The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings | 
 enlarge | Author: Bart D. Ehrman
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Category: Book
List Price: $64.95
Buy New: $48.70
You Save: $16.25 (25%)
New (39) Used (26) from $35.95
Rating:  33 reviews
Sales Rank: 61687
Media: Paperback
Edition: 4
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 592
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 7.5 x 0.9
ISBN: 0195322592
Dewey Decimal Number: 225.67
EAN: 9780195322590
ASIN: 0195322592
Publication Date: October 7, 2007
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Featuring vibrant full color throughout, this new edition of Bart Ehrman's highly successful introduction approaches the New Testament from a consistently historical and comparative perspective, emphasizing the rich diversity of the earliest Christian literature. Rather than shying away from the critical problems presented by these books, Ehrman addresses the historical and literary challenges they pose, showing why scholars continue to argue over such significant issues as how the books of the New Testament came into being, when they were written (and by whom), what they mean, how they relate to contemporary Christian and non-Christian literature, and how they came to be collected into the canon of scripture that we now call the New Testament. Distinctive to this study is its unique focus on the historical, literary, and religious milieux of the Greco-Roman world, including early Judaism. As part of its historical orientation, the book also discusses works by other Christian writers who were roughly contemporary with the New Testament, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the letters of Ignatius. The text is enhanced by maps, timelines, an extensive text box program, and more than one hundred photos. An accompanying Instructor's Manual contains chapter summaries, discussion questions, and a test bank. An updated Website Study Guide provides chapter summaries, glossary terms, and self-quizzes for students.
New to this edition:
* Coverage of new discoveries--including the Gospel of Judas Iscariot--and of recent advances in scholarship
* A revised discussion of the history of Palestine and Judaism, which now appears much earlier in the book (Chapter 3), thereby providing students with more background on the development of early Christianity at the outset of their studies
* A new photo essay on important Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, ten new text boxes, a revised epilogue, and updated suggestions for further reading
* An expanded glossary featuring more than 200 key terms, which are also listed at the end of each chapter in which they appear
* Key terms appear in boldface type the first time they are used in each chapter
* Vivid full color throughout
Ideal for undergraduate and seminary classes in the New Testament, Biblical Studies, and Christian Origins, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Fourth Edition, encourages students to carefully consider the historical issues surrounding these writings.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 28 more reviews...
 Comprehensive September 29, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
This is a very comprehensive study of the New Testament. It thoroughly covers the historical context of the Gospels as well. The only negative aspect I noticed was that it has a secular viewpoint which isn't necessarily bad, only at times rather than explaining the New Testament writings the author seems to denounce them. Overall it is a well researched yet slightly pessamistic view of the New Testament.
 Great for open-minded readers May 5, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
My professor had us buy this book for a NT class. I must say, the required readings were interesting and I enjoyed Ehrmans' non-biased views. I would highly recommend this book for any professor looking for a new textbook.
 Obvious bias February 16, 2008
11 out of 35 found this review helpful
Ehrman's agenda is crystal clear. I cannot recall ever having read a more biased piece of "historical" text than this.
Ehrman claims (in his disordered "Historian vs. Believer" section) that he will not try to persuade the reader into believing one thing or another about what he presents. With Ehrman being a proclaimed agnostic ("deconverted" from Christianity, I might add, for the very reason of being exposed to the historical approach that this book is based on!), it is hard to believe that such a statement could hold true. Upon reading the book, one can easily find out that it does not. The reader does not even have to proceed past the first chapter to witness the first signs of Ehrman's lack of committment toward any type of neutrality. The other one-star reviewers are entirely correct in their statements that Ehrman presents a particular idea, and speculatively accepts it as fact. He then proceeds to base entire sections of the book on these perceived historical "truths," for many of which there is no possible way ever to prove them as being so, such as the claim that "Jesus' disciples never do come to understand who he is," an idea that holds as much historical truth as it's counter-claim; yet Ehrman does not only accept the idea as being obviously true, but uses it to establish a whole other set of "truths," each of which have their own ignored flaws. I must ask in light of this particular claim, how does Ehrman consider the passage:
But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ."
Well, Ehrman concludes that Peter perceived Jesus "only dimly" as the Christ. How? Because Peter rebukes Jesus after he states that he must suffer and die. Therefore Peter misunderstood what kind of messiah Jesus was.
Yes Peter rebuked him, but what if it was only a dissaproval? What if Peter was setting his mind "not on divine things but on human things" through his earthly desire to keep Jesus alive as a good friend? Does this necessarily mean that Peter misunderstood Jesus' messiahship? Ehrman concludes, surely. Others surely doubt it. The fact that Erhman remains so one-sided reveals his true agenda (or at least his ignorance).
