Kenneth Berding and Matt Williams, ed. What the New Testament Authors Really Cared About: A Survey of Their Writings. Second edition. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
What the New Testament Authors Really Cared About is an
introductory textbook for undergraduates. The goal of this book is to
highlight the concerns of the New Testament authors, as they are laid
out in their writings. Fifteen New Testament scholars contributed to
The first chapter of the book lays out the historical background and
context of the New Testament. It narrates the experience of the Jews
from the exile up to and including the first century C.E. It also
defines the Jewish groups and movements that existed in the first
century C.E., including the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Qumran
community. The final chapter of the book concerns the canonization of
the New Testament. It discusses the development of Christian tradition
from an oral stage to a written stage, as well as the attempts by
certain church fathers to identify books as inspired and authoritative.
The chapter plausibly maintains that the desire on the part of early
Christians to set up a canon may have proceeded from controversies—-with
Marcionites, Gnostics, and Montanists.
The chapters in between the first and the last chapter are about the
New Testament books themselves. A page introduces each book, and the
page discusses ideas about authorship, date, the locations of the author
and the audience, and the purpose of the writing. Overall, the pages
are conservative. They rely on patristic tradition in identifying the
authors of the books. In contrast with a number of critical scholars,
they believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels that
bear their names, that the apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation,
and that Paul wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and the pastoral epistles.
They tend to date the New Testament writings rather early, as in prior
to 70 C.E., even though the Revelation chapter accepts a date for the
Book of Revelation in the 90s. At times, these pages briefly mention
liberal scholarly views and interact with them, or they mention debates
within scholarship, such as the debate over whether Paul wrote to
Northern Galatians or Southern Galatians, or the debate about what
Papias meant when he said that Matthew wrote a Hebrew source.
In the chapters themselves, there are occasional references to
scholarly debates. One of the chapters about Paul, for example,
succinctly differentiates the Old Perspective on Paul from the New
Perspective. The main focus of this book, however, is on the religious
themes that are in the New Testament books themselves. Some chapters
delve more deeply into the historical context than other chapters. The
chapter on the Book of Revelation discusses Emperor Domitian and the
belief that Nero would return. The chapter on Philippians states that
ancient Greeks and Romans did not value humility in their honor-shame
culture, as the apostle Paul did (I did some reading on this, and I find
that to be partly true). Overall, however, the chapters focus on the
content of the books themselves. Some books on the New Testament that
attempt to do this can be pretty boring, in that they regurgitate the
details in the text and fail to offer any fresh insight. I did not find
this particular book to be boring, however, because it did attempt to
clarify the text: the chapter on Mark offers possible reasons that Jesus
wanted to keep his Messiahship a secret; this chapter also explained
details of Mark 13 (e.g., why Jesus said that false prophets, wars,
famines, and earthquakes do not indicate that the end is yet); the
chapter on John interprets Jesus’ changing of water into wine in light
of what Old Testament prophecies say about wine in the eschaton.
What concerns me is what students will not learn from this book.
Students will not learn about Q, the source that Matthew and Luke
supposedly used. Students will not learn that many scholars believe
that Jesus expected the end of the world to come soon. More than one
chapter says that the early Christians taught that Christians should
always be ready for the end because it could come soon, but that is
different from saying that Jesus had an imminent eschatology. There is
nothing about contradictions between the Gospels. The book mentions
that there are scholars who doubt the historicity of certain things in
the New Testament, but, overall, it does not wrestle with that issue. I
am not suggesting that the book should have a liberal perspective.
What I am saying is that, at the very least, a student should leave an
introductory New Testament class knowing about Q, since that will enable
him or her to understand New Testament scholarship better.
When I first took an introductory New Testament class, I heard and
read that the Gospels were diverse in their portrayal of Jesus. How did
this particular textbook handle this? It did so fairly well. It was
not as heavy-handed about New Testament diversity as were the more
liberal New Testament classes that I took as an undergraduate. But it
did not try to force a high Christology (i.e., one that sees Jesus as
God) onto the synoptic Gospels. It highlighted the particular themes in
each Gospel, such as the Gospel of Luke’s emphasis on prayer. It said
that the Gospel of John had a realized eschatology—-one that believed
that the blessings of the Kingdom exist now—-and yet it did not preclude
John from also having a futurist eschatology. The chapter on John did
say that John’s Gospel had the concept of a new covenant, which is not a
term explicitly mentioned in that Gospel, and that did disturb me
somewhat; plus, I wish that the chapter on Matthew explicitly
highlighted the scholarly view that the Gospel of Matthew was a
Jewish-Christian Gospel, since that would make sense of so much of what
the chapter said. I suspect that the book was trying to present the New
Testament writings as diverse yet not contradictory, and that probably
influenced the extent to which it was willing to acknowledge diversity
within the New Testament. Overall, however, the book was not that bad
in its treatment of New Testament diversity.
I give this book four stars because I did enjoy it. I did learn
things from the book, and there were parts of it that religiously
edified me. In terms of whether I recommend this book for
undergraduates, I do think that undergraduates will learn something in
reading it, but not enough to prepare them for more advanced studies in
the New Testament.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from Kregel Academic, in exchange for an honest review.
Acts 4 Explanatory Notes
3 hours ago