Bibles Bible Studies Books

I was a bit disappointed with Walter Brueggemann in this, his magnum opus, I presume. Brueggemann, while he has some great treatment of specific Old Testament texts that many evangelicals would agree with, he falls short in his methodology in this text. It comes across as a re-worked liberal Protestant approach to the Old Testament in post-modern verbage. I am left wondering if Brueggemann thinks the Old Testament is really God's revelatory Word in the most profound sense. It just isn't that clear.

Brueggemann dismisses Brevard Childs' canonical criticism with too much ease as being modernistically foundationalist. Childs' canonical approach is probably the best middle way through the historical-critical/fundamentalist impasse. Brueggemann just lumps Childs in there almost as some brain-dead fundamentalist.

Brueggemann's exegesis of particular texts is what saves the book and gives it some incredible insight that the author is so well-known for. But I think I will wait for the Old Testament trilogy of theology from John Goldingay (out at Fuller Seminary) before I dig much more into Brueggemann's attempt. Goldingay does a much better job grappling with the challenges of post-modernism than does Brueggemann in his more muddled methodology.

So this is the best in contemporary Old Testament scholarship ? Brueggemans marketing "blurbs" ultimately suffer the same fate that he himself inflicts on the text of the Old Testament;utter evisceration of ontological content - his effort is one of image and not substance.How in the world postmodern scholars can resort to "rhetorical" analysis of anyones text (rendering it empty of any correspondance with ultimate reality)and then with their own text pawn such analysis off on unsuspecting readers as being somehow more "real" is beyond me.
Any insight one might gain from his rehearsal of the history of theological methodologies on the one hand is - by applying his own principles toward his own text - ironically supported by feet that are firmly planted in mid air on the other. Just as he heralds the tentativity and characteristic need for "open ended" and continued conversation with regard to the Theology of the Old Testament, his own effort must not be taken with any additional seriousness or certainty. In other words, if there can be no closure regarding the Old Testaments veracity (ontological reality and historical truthfulness), meaning, or significance, but only an appreciation of an intertextual rhetoric supported by Brueggemanns own rhetorical flourish, as far as I'm concerned the entire project substitutes sheer madness for scholarship.
Even his attempt to regain some contact with reality, by encouraging readers to perhaps enter into and continue the "Testimony, Dispute, and Advocacy" pursuit of the so-called followers of Yahweh, is sabotaged by his conflation of alonestanding "rhetoric" with reality itself.
If you want an Old Testament/Postmodern Theological hallucinative experience under the auspices of scholarship; look no further. However, if you prefer sober reality where truth can still be known Christian orthodoxy can see you coming.
Accordingly, in todays academy you may not prove to be popular, but it will sure be nice knowing that you're not one of the "inmates" that are now running the asylum!

This work by Walter Brueggemann is perhaps his most comprehensive view of the Old Testament to date. As the title implies, this is a Christian reading of the Old Testament scriptures (for scholars who approach the collection from a more objective standpoint prefer to avoid the use of the term 'Old Testament' in favour of the term 'Hebrew Scriptures'). However, Brueggemann is sensitive to the contemporary context of the scriptures and places them firmly in their rightful place for analysis.

Brueggemann concentrates on Yahweh -- there are other formulations of God in the text (Elohim, for example, or El-Shaddai in Job) but these don't tend to be dominant, so Brueggemann doesn't treat them so. As the subtitle suggests -- Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy -- Brueggemann uses an overall framework of a jury trial, with the presentation of evidence, argument, interpretation, and witnesses.

The first and final sections of the book are analytical and place this book in proper context of the history of OT research and writing, and where this is likely to continue, particularly with the idea of interpretation in a pluralistic context, which is fitting considering the plurality of voices present in the scriptures.

The first witness, of course, is Israel. Israel's experience in the scriptures, however, provides it with both a core testimony of God, as well as a counter-testimony of God. Brueggemann is good about maintaining a tension between poles in his writings, and here he has Israel's testimony pitted against itself, looking for Yahweh in the tension between.

Then there are components of unsolicited testimony, those of creation, humanity, the nations. Following are the concepts of mediators -- Torah, King, Prophet, Cult, Sage -- each of these things mediates the way in which God interacts with the community, and how the community receives and perceives God.

God is seen as a verb, a doer, Yahweh is the one who ... And yet, to have God fully uttered, fully named, a complete grammar must be built.

Perhaps this small bit has given you a flavour of the nearly 800 pages of this work. Brueggemann looks to provide a way of looking at God, without becoming rigid and inflexible. As a companion to this work, I would recommend 'God in the Fray' which is a tribute to Walter Brueggemann published shortly after 'Theology of the Old Testament', and has scholarly reactions to some of his major points.

Perhaps it is a feature of being part of a military-consumerist culture, to which might be added, media-saturated, but the idea of truth coming forward from the text and only the text seems unsatisfying in some regards. A failure of the courtroom method can be easily demonstrated. Testimony does not create reality in the ontological sense -- imagine an archaeologist finding, 5000 years from now, reports of courtroom proceedings with reports that juries returned not-guilty verdicts. In what sense would this non-guilt be a reality? While the defendants would be de jure not guilty, in fact they might have been guilty, and the testimony was simply unconvincing. The resolution to this problem, the link between testimony and more basic, ultimate reality, is not very clear. Perhaps it has no place in Old Testament theology, but that requires a fairly narrow definition of the field.

