dean_issov's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
5.0
๐ Description
Ideal for undergraduate and seminary classes in the New Testament, Biblical Studies, and Christian Origins, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, Fourth Edition, is an engaging and accessible introduction that encourages students to consider the historical issues surrounding these writings.
โ๏ธ What I liked
1. It presents, in laymen's language, the overall consensus in mainstream New Testament scholarship.
2. The illustrations, calendars, and other images are very insightful and makes the textbook a more enjoyable read.ย
3. This textbook is also basically an overview to most of Dr. Ehrman's academic/non-academic books.
4. Its inclusiveness when it comes to gender and LGBTQ+ studies in New Testament scholarship.
โ What I didn't like
1. In most chapters in the Suggested Reading section, Dr. Ehrman uses at least one or two of his own books which I find a bit problematic. I understand that his books are popular but to use his own works multiple times as suggested reading just feels like a lazy cash-grab, he could've replaced his with many other commendable works from other New Testament scholars.
2. The Historical Jesus chapter, just like Dr. Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", failed to convince me yet again. It's not Dr. Ehrman's presentation this time but the consensus on it, I just don't think it's as convincing as most scholars say. For example: To use hypothetical sources such as Q, L, and M feels like a self-defeat because we literally don't have any physical evidence for those and yet Dr. Ehrman uses it as strong evidence for a historical Jesus; Paul never met Jesus physically but only met him through divine revelation, the least credible evidence there is, and I find it hard to trust the fact the he met the brother of Jesus when it was clearly pointed out that Acts and Paul's letters contradict each other many times about Paul's journeys; Josephus' historical text is basically the only non-biblical source we have in the 1st century CE that (briefly) mentions Jesus, but it is also debated in academic circles whether the parts where Jesus was mentioned was an interpolation or not.ย
๐ Notes/Highlights
1. Early Christianity was not the unified monolith that modern people sometimes assume. It was, in fact, extremely diverse.
2. Almost all religions in the Roman Empire were polytheistic and concerned with the present life instead of the afterlife.
3. Even though Judaism was widely diverse (e.g., in such groups as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), it had several distinctive characteristics: Jews were to worship just one God, the God of Israel; This God had chosen Jews to be his special people; Jews were to respond to their election by God by obeying his will, as expressed in the Law; God could be worshiped by sacrifices made in the Temple in Jerusalem and by prayer and the study of the sacred traditions of Israel in synagogues located throughout the ancient world; etc etc...ย
4. Jesus died around 30 C.E.; the Gospels were written forty to sixty-f i ve years later, between 70 and 95 C.E.
5. Mark was written in Greek, around 70 C.E. Its anonymous author was a Greek-speaking Christian, probably living outside Palestine, who had heard numerous stories about Jesus before writing his account for his Christian community.
6. Matthewโs Gospel was written in Greek, around 80โ85 C.E. Its author left his identity anonymous; he must have been a Greek-speaking Christian, probably from outside Palestine.
7. Luke was written around 80โ85 C.E., by a Greek-speaking Christian, probably outside Palestine. Among his sources were Mark, Q, and L.
8. The Gospel of John was the last canonical Gospel to be written, probably around 90โ95 C.E.
It is traditionally ascribed to John the son of Zebedee, but there are reasons to doubt that ascription. It was written in Greek, probably outside of Palestine.
9. The earliest surviving traditions about Jesus portray him as an apocalypticist. Many of these traditions pass our historical criteria. That Jesus was an apocalypticist also makes sense of the facts that (A.) He began his ministry by being baptized by John the Baptist (an apocalyptic prophet). (B.) The early Christian church (which was also apocalyptic) appeared in his aftermath.
10. Christianity is best understood as beginning not with the teachings of Jesus per se, or with his death or resurrection, but with the belief in his resurrection.
โ Would I recommend this book?
Yes. This brief introduction presents the consensus in mainstream New Testament scholarship. It is also fairly secular. If you haven't read any of Dr. Ehrman's works and want to give him a try then I recommend this aswell, this is the best place to start as it basically lays out most of what he teaches.
Ideal for undergraduate and seminary classes in the New Testament, Biblical Studies, and Christian Origins, A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, Fourth Edition, is an engaging and accessible introduction that encourages students to consider the historical issues surrounding these writings.
