color and verve" but because Wright places so much emphasis on the theme of Jesus bringing Israel out of Exile that he misses other important themes, causing this work to be "an exercise in brilliant reductionism" (p. 56). I love it! I like N.T. Wright's stuff, but what an awesome way of saying, "It's a good book but it misses the point on a lot of stuff."

Carson notes the purpose of these commentaries, whether each is suited for advanced studies or otherwise, their focus (theological, grammatical, Greek, etc.) and many other things. Many times I don't know where to start when I look for commentaries because I don't really have the time and especially not the money to spend on several commentaries. Thus, I expect this survey will be a great help in adding important books to my library.

Book Review: The New Testament Era

Bo Reicke

The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100

Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964. Pp. 317. Paperback.

Abstract of The New Testament Era

In The New Testament Era, Bo Reicke provides a concise yet detailed account of the centuries surrounding the ministry of our Lord and the beginning of the church. This book is extremely profitable for knowledge of the background of the New Testament, for though the bulk of the book consists of the details of the first century A. D., it does not neglect the often obscure intertestamental period. As stated in the introduction (p. 1), this book deliberately avoids “theological questions,” choosing rather to focus on the historical background of the times that led to the “fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4). Though the New Testament is not the basis of Reicke’s historical introduction, it is his “goal” (p. 4) in that he seeks to lead a student to position where he is able to study the New Testament with a better foundational knowledge.

Focusing on the political, social, and religious factors of the period of discussion, The New Testament Era uses a chronological framework. First, Reicke begins with “Judah Under Persian Rule,” spending nearly thirty pages detailing the last part of the Exile and focusing on the relationship of Persia to Judah and its influence thereon. From here, the author continues by introducing Alexander the Great and his conquest of the Persian Empire, ushering in the Hellenistic Age, which may have had a greater influence on the Hebrew people than the former age. The greater portion of the book, however, is dedicated to the New Testament era itself, the first century A. D., detailing the Roman rule of Palestine from the Herods to the sub-apostolic period.

Strengths of The New Testament Era

Reicke’s balance between brevity and detail is one of the most notable aspects of this book. Though 317 pages may seem like a large amount of reading, such a viewpoint is reduced when one considers the time span the book covers (500 B.C. to A.D. 100), as well as the author’s ability to note to the general story of this historical period while providing details where elaboration is necessary. A reader with a general understanding of names and nations in the Exile and New Testament periods will come away from this reading with a huge supplement of information.

Though it begins with the Persians, this was the root of the New Testament time. 500 B.C. may seem like a stretch in an introduction to the New Testament era, but it is an essential part of the development of history, as Reicke well shows. Without this time period included, a reader of John 4 and Luke 9 will be left in the dark regarding the mutual animosity of the Jews and Samaritans, the latter group gaining their own distinction in the Persian period of power. Further, the situation of the Jews after the Exile did not experience drastic changes with the conquests of Alexander the Great who “left the Oriental rugs where they were, so to speak, only making sure that he had his feet firmly planted on them” (p. 36). For the Jews, this meant that the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah continued, which began under Persian rule, continued to progress uninterrupted by the new Hellenistic domination.

Another strength of The New Testament Era is the understanding Reicke provides to his readers regarding the political tension that filled Judaism in the first century. There are subtle hints of this tension in the Gospels and epistles, but Reicke does a good job bringing them together in light of history. Reicke traces the Zealot movement (not the party) from Palestine to Rome, theorizing that Zealots and even simply anti-Gentile Judaism would have “found especially fertile soil among those Jewish or Gentile Chrsitians who belonged to the lower classes (slaves, freedman, the poor, non-citizens), of whom there were not a few (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 1:28)” (p. 246). Reicke’s conclusion is that since the Gospel was received largely among the lower classes the political turmoil and materialistic eschatology of the Jewish world played a large part in many Christians’ thinking. For proof, he refers to the rebellion of Onesimus (Philemon 11, 15) and Paul’s warning of Jewish propaganda (Titus 1:10, 14) (p. 246). He also cites 1 Thess. 4:11 and 2 Thess. 3:10ff, both of which note the lack of desire to work among the Thessalonians, as proof that the Jews and Gentiles in the church were struggling with either Hellenism or fanaticism. This planted new seeds of thought in my mind for I have always seen the “busybodies” in 1 & 2 Thessalonians as mere sponges who did not want to work because they thought the Lord would return immediately, but Reicke opened the possibility that these Christians who would not mind their own business could have been motivated by a Jewish political and materialistic interpretation of the Gospel.