Also, is it indeed true (as Brueggemann intends) that there are no categories which are appropriate for all cultures and times? After all, there are certain universal principles in the physical world, and there are certain universal principles in language, such that while each retains a unique flavour, they can all be interpreted (albeit imperfectly) by other languages (Linear B and such illusive language bits notwithstanding). Of course, with regard to Old Testament theology, the universal constant will be the text itself.

Brueggeman warns against reductionism, saying that conventional systematic theology cannot seem to get a grasp on the polyphony of voices in the Old Testament text. He warns against coming to narrow, flattened conclusions, and does not accept the possibility of ontological arguments vis-a-vis knowing the Yahweh behind the text, stating that, like a courtroom drama, truth is constructed and made real through testimony. The key element in Brueggemann's character seems to be justice, and it is a very communitarian approach.

Of course, this makes the ultimate knowledge of God a never-ending quest. The text will always be subject to re-reading with cultured eyes and renewed interpretation (realising that 'literal' reading is itself an interpretation, and the 'literal' reading of the text today is quite different from the 'literal' reading of the text a thousand years ago, and will be different a thousand years from now).

Walter Brueggeman has written his Magnum Opus in this book. He sets up the scenario of a law court and God is in this sense on trial. The question of the righteousness of God is dealt with (130ff) and answered by all the witnesses. Brueggemann brings out the polyphonic voices of the text as witnesses to the God of Israel concerning who he is (the nouns), what he will do (the verbs), and how he is to be served and much more. As usual with Brueggemann the exodus and exile are primary motifes, but more than that the kingship of YHWH over Israel and the world (He is depicted as creator). The most interesting point that Brueggemann makes for me concerns the nature of evil. Brueggemann sees evil as chaos or the messing up of God's good creation. It is not that evil is something added to creation, but instead subtracted from it. Brueggemann, throughout, brings up modern day world events in order to make application. This is an area in which the Church needs to listen and take note, because Brueggeman is skilled in this area.
He really does not leave any stone unturned and deals with the entire Old Testament. Get this book! It is worth the time and the money.

Any serious student of theology must not miss the excellency of this book. Brueggemann with his two doctorate degrees is qualified and his writing experience of about 20 other books makes him the man of the hour for Old Testament.
He painstakingly starts with Luther and brings the movement of theology up to present in numerous chapters. He is not afraid to address the issues most have in weakness or inability not addressed. He starts to build upon the foundation that Yahweh is Yahweh in relation and that Israel is the witness of Yahweh. Their witness is recorded in Old Testament Scripture.

Using verbs, adjectives and nouns we can start to see Yahweh in relation, action and his character. He is not afraid to deal with testimony and countertestimony. Nor is he afraid to reveal and deal with tensions between issues where most have avoided or compromised. Neither does he soft stroke the Psalms of complaint in contrast to the high Psalms of faith and praise. Neither is he soft when he mentions Israel's commitment to justice in "alternative to the deathly ideology of technological, military consumerism".

He beautifully reveals Yahweh's relation with Israel and with the world. God's care for the world and the suffering of humanity. And revealing to all including Christians that the "Law" is not the legalistic document portrayed by most as supposed in contrast to "Grace". Israel with joy received Torah and it brought order to chaos.

Although he touches on the Holocaust a few times he never brings a conclusion into his book on the subject. He leaves you wondering what he thinks and why he brought up the subject. I would like to have had his thoughts and some insights from scripture. Just the mention of the Holocaust brings questions and a thirst for more understanding.

Your understanding of theology, Old Testament theology and of the intricate God of the Bible will be profoundly expounded and expanded. A must and a delight!

The information is good, the book itself not so much. It was SO DRY and I got annoyed at how much he repeated the same information over and over again. By the end of the book I just wanted to grab the author and say "I got it the first 3 times you said it!!" *sighs* That might just be me though... the information in the book was good though. :)

For years, I have been trying to discover the cultural background of the New Testament. Malina answered a lot of my questions in very helpful ways. I enjoyed the variety of subjects that he covers, and his paragraphs comparing contemporary and first century cultures were quite helpful. The concepts he describes in the first century Mediterranean culture exist in many cultures today, which can be useful if one is involved in any cross culture work. This book made my research and teaching deeper and more interesting. I would highly recommend it to any Bible scholar. (I am a minister and seminary student.)

This book provides great insights into the culture of 1st century Palestine and gives fascinating insights into the psychology of the individuals present in the world of the New Testament. While other books cover well the radical challenge that the teacher Jesus made to financial and political systems of the time, this book makes very clear that the revolution he really sought was one involving consciousness itself - an entire (and to some, incredibly threatening) transformation of foundational values. Very readable as well, not too academic or full of needless jargon.

Malina's book was written for "the beginning student of the New Testament" and he has achieved his goal, although intermediate and advanced students will benefit as well. He covers a wide range of subjects (e.g., honor and shame, group vs individual personality, social status, envy, kinship and marriage, clean and unclean) with sufficient depth to get his points across. Personally I would have preferred more in depth discussions and certainly more documentation, but perhaps that would have made a much larger book.