โ๏ธ What I liked
1. It presents, in laymen's language, the overall consensus in mainstream New Testament scholarship.
2. The illustrations, calendars, and other images are very insightful and makes the textbook a more enjoyable read.ย
3. This textbook is also basically an overview to most of Dr. Ehrman's academic/non-academic books.
4. Its inclusiveness when it comes to gender and LGBTQ+ studies in New Testament scholarship.
โ What I didn't like
1. In most chapters in the Suggested Reading section, Dr. Ehrman uses at least one or two of his own books which I find a bit problematic. I understand that his books are popular but to use his own works multiple times as suggested reading just feels like a lazy cash-grab, he could've replaced his with many other commendable works from other New Testament scholars.
2. The Historical Jesus chapter, just like Dr. Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", failed to convince me yet again. It's not Dr. Ehrman's presentation this time but the consensus on it, I just don't think it's as convincing as most scholars say. For example: To use hypothetical sources such as Q, L, and M feels like a self-defeat because we literally don't have any physical evidence for those and yet Dr. Ehrman uses it as strong evidence for a historical Jesus; Paul never met Jesus physically but only met him through divine revelation, the least credible evidence there is, and I find it hard to trust the fact the he met the brother of Jesus when it was clearly pointed out that Acts and Paul's letters contradict each other many times about Paul's journeys; Josephus' historical text is basically the only non-biblical source we have in the 1st century CE that (briefly) mentions Jesus, but it is also debated in academic circles whether the parts where Jesus was mentioned was an interpolation or not.ย
๐ Notes/Highlights
1. Early Christianity was not the unified monolith that modern people sometimes assume. It was, in fact, extremely diverse.
2. Almost all religions in the Roman Empire were polytheistic and concerned with the present life instead of the afterlife.
3. Even though Judaism was widely diverse (e.g., in such groups as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), it had several distinctive characteristics: Jews were to worship just one God, the God of Israel; This God had chosen Jews to be his special people; Jews were to respond to their election by God by obeying his will, as expressed in the Law; God could be worshiped by sacrifices made in the Temple in Jerusalem and by prayer and the study of the sacred traditions of Israel in synagogues located throughout the ancient world; etc etc...ย
4. Jesus died around 30 C.E.; the Gospels were written forty to sixty-f i ve years later, between 70 and 95 C.E.
5. Mark was written in Greek, around 70 C.E. Its anonymous author was a Greek-speaking Christian, probably living outside Palestine, who had heard numerous stories about Jesus before writing his account for his Christian community.
6. Matthewโs Gospel was written in Greek, around 80โ85 C.E. Its author left his identity anonymous; he must have been a Greek-speaking Christian, probably from outside Palestine.
7. Luke was written around 80โ85 C.E., by a Greek-speaking Christian, probably outside Palestine. Among his sources were Mark, Q, and L.
8. The Gospel of John was the last canonical Gospel to be written, probably around 90โ95 C.E.
It is traditionally ascribed to John the son of Zebedee, but there are reasons to doubt that ascription. It was written in Greek, probably outside of Palestine.
9. The earliest surviving traditions about Jesus portray him as an apocalypticist. Many of these traditions pass our historical criteria. That Jesus was an apocalypticist also makes sense of the facts that (A.) He began his ministry by being baptized by John the Baptist (an apocalyptic prophet). (B.) The early Christian church (which was also apocalyptic) appeared in his aftermath.
10. Christianity is best understood as beginning not with the teachings of Jesus per se, or with his death or resurrection, but with the belief in his resurrection.
โ Would I recommend this book?
Yes. This brief introduction presents the consensus in mainstream New Testament scholarship. It is also fairly secular. If you haven't read any of Dr. Ehrman's works and want to give him a try then I recommend this aswell, this is the best place to start as it basically lays out most of what he teaches.
jefrang's review against another edition
5.0
The Bible is so much more interesting when centered in the context of the people who were alive at and near the time. This lecturer does a great job, keeps to a clear outline, gives concise examples and makes things really enjoyable. It took me awhile to get through only because I wanted so much to set aside time to just actively listen.
More...