Engaging the New Testament: A Short Introduction for Students and Ministers

by Miguel G. Echevarría

Many introductions to the New Testament focus on historical-critical issues with only cursory discussions of the text. In Engaging the New Testament , Miguel Echevarría overviews the New Testament writings in their canonical order, showing how each book has a purposeful function within the larger context of Scripture. He provides streamlined and accessible background discussions related to the New Testament writings to enable students to focus on interpretive issues. The book is informed by the latest scholarship yet accessible to those with no prior theological education.

This concise introduction to the New Testament is well-suited to one-semester survey courses. It addresses the needs and questions of students in multicultural classrooms who are studying for ministry. Sidebars encourage readers to think about applying the Bible to various ministry contexts, such as the pastorate, missions, and counseling.

240 pages, Paperback

Published April 16, 2024

Reviews

[Ched Spellman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Helpful introductory treatment of the message of each book and grouping of the NT. There is a blend here of very basic information alongside of intermediate level resources from NT studies. An insightful feature is a straightforward argument for the relevance of the canonical context for reading the NT in its parts and as a whole.

Would be a good first intro textbook for a church Sunday school class or an undergraduate NT survey course.

[Sanjuro · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really struggled with this book. Echevarria has an underlying methodology, apparent both from his conclusions and some thoughts in his introduction, that make, in my view, for slanted and incomplete accounts of the meanings and interpretations of various texts. The more I read, the more these underlying methods manifested themselves, and the more disagreements I had with many of his conclusions.

I will say, before listing a few major issues, I did like a few sections of the book. Some of his thoughts on the climax of Romans were helpful, and many of his thoughts on Revelation were measured and insightful. That said, I had a hard time finding sections of the book in which my problems did not outweigh my points of appreciation. Here are some issues, and these are only some. I had enough issues with the book that listing them all would abuse the medium of Goodreads.

1. The book is an introduction for "students and ministers." In my opinion, most of the book was too elementary for either group. Large portions simply recapped what a person would find on their own by reading the biblical text in question. There simply wasn't enough material that would stretch or challenge anyone with more than the most surface level understanding of the Bible. It would serve better as a book for complete beginners than for students and ministers.

2. In the introduction, Echevarria states that this book is unique among NT introductions, because it is not overly preoccupied with critical matters (such as historical/cultural/social/literary, etc). This is true of his book, but it's worse for these omissions, not better. Echevarria states (but does not demonstrate) that this is better, but throughout the book, I found a myriad of problems with his perspective on texts that would have been enlightened if he had done this important exegetical work. In fact, at one point early on Echevarria states that the use of higher criticism is "curious" among those with a high view of Scripture, but I think the opposite is true. Ignoring these critical methods is an example of a low view of Scripture, as it attempts to protect the Bible from critical analysis, as though the Bible needs our protection. It is precisely by analyzing the Bible from as many angles and methods as possible that we demonstrate a high view of it, because we see in the Bible a beauty that will stand up to these forms of analysis, and a nuanced and complex set of documents that deserves the most detailed analysis possible. Higher criticism done well is not about scrutinizing the Bible, but about learning as much about it as possible. It also demonstrates a high view of the Bible because it respects the historical circumstances that God used to give rise to the texts. In my opinion, ignoring these analytical methods appears motivated by a fear that the Bible can't stand on its own feet - this, in my opinion, is a low view of Scripture.