Malina's discussion provide insights into the broad sociocultural and psychological constructs which were operational at the time of the 1st millenium. Thus, they help us understand the customs and language of the New Testament where we might otherwise fail to grasp a critical saying or event. For example, his chapter on envy puts into perspective one of the chief motivations for the conspiracy to kill Jesus, which might otherwise not be apparent. In this same vein, his chapter on maintaining social status goes a long way toward explaining what appear to be strange greetings between Jesus and his prospective followers.

The book is not perfect. The writing style tends toward the academic, yet it lacks the true scholarly flavor some might be searching for. Perhaps this comes from the attempt to make academic material more accessible to the general public. I certainly recommend it as a supplementary text for anyone interested in understanding Jesus and his time period.

If you ever wanted to read the Bible and truly understand the text behind the text, then this is the book you want to read.

Malina does a wonderful job of giving us insight in to the world that is 1st Century Judea. He brings out the cultural scene of the times to aid us in the understanding of what it was like to be someone in this time period.

Malina breaks down the culture based on the 4 levels of understand. They include kinship, power, religion and economics. He discusses the impact that kinship and power had on this era and how these two items were most prevalent in terms of how people viewed each other. Kinship is broken down into blood lines, where you were born, gender issues and so forth in a way that amazes a reader when it comes to truly seeing the time. Power discusses the fine art of challenge and repose and how challenge was used to try to break down status of an individual (why do you think the Pharisees asked Jesus so many questions???? To lower his power. Funny how Jesus always wins.). Malina discusses the impact of shame and honor and how that plays a role in the family and community.

For anyone who really wants to understand the message behind the text of the Bible this is a must have volume for your library.

I'm not sure the narrative is very believable though.

The tale is an odd hodge-podge of vaguely interlinked stories about a 'supreme being'.

It's a bit like L.Ron Hubbard but with more speaking snakes.

No fears? Aren't you supposed to fear the self proclaimed "jealous" god of the old testament? This book is hilarious and probably helps kids convert away from christianity.

Yea, Extreme is a lame word in popular culture. Congratulations to everybody who thought their acknowledgement of this was impressive. And yo, kid who was cool enough to use the word "excruciating" while dissing the Bible, did you know "excruciate" was a word that was made up to discribe the pain that Jesus went though for you? Yea, it was so bad that there was no word in existance for it yet. Boy, you're wicked smart. Wish i was that cool.

If even ONE of you internet nerds had made even the slightest witty/intelligent or otherwise noteworthy remark concerning the Holy Bible, i'd be inclined to give you kudos. But in this case you've merely suceeded in making Jesus look at you and realize the apposable thumb was wasted on you. Have fun writing the rest of your reviews on books you've never purchased. Might take you a while, but at least you'll be busy doing that rather than procreating and contributing to the breeding of ignorant people.

Halfway through John's Gospel and already I knew I wasn't extreme enough for this book. JC filled me with an urge to snowboard down the Rockies while screaming "screw you Satan" during my run. I almost ran out and got WWJD tatooed on my forehead. Man, that woulda been extreme. So instead I settled for some Extreme Mountain Dew and Yogurt bars while I played Tony Hawk pulling off my signature move (you guessed it), Christ Air.

But I'm not giving up on JC, oh hell no. I may not be Extreme enough for the Extreme Bible, but wait until the "Holy Bible: IM Version (LOL)" comes out. I'm all over that. Christ and I will be ROFLing at all you sinners as we chat it up. OMG I can't wait! Ok, gtg ttyl lol!!!111

I hate it when people make reviews of the Bible like it is just a regular old book. This "book" has more truth in it then any other book in the world. So if you are not a Christian don't right a review. You don't know what you are talking about. Now I haven't read this inparticular version, but I do have the NCV version and it is the best Bible a teen could own. Its easy to read and has lots of facts stuff into it to help you understand the Bible. The Bilble is not to be taken as some old random story but very literally. Millions are pursicuted every day because of their beliefs in it. I highly recomend this Bible for young teens.

For you ppl who r gonna say "Prove the Bible is true." Well then I say to u "Prove that it is false," and I garntee that ur answer will b that it is true. So for crying out loud just check up on it ur self.


JESUS MY OWR WORLD!!!!!!!!

Most Christians do not know the origins of the gospels they read, or that are read to them on Sunday mornings. FEW realize that the four canonical gospels, as they have reached us some 2000 years after they were written, differ widely from each other when read "horizontally." (Reading 'horizontally' means comparing the four gospels side-by-side to see just how very different they really are.) Biblical scholars pretty much agree that the earliest, and shortest, gospel was attributed to a man named Mark. We say "attributed" because the precise authorship of any of the gospels is really not known. They were all written anonymously, from 25 to 70 years after the death of the Jewish healer and sage named Yeshua Bar Yosef (you know him better by his Romanized name: Jesus). Following Mark, the gospels according to Matthew and Luke appear some 15-20 years later, around the year 50-55 C.E.

But these gospels of Matthew and Luke contain much that Mark's gospel does not have, so biblical scholars have posited that these two writers, Matthew and Luke, must have had additional sources from which they borrowed in order to write a fuller, more detailed gospel than their predecessor Mark had available to him. Much of the difference amounted to a series sayings (with additional narratives to round them out) that are only found in Matthew and Luke-- but not in Mark.