A third strong aspect of Reicke’s book is his description of the transition of power from the Hasmonean dynasty to Antipater and Herod, creating the Herodian dynasty. I saw this as a strong point because it was a portion of history in which I was very curious and very ignorant. Many see “Herod” in the New Testament and assume that it refers only to Herod the Great or Herod Antipas, but the author not only distinguishes the many key players in this family, but also their rise to power, division of power among Herod’s sons, and their later fall from power. Reicke was very methodical in arranging this transfer right along with the Roman influence that made it happen, pointing out Pompey’s involvement in Antipater being made procurator and forerunner of the Herodian dynasty. Thankfully, the author gave much space to this intriguing family.

Another delightfully informative section was Reicke’s treatment of church growth and martyrdom during the sub-apostolic period. One fascinating detail was the author’s estimation of the number of Christians that existed in this period. He estimates that after A.D. 100, there could have been 320,000 Christians in the Roman Empire (p. 304). Even he admits that his estimation is “hypothetical and approximate” (p. 304), these statistics cooperate with Pliny’s treatment of Christians in Bithynia/Pontus in the early second century, for he likely would not have seen Christians as a problem had they not been as large a group as they were (Reicke estimates 80,000 in Asia Minor). Further, if the church grew to such numbers at this time, then conflict with the sovereignty of the emperor cult was inevitable.

Finally, Reicke’s use of primary sources made the book as informative as it is. He was very conversant with the Old Testament canon, the Pseudipigrapha, the Apocrypha, the Qumran documents, the works of Josephus, the writings of the “Church Fathers,” as well as the writings of Roman leaders and historians, such as Pliny and Suetonius.

Weaknesses of The New Testament Era

Reicke was not clear regarding Persian influence on Jewish religious practices and beliefs. In one paragraph, he says, “the Jews never encountered ancient Iranian religion or any true Zoroastrianism” and that any connection made between Judaism and Zoroastrianism is not a matter of “influence” but of “convergence” (p. 32). However, in the next paragraph he lists several “religious motifs” than “may well have developed out of earlier conceptions through convergence with Persian syncretism” (p. 33), namely, a heavenly “royal court,” dualism, a conception of angels and demons, a divine mediator, and the expectation of resurrection and retribution. It should be granted to the author that this is a rather unclear historical relationship and that his “middle of the road” approach is to be preferred to a full-fledged Jewish replication of Zoroastrianism, but he does not mention the possibility that Judaism (and even Christianity) could have influenced Zoroastrianism, whose key texts were compiled in the 6^th-9^th centuries A.D.

Reicke’s description of Domitian’s reforms, though enlightening, seemed too detailed (p. 271-278). The author’s assessment of Domitian “sees beyond the damnatio memoriae and his tragic end” and examines “the major part of his life and works,” which Reicke sees as a time of courageous promotion of the interests of Rome, aiding the middle and lower classes though he was “stern and sometimes cruel toward the upper class” (p. 282). At the end of the section, Reicke notes the Domitian appeared to be a religious tyrant in A.D. 93-96, the last three years of his power.

The author is very convincing regarding the social aspect of Domitian’s rule, but he seems to have overstated his case. Perhaps my lack of knowledge in this side of Roman affairs (i.e. social reforms) has soured my taste on this part of the reading, but it seemed that Reicke put much more effort on this point than he did on other points of history throughout the book, apparently having a bone to pick with historians who paint the entire reign of Domitian as a horrible tyranny. While informative, the author’s corrective zeal was a little too much.