Another particular example is Ehrman's claim that "It does not appear that the authors of the early Gospels were eyewitnesses to the events that they narrate." Whether this is true or not, Ehrman not only fails to provide proof of such a claim, let alone some substantial evidence, but continues from that point on as if it were a definitive fact. This is most likely because if he approached the idea correctly (as well as the entire subject of the historical Jesus), as if it were not definitive, the majority of his book would have to be rewritten. Considering who Ehrman is, this would require writing a book that goes against his worldview.
What one gets from reading the book, is that Jesus was just another miracle-working "son of God," claiming to be the messiah (not a crime according to Ehrman), talking about the Son of Man yet to come (also not a crime). So how does Ehrman deal with the fact that Jesus is crucified for blasphemy? Easy. Jesus never commited blasphemy! Rather, the Gospel authors made up that he did because of their own beliefs! So now, what can this say about what Ehrman thinks of Jesus' execution? The obvious answer: either it never happened, or it happened for no apparent reason. This doesn't seem to fit with how scripture reads, but it sounds like a pretty accurate conclusion for someone who takes the Gospels as nothing more than 4 guys making up stories. Remember, these are narratives, but not "real life," as Ehrman states assuredly.
Ehrman also states that ancient writers were not concerned with historical facts but rather with conveying a particular moral truth, simply because modern society is. In addition to such an absurd, ungrounded claim, Ehrman tries to defend the idea using the story of George Washington admitting to cutting down his father's cherry tree. The event never happened, but we Americans today use the story to establish a moral truth (namely, not to lie). Ehrman then concludes that because this story exists, Americans today care more about main ideas than historical accuracy. He then further concludes that this tendency was the same 2000 years ago. Since this is automatiicaly true in Ehrman's mind, it then makes sense to him that historical facts were not only omitted in the New Testament, but "made up"! What's worse than this gross generalization is the obviousness to which Ehrman reveals his agenda...the underminding of Christian scripture, and subsequently Christianity.
Ehrman's technique in persuading the reader towards skepticism is not blatently outright, but rather subtle. He uses specific phrasing, shaky logic, incomplete descriptions and ideas, insufficient development, and somewhat odd organization to create an overall sense of skepticism when considering the accuracy of Christian scripture. He does not challenge Christian scripture outright, but uses gradual development of inconclusive ideas to undermine it's credibility, while completely leaving out any crucial ideas that would support biblical accuracy, or at least other types of biblical inaccuracy. His methodology is very unprofessional, and frankly, somewhat childish. The sad part is that not only is it completely illogical to state that the New Testament is inaccurate as a whole, but the manner in which Ehrman goes about trying to do this is appalilng. I could go on for volumes citing examples of Ehrman's obvious bias, but I find it more important to inform any Christian, and any person (Christian or not) concerned with neutrality within such a genre, to consider another text on the historical approach to the New Testament...not as if any true Christian would be interested in such a subject in the first place.
It is important to realize that most of the historical approach to Jesus can never be definitive in any sense. While it is a "historical" approach, it can never become "history" (unless other ancient manuscripts pop up sometime in the future). Rather, it is grounded wholly on speculation and hypotheses (hence the Four-Source "hypothesis"). MANY prominent scholars and institutions reject the Synoptic Problem and Four-Source hypothesis (including the Roman Catholic Church). There are MANY different solutions to the Synoptic problem. Any "historian" would have to at least acknowledge them. Ehrman fails miserably at maintaining this necessary neutrality.
By now, you are probably steaming. So please, go ahead and click the "No" button next to "Was this review helpful to you?", not because you disagree with the review, but because you're just another internet secularist blindly opposing anything that criticizes ideas representing your worldview, whether the criticism is valid or not. Also, please feel free to comment negatively for the very same reason. Most importantly, realize that if you do either or both of these things, you are simply confirming what I have just put forth. The more the better. Thanks!
The New Testament January 29, 2008
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
My textbook was in excellent shape and is just what I needed for class. Thanks a lot.
Qualified Very Good May 6, 2007
4 out of 10 found this review helpful
Dr. Ehrman gave me a good review/update. I needed this very much as I earned my degree from seminary in 1958 and so much has happened since then. The book was very readable; it was in tended for his students. I appreciated his bibliography. As an historical overview it does not cover all the material that is necessary for a rounded education. Sometimes his conservative Christian theology creeps in to his evaluation of material. I find his insistance that Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet is unconvincing, and it pervades a good deal of his findings of other New Testament books. That John the Baptist was apocalyptic and that the early Christians had among them people who were apocalyptic is not proof of Jesus' position. I feel it is possible, but nopt probable. Read Crossan or Funk for another view.
|
|
|
|