When the gospel of Mark is "subtracted" from those of Matthew and Luke, the remainder constitutes what scholars determine to have been this mysterious source material, called "Q"-- ("Q" from the German word quella, meaning "source.") This ancient source "document" is not something that scholars could actually lay their hands on. This Gospel of Q was basically a "sayings gospel," with no narrative added to enhance or detract from the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, no version of it has physically survived the ravages of time-- and the early Church Fathers-- who likely regarded it to have been a threat to the early Christian church as it was being invented, defined and refined by them. Its existence was arrived at by a process of inductive reasoning, in much the same way that Sherlock Holmes solved mysteries by perceiving clues that were all around, but that other investigators failed to see.

This book, "The Lost Gospel, the Book of Christian Origins" by Burton L. Mack thoroughly dissects this mysterious, multi-layered source document and presents a readable and most informative treatise on the contents of "Q" as a gospel source, adding richness and depth of understanding to the quest of those who want to know the who-what-where-when and why of the gospel traditions that inform the doctrine and tenets of Christianity today. If you're looking for insights into perhaps the most influential collection of writings the western world had ever known, this book will do much to enrich your understanding of how the gospels we came to know were written, and the sources which helped to flesh them out.

This book is a moderately interesting read for someone trying to keep up to speed on current bible dialog. However, to contend that the idea of a common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke is revolutionary is extremely naive.

I had classes in both Catholic high school and a Catholic University (70s & 80s) that included study of the Bible . Several things routinely taught are now portrayed as shocking and "shaking the foundations of Christianity." It is commonly understood that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark and some other common source. This other source was even referred to as "Q". We were also taught that the letters of Paul (or some of them) were likely not written by Paul - shocking.

What the author of this book does is take this concept of a common source for the Gospels and build it into something much more concrete that can not (and is not) substantiated.

B.L.Mack writes that there is a frightfull lack of knowledge about the formatiom of the New Tastament among average Christians. His book is an overdue,refreshing, and challenging examination of early Christian origins.and the formation of the historical Jesus movement during the times and circumstances that conditioned it's development The conclusions arrived at are at variance with much of Christianity and it's many manifestations. An excellent read.
Brian Hoadley, Calapan City Oriental Mindoro Philippines.

I found this to be a very informative book to read with a thorough look at the lost gospel of Q. The description given by Mack of the early Jesus people is that of a social movement which dared to experiment in new ways of living together across racial, ethnic, cultural and monetary boundaries. Mack mentions that the tradition that this movement was inspired by, was that of the early cynics, who were the social critics of that era, making pointed comment on human behaviour where ever possible. This part in particular did I find very inspiring to read and it gave me a very refreshing new look at the Jesus figure.

Mack does a great job at covering early research and in showing how the people of Q gradually changed as outside pressures grew. The story of Q demonstrates that the narrative gospels have no claim as historical accounts, and are carefully crafted myths with a powerful political design.

It is clear that Mack knew the difficulties in getting the message of Q to be read and accepted by the majority of Christians.

As he writes:

"The discovery of Q may create some consternation for Christians because accepting Q's challenge is not merely a matter of revising a familiar chapter of history. It is a matter of being forced to acknowledge an affair with one's own mythology. The disclosure of a myth is deemed academic as long as the myth belongs to somebody else. Recognising one's own myth is always much more difficult, if not downright dangerous."

The book is easy to read for the lay person and can be highly recommended. Considering the influence that Christianity has in the world, this book deserves to be read by every Christian and the challenge given by Q ought to be taken seriously and discussed.

Burton Mack's "The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins" came to be a highly informative work on the subject on the origins of Christianity from a look at the lost gospel called the "Q." This book is indeed an interesting analysis of the role of lost gospel and the history behind it.

This work consisted of roughly 14 chapters and close to 260 pages, and it is an easy-to-read. It is with a suggestion that this book to be recommended.

... I had the honor of taking a class in which Dr. Morris taught an overview of the Gospel of John. It was after this commentary had been published. Both hearing Dr. Morris and seeing this commentary have convinced me that although he was somewhat diminutive in stature, he was one of the scholarly giants of his generation.

If I may make a suggestion: when reading Morris' commentary, picture yourself sitting in a classroom with Dr. Morris. Then, as he "speaks", pretend you have the ability to raise your hand and ask him a question. (Had you been in his class, you would have found him remarkably cogent and very approachable.) Treat his commentary as an opportunity to, so to speak, interact with this great scholar.

To expand on my point a little, it seems to me that the point of reading a commentary is not so much to collect "all the right answers" like butterflies in a jar, as it is to have the opportunity to sit next to a gifted student (e.g. Dr. Morris) and listen to him as he tries to figure out what are the correct questions.

I don't want to suggest that reading Dr. Morris' commentary is a voyeuristic exercise. Not at all. Unlike many of our contemporaries (i.e. consistent post-Modernists), Dr. Morris apparently assumed that there is such a thing as objective truth and, through diligent study, we can know more and more about it. Yet, he seemed to have possessed a humility in his scholarship which is missing in the majority of scholars (and "poser" scholars) in every field. That may have been the reason he was such an excellent student and teacher of the Johannine literature. (Plus, he was as sharp as a tack.)

Not only is this a great commentary that can be easily read and understood, but it's footnotes take you even deeper and enrich the commentary for those who really want a scholarly experience. This is definately a tool the serious Bible student would want in his or her own library. This is one volume in a set of New Testament Commentaries, but does not depend on the other volumes. However, now that I have purchased this volume, I plan on buying the others as I continue into other New Testament studies.

