Loading...One of the hardest parts of writing an Introduction to the New Testament is figuring out where to begin. If someone were writing a literary introduction, or even a theological one, it might make best sense to begin at the beginning, with the Gospel of Matthew, and then continue through the New Testament all the way to the book of Revelation. But what if one is writing an Introduction from a *historical* perspective? Matthew wasn’t the first Gospel to be written; Mark was. So doesn’t it make better sense (after discussing the Greco-Roman and Jewish milieu out of which these books arose) to start with Mark?
But the problems go even deeper. The Gospels were not the first books written: Paul’s letters were written earlier. Students almost never know this; they simply assume that since the Gospels occur first in the NT, and since they talk about Jesus, who lived before Paul, that they were written before Paul. So if one wants to deal with the NT historically, doesn’t it make best sense to begin in chronological sequence, with Paul, starting with his earliest letter, 1 Thessalonians?
That’s what some NT professors do in their classes. They start with Paul. Almost always for purely historical reasons. But I decided that even though my book was going to be a historical introduction, it did NOT make sense to start with Paul. And for a very clear and, what struck me, compelling reason. Paul, in my view, cannot be understood without knowing about Christianity before Paul. He inherited a good deal of his beliefs and practices from the Christian tradition that had developed in the two or three years before he converted to be a follower of Jesus. And this Christianity before Paul cannot be understood without knowing about the early beliefs in the death and resurrection of Jesus. And these beliefs in the death and resurrection of Jesus in turn presuppose knowledge of Jesus’ life.
As a result, you might think that the place to start an Introduction to the New Testament would be with an account of Jesus’ life. But you can’t discuss the life of Jesus without considering our sources of information for the life of Jesus. And those sources of information are almost entirely the Gospels of the New Testament.
And so there is a very strong irony. In order to write a *historical* introduction to the NT…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
This may be of interest to you Bart; it’s part of a long reply by William Lane Craig to a question relating to biblical inerrancy – in which you are referred to.
“We should have to re-think our doctrine of inspiration in that case, but we needn’t give up belief in God or in Jesus, as Bart Ehrman did. Ehrman had, it seems to me, a flawed theological system of beliefs as a Christian. It seems that at the center of his web of theological beliefs was biblical inerrancy, and everything else, like the beliefs in the deity of Christ and in his resurrection, depended on that. Once the center was gone, the whole web soon collapsed. But when you think about it, such a structure is deeply flawed. At the center of our web of beliefs ought to be some core belief like the belief that God exists, with the deity and resurrection of Christ somewhere near the center. The doctrine of inspiration of Scripture will be somewhere further out and inerrancy even farther toward the periphery as a corollary of inspiration. If inerrancy goes, the web will feel the reverberations of that loss, as we adjust our doctrine of inspiration accordingly, but the web will not collapse because belief in God and Christ and his resurrection and so on don’t depend upon the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.”
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-price-biblical-errancy#ixzz3FN3RdTDC
Thanks. I’ll post on it today.
Have you heard about this discovery? Is it bunk?
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/newly-found-document-holds-eyewitness-account-of-jesus-performing-miracle/
First I’ve heard of it. If I hear anything more, I’ll say something about it; but I’m not holding my breath!
Note the source’s self-description (http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/):
“World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.”
I did some more research. Apparently the site is a fake, making the news fake as well. :/
I’m interested in more definitive treatment of it, but Snopes at least judges it to be false:
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/miraclewitness.asp
It seems that their basis is mostly the reputation of the site on which it was posted, and I suppose an utter lack of any other reports of the supposed document with only this site of questionable repute as the sole source might be a legitimate basis for not believing the story.
The way you start your textbook as outlined here is perfect. Don’t change it in the revisions.
Dan Wallace made a similar statement about a year ago that Christians need to have a core set of beliefs that would remain intact if the peripheral ones would start to break down. But the problem with this is that most evangelical christians ( and I used to be one of them) were taught to hold inerrancy as part of that core set of beliefs. We would do anything to not let that view fall apart. That’s why we studied and took classes in appologetics. That’s why the faith evangelical church I used to attend would skirt difficult issues in their adult sunday school classes. If you didn’t hold to the view of inerrency then those folks you were close to in church questioned your christian commitment. How many times did I hear “be careful …It’s a slippery slope”. So when that crack finally starts to happen you are not taught how to handle it and your faith suddenly falls apart. The Evangelical Church itself is at fault here.
Regarding Javalos’ linked article above, see this:
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/
” The beliefs in the deity and resurrection of Christ should not be based on a view of inerrancy of Scripture.”
No, they should be based on an understanding of physics, biology, and basic science. Once dead the party’s over. The dead do not resurrect. No slight of had and wishful thinking will change that.
Bart, I’m sure you’re familiar with the book “Christianity, The First 3000 Years.” IMO you could even start an introduction to the New Testament long before the birth of Jesus.
Yes indeed! But a semester is only 14 weeks long!