Last, Reicke dates the Pastoral and General epistles quite late, requiring them to be written by someone other than Peter, Paul, or James. The author sees the sicarii actions in Cyrene in the early A.D. 70s as evidence that the letter to Titus, which includes anti-anarchistic teachings (Titus 1:10), must have been “about this same time.” If his conclusion is true, it requires an author other than Paul (who died in the mid-60’s) to have written the letter. On the whole, Reicke sees the sub-apostolic Christians taking over many features of Hellenism, “giving rise to a series of social and moral problems such as the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles discuss.” This conclusion, however, ignores the possibility of the inspired authors seeing these situations coming before they actually arrived and preparing their readers for them.

Book Review: Historical Criticism of the Bible

Eta Linneman
Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?
Grand Rapids/Baker Book House, 1990. Pp. 169. Paperback.

A penitent, former historical-critical theologian, Eta Linnemann provides a first-hand perspective of historical-critical theology. Having studied under Bultmann, Fuchs, Gogarten, and Ebeling (p. 17) in West Germany, where Christian liberal arts universities were virtually non-existent, Linnemann attained great prestige in her field but upon her realization that the historical-critical method of theology offers no good service to God (rather, quite the opposite), she recanted and in 1978 even threw away her previous writings that had won her so much honor. She stated this well in her first paragraph of introduction: “My ‘No!’ to historical-critical theology stems from my glorious redemption he accomplished for me on Golgotha” (p. 17).

The methodology of Linnemann’s study is both destructive and constructive. First, she critiques the historical-critical method, offering a history concerning its origins in paganism, its true motivation, and the firm position it holds in many universities. With Linnemann’s experience in historical-critical theology, she is certainly qualified to inform readers the mentality of this method of interpretation (chapter 8). Second, she constructs a model which can be used to found Christian universities, even including educational objects and a plan of study. Finally, she concludes her study by biblical analysis of the Word of God and a plea to “search the Scriptures” (p. 159).

Section one is titled “Christianity and the Modern University.” In chapter one, Linnemann begins at the beginning by tracing modern universities to their pagan roots, informing readers that “the university in Athens was closed because of its pagan character” in 529 B. C. (p. 23). She adds that the modern university is not steered by a desire to know truth but by humanism and its group dynamics. Instead of someone pursuing knowledge freely, Linnemann suggests that “the individual is granted freedom only insofar as that person’s work can be integrated into the traditional framework of the discipline” (p. 28). She later adds that the so-called “Faith of Theology” is fraught with presuppositions and bias, such as the denial of the possibility of divine revelation, and that it [critical intellect] “judges by fleshly standards” (p. 108).

In addition to this history of interpretation, in chapter three Linnemann provides a biblical parallel to the paganism in modern universities. After King Solomon died and the kingdom was divided, Jeroboam changed the place, time, object, and priesthood of worship, bringing paganism to Israel on an institutional level. The points that Linnemann emphasize are the Israelites’ silence and later forgetfulness at the apostasy of their king. While many were deceived at Jeroboam’s claim that the golden calves had delivered them out of Egypt, “those who were in a position to know better—and there must have been some in Israel—held their peace” (p. 46), which has a clear implication for students and professors today. Further, it is interesting, as Linnemann notes, that the Israelites so quickly forgot the gravity of this sin. A similar event occurred a few centuries before at the foot of Sinai, but was quickly put down by Moses, Joshua, and Levites. However, the prophet from Bethel had no one on his side when he confronted Jeroboam, which is comparable to a modern stand against the historical-critical method.

Linnemann also provides a fair critique of the historical-critical method. Chapter eight reveals the “mentality” of the method as operating under the assumption that there is no God (p. 116). This assumption is connected to the presupposition that the Bible is the product of the human mind and can only be understood through the methods of historical science (p. 115) and “group dynamics” (p. 28) in this discipline do not foster intellectual freedom but stifle growth because of the traditions of the study. In short, pride and ambition lead scholars to conformity with the atheistic mindset of the historical-critical method. Linnemann strikes the proverbial nail on the head when she says, “There is truth only in Jesus. In humanism truth is replaced by recognition, a prestige wrapped up in the conferring and accepting of honor” (p. 28).

Though there are many strong points in this book, one weakness may be Linnemann’s impassioned writing. She is certainly zealous and passionate about the dangers of the historical-critical method but because of the fiery language toward this model of interpretation, some may dismiss her claims as being emotionally driven. On the other hand, though, the urgency of her message may win some who study in and have been taught with the historical-critical method.