I highly recommend this commentary for in-depth study of John's Gospel. Morris cites numerous authorities for insights into the material and then provides his own thoughtful assessment of the meaning and background. He is extremely thorough even to the point of analyzing subtle points of the Greek grammar. This is not a book that you can read quickly. It is for serious study of the Gospel according to John.

Morris' insights into John's text are, for the most part, extremely helpful. Although there are other commentaries on John that are more comprehensive, Morris doesn't get lost in the trees but always takes you back from the trees to see the Forest.

The thing that sets Morris apart from other commentators is his often pastoral insights. He always brings back the text to Christ and his redemptive work. If you are a pastor and want great sermon material, use Morris after your own study, he will not disappoint.

I read the commentary of John 6:52-53 and he says that the phrases "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" can't be an alussion to the Eucharist, because both verbs are in aorist and this would mean that these actions are about a unique and irrepetible event,and we can't say that about the Eucharist.
Well, I want to say this with all the respect, and what I can tell you is that Leon Morris is completly wrong: I went to my Analytical Greek New Testament and I saw that John 6:52 or 53 has both verbs, eat and drink in aorist subjuntive active. After that I looked for identical verb forms in the Gospel of John and I found that if you go to John 17,10 you will read this:
"If you OBEY my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love".
Well, in the Greek Text the verb "obey" is in aorist subjuntive active voice, just like John 6:52 or 53. If we follow Leon Morris definition of the aorist, this would mean that it is enough to obey Jesus only once in a lifetime, and we will remain in Jesus'love forever. That's simply absurd and anti biblical. Read John 15:6. Leon Morris gives us a sample of how a heresy (the zwinglianism = salvation is sola fide, sacraments are nothing but symbols ) can make a good scholar be faithful to Zwingli, and forget about a good service to God's Word. If you go to Mark 7: 3-4 you will find that the greek verbs that the NIV translatates "give...a ceremonial washing" and "wash" are also aorist, subjuntive, and they can't be understood as "once in a lifetime" action:
"The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they GIVE their hands A CEREMONIAL WASHING", holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they WASH. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles" (Mark 7:3-4). The meaning is clear, the pharisees wash their hands each time that they came back home from their market place, and the same way Jesus tells us that each time (ean me) we eat Jesus flesh, Jesus gives us eternal life. Luther was right in this point, and Zwingli and Leon Morris, his disciple and not so good greek scholar are wrong.

While Banks provides some good insight into Paul's view of community, he overemphasizes a discontinuity with not only Paul's contemporaries, but with the OT teaching of community.

Also, He draws conclusions from texts about church size and gender role without considering the wider accounts. For example, in arguing for a house church-sized congregation he makes the statement "There is no suggestion that Christians ever met as a whole in one place" (p. 32). But he does not consider the claims of Acts 2 where thousands are gathered in one place. Nor does he address sufficiently the struggle to determine normative practice from descriptive conclusions.

Lastly, he glosses over meanings of biblical words offering questionable definitions without citation.

The result is a reconstructionist view of Paul and his view of community that I think falls short.

Banks' book does away with all arguments for the existence of the institutional church. Although this is not his stated aim... his work nevertheless communicates this truth.

I enjoyed Banks' investigation of other communal groups and his comparison of Judaism and the cults to what Paul was doing with the ekklesia. Banks' book reveals that Paul's idea of community was unique to anything in his day. Paul was intentional in his planting of house churches.

For those who desire to learn about the primitive church in the book of Acts. This book is for you. Banks covers many aspects of early church practice. He discusses the freedom of the Holy Spirit, the church as oikos (family), the gifts and ministry, the headship of Christ vs. the hierarchal leadership of man, and the role of the woman and slave within the community of believers. He discusses Paul's distinct use of words to describe the kind of community Christ desires for his Body.
I highly recommend this book.

I also suggest reading:
* Going to the Root: Nine Proposals for Radical Church Renewal
The Centrality of Jesus Christ (Works of T. Austin-Sparks)
Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Faith in Community
Pagan Christianity: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices

Banks provides useful historical context in constructing Paul's understanding of community and early Christian interaction. The sum of his writing is a fairly concise vision of the early church presented with considerable breadth and above average clarity. If nothing else, Banks provides a readable summary of the issues at hand in the field. Sometimes, his conclusions tend to be unambitious: they do not seem to contribute much to the current field and many of the arguments and discussions he engages in are self-evident.
He does, however, prove to have some shortcomings. Primarily, I was offput by the complete lack of notes and extratextual explanations. Paul is complex and hundreds of years of commentary on the subject deserve more than (sometimes paltry) primary text citations and a by-chapter bibliography. The careful reader needs more to unlock the specifics of the theories presented and the definitions of problematic terms.
Other smaller issues also were apparent while reading. Acts was used to fill in the holes left by the spotty nature of the letters. That attitude, without explicity questioning the historicity of such a jump, is dangerous and presumptuous. More explanation of such evidence or the simple exclusion of it would have been helpful and more concise.
The last primary issue I had was that Banks, I think, does not extend his ideas far enough and reach into the motivating factors of Paul's actions. Why these types of communities? What motivated him? Why was it this way? These questions are not answered or distinctly addressed. Without that, we are left with a nonapocalyptic, watered-down version of the historical Paul that, while interesting, is not as rich or deep as it could be.

