I started this thread thinking that I would devote it to discussing the changes that I am making in the sixth edition of my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. But I realized, once I started, that I needed to explain more fully what the textbook was at its inception back in the mid 1990s before talking about changes that I’m making now. And so my past few posts have been about how I imagined the book to be a distinctively *historical* introduction to the New Testament and about what that actually meant in terms of how I approached the task.
One other aspect of this being a historical introduction (as opposed to a theological or principally interpretive or mainly literary introduction) is that I wanted the book to be rigorously comparative in its orientation. What I mean is this.
When people read the New Testament, they naturally assume that it is *one* book. After all, you buy it as one book. It has covers. It has a table of contents. It has a beginning. It has an end. It seems like one book. Yes, there are different books within this one book. But it’s all one book. And so that’s how people read it.
Now when you read a book as if it is really one book, then any part of the book makes sense in light of every other part. And so if you’re reading a science book that has 30 chapters, say, you expect the information in chapter 27 to be different from the information in chapter 12, but it will be completely *consistent* with what you find in chapter 12. And often, you need to know what is in chapter 12 to make sense of what you find in chapter 27. So chapter 12 helps you understand the later chapter.
When people read the Bible….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW, OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW!!!
The hardest things teaching your undergrads lol
That’s common sense and just taking a historical approach
You learn of council of Nicea etc and view the different writings between authors like for is it 2 days raise or 3 days raise luke and i believe john are different I could look but .. 🙂 but that’s an example. Then your undergrads learn that the authors are Greek not Aramic and they lived in a different country years later etc. but if that your own intellectual guidance or future profession that’s fine. But as we read these the true believes agree with you bart if that’s what you were meaning
God is the ultimate author.
everybody else is just a creation. And these are teaching of jesus with stories on top of stories. But the root is true, jesus and John were here and people saw there holiness in person enough for them to write and worship thousands of years later
No
we think yes lower advanced and middle if no where so some what no all there but
These rulers and disciples were perfectly fine and normal guys
Jesus was so godly and intelligent so with his
Analogies for everyone to understand
And the nostic gospels of jesus literally changing forms etc.
Maybe change of our form our form of what we believe who jesus is and was
So when Jesus was resurrection and ate fish and said touch my body it’s flesh and bones umm there was it says 500+ people there. So where did he go ?
Besides the historical context of the originally assumed author within the 27 books, does this type of textbook include the historical context within the period when the original manuscript(s) were written? It seems these would need a (early church, Greek) historical context as well, so that the student is exposed to the times of actual author as well….
Yes indeed!
Well said, Dr. E, and interesting.
If one day you have some time and if you think it would be interesting and pertinent to the blog, would you tell us about the stories of how the Reformation and the Enlightenment impacted the historical approach to the Bible? Perhaps you can add a chapter about that in your new edition. I’m sure that the story behind the birth of a historical reading of the canon has so much to tell us.
Thanks a lot, as always.
Ah– that would be stretching my knowledge a bit. But it’s a good idea! I’ll think about it.
While comparing Mark with John, Mark places Jesus Entire activities in Galilee except for his visit for getting Baptism of repentance from Sins and the Final Passion week.
John says Jesus was in Jerusalem for 3 Jewish festivals, Tents;Re-dedication and passover. From September to April, in Roman ruled Judea.
Could be that Mark purposely hides and shows it as Jesus in Herod ruled Galilee?
Could be. Or it could be that John wanted him more closely associated with Jerusalem.
Now, comparing Mark with John, John, has a lengthy ministry of more than 2 years verses less than a year by Mark, but does John added any significant additional activity of ministry which could be verified historically, so that one can say John could be more correct, for the additional period.
It’s part of the question of whether John preserves historical material not in the Synoptics. My view is: not much.
I have ordered the textbook so I can read that comparison myself.
I think your textbook does an excellent job of showing how each book is a different book with some different views. I also think your textbook does an outstanding job of illustrating the different forms of Biblical criticism.
Something I would love to see you talk about is how the letters we think were written by Paul differ from the letters we think were not written by him.
Ah, good idea. I’ll think about it!