I am a youth pastor in a local church. I have often struggled with the current model we have of the American church. The traditions we hold so dear are so often not based on clear New Testament teachings. I have longed for a church where "one another" passages are lived out, where accountability is strong, where the pastor is not a CEO but a servant, where leaders are biblically chosen and where the Church is not divided on various theological camps. The only place to usually find this, sadly to say, is in cults (where the gospel is not preached in its power or truth).

Banks will offer you hope if you are like me and you are burned out on "church as usual." He will challange you to examine Scripture with fresh insights into house churches in their historical context. He will challange your notion of "Church" in our westernized thinking and will lead you to a biblical and fresh restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ. We must move away from the Institutionalized church and return to the New Testament pattern that Banks gives in detail in this book.

This review applies to the revised edition of Banks' book.

Banks is convinced that Paul, though not the first to formulate the concept of "community," was a major contributor to the idea as it applied to the church. Paul's global concept of church/community of believers includes (but is not limited to)the following ideas, each of which are discussed by Banks: (a) church as a household gathering; (b) church as a group characterized by a 'radical new freedom' (independence, dependence, and interdependence--all Banks' words); (c) church as a loving family; (d) church as a functional body; (e) church as a diverse group (in terms of role and function), yet characterized by unity.

The book is very lucidly written and amazingly accessible for an 'academic' work. The way Banks writes makes obvious that he understands the minds and lives of lay people (he's a professor of Ministry and Laity). This book could even be used as a study in a small group setting, but there is no study guide, so discussion leaders would need to provide their own questions.

I recommend this book.

The "Book Of Revelation for Dummies" is a great book for individuals who wish to study the Book Of Revelation. I have read several books on Revelation and this one really helps you understand the prophecy contained within the Book of Revelation. I would recommend this to everyone who is studying or wishes to study prophecy in the Bible.

Yep we get it, its hard to figure out exactly what happened 2000 years ago. So why write a book about it?

Sorry Prof., I've got to think your classes are snoozers not shockers. (but then I don't live in the bible belt.}

Anyone who wishes to learn more about the apostles and the New Testament will find this very interesting and an easy read.

Whether one agrees with Erhman or not this is a fascinating read. He is a scholar who knows the Fundamentalist mind (with Moody Bible Institute in his background), and he takes the biblical text very seriously. He's a great writer and this book is easily accessible to the one who is not a professional.

From the Introduction: "Historians do their best to reconstruct past events based on surviving evidence, but history is not an empirical science that can establish high levels of probability based on assured results obtained by repeated experimentation. History is as much art as science" (xiv).

From Chapter 7: "Has there ever been a Christian figure as controversial as the apostle Paul? It was a new understanding of Paul's letters that led Martin Luther to split from the Catholic Church, leading to the Protestant Reformation and a division within Christendom that continues down to our own day. Churches of all description continue to wrangle over Paul's teaching: some insist that his writings oppose women in the ordained ministry, while others argue just the opposite. . . . Debates over Paul--and over who can claim him--are not, however, a product of the modern age: they go all the way back to New Testament times. . . " (89).

Seminary students are not educated until they're read stuff like this--and not just to laugh and snicker and poke holes. Calvin Theological Seminary, where I was given the boot ("My Calvin Seminary Story") sends students out without seriously interacting with such literature. Here is a good book to seriously explore.

His use of the legendary counter-cultural rock group aside, there are
very few new ideas in this book for those who have already read other Bart
Ehrman books. He opens this work taking familiar passages from the New
Testament, standing them next to passages from extra-biblical documents and asking, "Does the historian accept what is found in the Scripture as being historically accurate and what is found outside of it as inaccurate? On what grounds?" (Introduction, p.xiv) He rightly reminds the reader that every writer, both ancient and modern, has an agenda that must be understood if you are to correctly understand the document, "This is especially true of the early Christian Gospels." (p.10)

Let me state from the outset, I like Bart Ehrman. He is an accomplished scholar; he is a good writer (I enjoy reading his work and typically read every word); and he is a charismatic lecturer (I have sat in on one of his lectures). I agree with many of Ehrman's thoughts and I especially applaud the fact that he is forcing us to think more critically about the New Testament. *sigh* Glad I got that out of the way.

Ehrman challenges you to read the NT gospels "horizontally," meaning to compare stories from Mark's gospel to the same story in Matthew or Luke. His purpose is to make you see the various differences and to question which version is trustworthy. He cites a few examples to get the discussion rolling, something he does in his other books, but his objective is not just to "help" you understand better. I would recommend that a reader have some other materials in front of him when reading Ehrman, thus reading him more horizontally. He has a tendency to present data with only his desired emphasis. Yes, Bart Ehrman has an agenda.

He begins with Peter. The discussion on Peter is not as potent as that on Paul and Mary Magdalene, but he does bring out the various extra-biblical documents regarding Peter which is good for anyone interested in this subject matter. Ehrman always does a good job of introducing extra-biblical works and these are the texts he uses in his study of Peter: the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Pseudo-Clementine writings. He gives a good overview of why scholars have doubted the Petrine authorship of the NT documents 1 and 2 Peter. He also does a nice job of illustrating from the early church writings why Peter should not be called the first pope, or even the first bishop of Rome. There is not much else in the section on Peter that demands comment. It is here, however, that I must offer my first scholarly critique - Ehrman consistently points to his other works in footnotes without any explanation. I realize these works are meant for a popular audience and not to be academic writings, but he could do a better job here. For example, Ehrman makes it clear that he believes the sermons of Peter contained in NT Acts are basically nothing more than the author of Acts putting forth his own views in the mouth of Peter. (pp.66-67) This is a text-critical statement, highly relevant in the overall thesis of this book. Yet rather than give the reader some explanation, some supporting data for this extremely important point, Ehrman points you to another of his books on the New Testament in the first footnote.

[If you follow that footnote (I do not yet own that particular Ehrman text) you will likely find that he is referring to a famous passage of the fourth century Greek historian, Thucydides, in his "History of the Peloponnesian War," where he states that he will do his best in the lengthy speeches he records to give the reader the gist of what was said, but that he obviously cannot remember every detail word for word. Most biblical scholars believe that the author of NT Acts does this in the sermons recorded. Fine. But if Luke is the author he would not have been present for Peter's early sermons. It would do the reader good to know that the Greek in the early portions of NT Acts, especially the sermons, is quite different from the Greek in the latter part of Acts where the author is supposedly giving an eye witness account. The early sermons contain Aramaisms, phrases in Greek that are obviously translations of Aramaic. Luke's presentation in the early chapters of Acts most likely comes from early Aramaic sources. Ehrman knows this, or least is familiar with the theory, but has decided not to acknowledge it. As he argues, Peter is supposedly illiterate and it is likely that he
only spoke Aramaic - any writing attributed to Peter (all we have is in Greek) is likely to have been written by someone else, maybe Peter's personal scribe. Ehrman gives a good account of this in chapter one, then does an excellent job in chapter six, showing that it is highly unlikely for Peter to have written any document with his own hand. I laughed out loud in my study while reading his humorous sarcasm on page 76 - good stuff.]

The section on Paul opens in typical Ehrman style, showing how the three accounts of Paul's conversion in NT Acts have differences. Similar to the empty tomb accounts there are differences, yet the basic thrust of the story is the same: Paul is on the road and has a phenomenal (supernatural) encounter with the risen Jesus, and somehow this is witnessed by his traveling companions. Ehrman points out several items to illustrate that "Luke doesn't have the details right." (p.97) Ehrman cites examples that are disputed by other scholars, but he fails to mention this even in a footnote.

On page 98 he points to the sermon recorded in Acts 17 - Paul is speaking to philosophers and says that God has overlooked their ignorance. Ehrman says that Paul would have never said this, pointing to Romans 1: "Would he preach the opposite of what he believed?" Ehrman knows that in Romans 1 Paul is referring to those who "oppose" or "suppress" the truth and in Romans 2 Paul sounds very much like the "Lukan" message in Acts 17. He knows this - he just ignores it.

Another example is his treatment of the death of Jesus (pp.143-144). According to Ehrman, Luke portrays Jesus as wrongly put to death, a miscarriage of justice that leads men to feel guilty, which should then lead them to repentance and forgiveness. Paul, on the other hand, views the death of Jesus as necessary, as an atonement. While I basically agree with this argument, Paul makes statements very similar to those made in the Acts sermons about the death of Jesus (1 Thess. 2:14; 1 Cor. 2:8). My point here is that Ehrman finds problems where there might NOT be any problem.

Having pointed out a few places of disagreement, let me say that Ehrman's discussion on Paul is very good. There are many places where he sounds much like N.T. Wright, but many of these ideas are not new. He never references Wright, but then again, I have never seen Wright reference Ehrman (I have not read more than a couple works of either author).

The section on Mary Magdalene, in my opinion, is the best part of this
book. Ehrman shines brightest not when offering his take on New Testament passages, but when he discusses Gnostic writings. He reminds (or informs) the reader that "not much is said" about Mary in the earliest source documents. (pp.185-187) Mary Magdalene appears more frequently, and with more fantastic flare, as we move further away from the first century - Ehrman's presentation of this is excellent. (pp.248-249) What Ehrman succeeds in doing with this examination of the various Gnostic writings, contrasted with the NT documents, is to illustrate the struggle the early church had with the questions of gender, sexual relationships, and leadership.

Indeed, the early church leaders struggled with many issues as this new understanding of spirituality challenged old ideas of race, class, gender, and nationality. How difficult it must have been during the first century to understand (and apply) Paul's radical statement, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal.3:28) There were bound to be disagreements and struggles!

But let's not invent problems. Ehrman is obviously a proponent of gender equality - he makes equality statements throughout the book. Fine, but he basically accuses Gregory the Great of misogyny (pp.190-192) when he comments on Gregory's homily regarding the anointing of Jesus by the sinful woman. Gregory assumes this woman to be Mary Magdalene. Ehrman finds fault with Gregory's application of this text and states, "The only redeeming feature of her body is when it turns from its dangerous acts (dangerous, that is, to the men concerned) and falls to the feet of the man Jesus in repentance and sorrow. It is the sorrowful penitent who is acceptable; that is the kind of woman these texts seek." (p.192) Yes, Gregory is encouraging his hearers to be sorrowful in penitence, even to the point of falling on their knees...but not just women! In Luke 5:8 Peter does the same thing, falling at the feet of Jesus and saying, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" I am sure Gregory would have the same view of Peter's response.

In the end, I do like Ehrman's challenge to bible-believing Christians to re-examine biblical texts. Faith does not rest on the text, but on the resurrection of Jesus. It is also good to consider the message of various Gnostic writings. There were indeed reasons for many of the ancient documents to be rejected by the early church. Ehrman's examination of some of these extra-biblical documents helps to shed light on why many of these did not garner a significant following and were rejected.

R.A. Baker
Ph.D., Ecclesiastical History

Professor Bart Ehrman has written another engaging and insightful book on early Christianity. He examines three of Jesus's most influential followers through the lens of historical perspective, the bible, and early external writings. He shows great insight in the influence each of these figures had on the history of the Western world. Did you ever think about the fact that the historical Peter had to have been an illiterate peasant who spoke Aramaic and it is impossible that he wrote perfect Greek Epistles that applied more to the later church than the 1st century? We must understand that Paul never met the historical Jesus and barely mentions any history of the real man, instead evidence points to the fact that he was the one who began the "Christ" myth. All the gospels and outside sources agree that Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the empty tomb or the risen Jesus, that makes her the first Christian and the pivot point that began the Christian religion. Buy this book for an education on these three figures and what we can really know about them and their impact on Christianity and Western Civilization. Curious minds will not be disappointed.

The title of the book is a misnomer. This book has very little to do with the second coming of Christ. This book is about Christ in you the hope of glory, which is all well and good, too.

Jesus was the master teacher on his own return. He gave many parables explaining what will happen when he returns including the stewards, the virgins, the salt, the talents, the pounds, the vineyard, the wedding feast, the great supper, the goodman of the house, and more. All of these parables show that Christ gives us duties and obligations to do his will. Those who do his will shall be blessed to escape the tribulation. Those who do not must endure the tribulation and wait for the return of Christ in glory with the resurrection of the dead where we are all changed.

The true message of the coming of Christ is seldom heard modernly. I became annoyed earlier this year so I wrote a book on the coming of Christ. It's called Ready or Not, Here I Come. It's available on Amazon.com. Ready or Not, Here I Come Take care, Steven A. Janda

I had always had a deep interest and curiosity about the teachings of Jesus....
Sharing (Cosmic) consciousness in Christ, Yogananda explains all.. from Jesus perspective.... direct and understandable....
My heart filled in appreciation and gratitude.....

(From Mary K)
I have had this book for many years, and I am deeply moved by its contents and vibrations. When I read it, I feel close to both Yogananda and Jesus. To those who find it too ponderous, may I lovingly suggest this: don't try to read the book cover to cover, for the long introduction is actually the most "ponderous" part! Sometimes I simply pray over this book, asking, "What do You want me to see today?" - and then I open the book, and the words are wondrously alive and helpful to my personal spiritual journey. Sometimes I have been in awe at how deeply, precisely, and personally God has guided me with this book. It is a true, timeless scripture written by a great Master.
Other times I simply go to the chapters that pertain to the season. For instance, there are several deep chapters on the Last Supper, Good Friday and the Resurrection. I find all of it deeply helpful to my inner understanding and personal devotion. I believe this book will be very helpful to any sincere seeker who yearns for a deeper understnding of, and inner relationship with, the living, mystical Presence of Jesus.

Ponderous. Very difficult to read. The writing style is so formal that I feel entirely disconnected from the subject which in fact, interests me very much. A shame.

The book is one that is required reading for a class. It is a beautiful book. The print is not too small and is very easy to read. The pictures are exquisite. Of course, as one would expect, it is not fast reading as you have to go slowly in order to take in all the new concepts that are being presented. I have found that I stop a lot just to say "AMAZING". Reading this is a pleasure. It is also a joy to know that the knowlege imparted in these teachings is allowing my Soul to travel further along the path it so desperately wants to follow. This book is truly an incredible interpretation. As I read it, I am amazed at how these words resonate for me, more so than any of the other interpretations read or heard that are circulating today among "Bible scholars". To again hear the true meaning of the words of the Christ is a treasure and the fact that everyone has the opportunity, especially at this time, is a true gift. I thank my mentor for allowing me the opportunity to refresh my memories for, without his guidance, I would never have found this book.

This set is both exciting and compelling. It is truly an "adventure" unlike any other...and to think it is biblical is just so awe inspiring!
I have learned so much about my Judeo-Christian faith that I can only continue to reflect on the truths so eloquently and succinctly presented.
I have been with literally 70 other people who have experienced the same awe I have with this set. I wanted to have my own set to listen to again and again and to open the doors for others to experience the gift of this message through these CD's.

Our church did this Bible study over this past year and I cannot begin to describe how much it has affected those of us who went through it. I am a cradle Catholic and my eyes were opened to so much that we never learned growing up and what I feel is fundamental to Christian beliefs. We were never taught Salvation history and this Bible study explains the Bible, God's plan for us, and how that plan was in place from the beginning of time. We could see God's hand in everything and how it all fit together had us shaking our heads every week in wonderment. I've heard people say there's no point in reading the Old Testament since Jesus came and changed everything or The Old Testament has too much killing and negative stuff in it. I personally feel, especially after doing Great Adventures, that reading and understanding the OT gives us so much insight to God His love for us and His plans for us. I am very grateful our church chose to do this Bible study. I will definately be doing the Teen program with my kids when they get a wee bit older. You do not want to miss this Bible study!

-Jeanne