3. Instead of various critical approaches to reading the texts of the New Testament, Echevarria utilizes theological and canonical methods. As supplements to other forms of analysis, I enjoy and appreciate these methods greatly - but, they are methods that should be supplements to other forms of investigation - not replacements for them. This canonical approach is apparent throughout the book, and, in my view, leads to some really problematic interpretations. There isn't space here for a bunch of examples (because I could produce dozens, my notes in the margins of the book are littered with them), but Echevarria often interprets verses and passages not based upon a careful analysis of the book in which the passage is found, but rather, based upon the canonical order of the book within the larger context of the Bible. This is classical canonical interpretation, and is interesting as a supplemental method, but a biblical book should always be interpreted within itself as a matter of first order. When canonical interpretation is used as a matter of first importance, than those who finalized the canon become more important to interpreting Luke or Paul than Luke's or Paul's own context, and this denigrates the importance of the authors in their own literary production. This process also makes assumptions about the REASONS that certain books were placed in the order in which they were, and these assumptions might be entirely off base. For example, for Echevarria's canonical reading of Paul's letters to hold, we'd have to agree with his speculative reconstructions of WHY the letters were assembled in the order in which they were. But what if he's wrong? What if those who assembled the Canon had entirely different reasons for the book order than those proposed in this book? And because the Canon was slowly assembled over many decades, what if the many people who assembled it had different theological reasons from one another for why they put the books where they did? And what about the fact that the church, both back then and even now, is not settled on the order? This also diminishes the value of the book for ecumenical reasons. Not all branches of Christianity have the same Canon, so what happens to the meaning of passages when the canonical order is different in other traditions?

4. Echevarria takes a predictably standard position on the authorship and dating of various NT texts. His discussions lack nuance, but I expected that he would land where he does. That's not my problem. My problem, however, is that his reasons for his positions make no sense. For example, he dates Matthew and Luke in the 60s because they "predict" the fall of Jerusalem in the Jewish War of 66-70 AD. Therefore, they must have been written before that event. But...they don't. JESUS predicted the fall of Jerusalem in his own lifetime (roughly 30ish AD), and Matthew and Luke only recount Jesus' own prediction. The event needs only happen after Jesus' prediction. When Matthew and Luke record that prediction is irrelevant, so it plays no part in dating those texts. This is one example of several where Echevarria gave a reason for a date or canonical order, and I thought, "That's not really true."

5. There are lots of other small issues. From comparisons of the NT to book series like Narnia (which fail due to the number of authors behind these texts), to comments about the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) that relegate it to a lesser status (despite his explicit statement that he thought he was doing the opposite), to his view, based on canonical readings, that Paul wrote Hebrews, to his reductionistic views of the development of the Canon, to his bold statement that a failure to see typologies makes us "disobedient" religious leaders (which was based on a misreading of Jesus' critique of the religious leaders of his own day). I'll stop here.

It really is the case that I enjoyed a few sections of this book, here and there. But, unless you're a hyper-conservative-Protestant-Evangelical who disregards most forms of analysis in favor of a strictly canonical reading of the New Testament, I think large sections of the book will leave you wanting for a more balanced and nuanced account of the evidence.

[Kristjan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the tagline says … this is a “short” Introduction to the New Testament … although if there is anything new here for ministers, that would be a surprise. The first three (3) chapters provide some groundwork to how the books of the New Testament were selected (very briefly) and how the order of the books work in relation to each other to provide a better understanding of the whole … with the introduction focused on how this is a different type of commentary (it is not really much of a commentary at all in my mind) to chapter 2 (after the lengthy intro) providing the canonical context and connection to “essential elements from the Old Testament until chapter 3 opens a brief discussion on the interpretive approach that highlights the concept of the New Testament being the Old Testament fulled. It is a completely orthodox approach that even champions a very early Gospel date based strictly on the “prediction” of the temple destruction (despite the consensus being more weighted toward after). Regardless, it is still a pretty solid approach to the New Testament that few christians would oppose as not legitimate.

The bulk of the work begins in Chapter 4 with a look at the Gospels themselves … after a brief summary of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, it dives into each with a section of its own. Each section is organized into a quick analysis of the style and purported intent of the book, followed by a brief outline and overview (with commentary that is focused on the thematic cohorts found there in … making this the largest part of the section for a given book), canonical function (how it fits and the reason for the order within the canon), then authorship, dating and audience (very rudimentary treatment here) before closing out the chapter with suggested resources. All in all, it is well organized and good, if very basic information on the New Testament; although I am incline to disagree with some of the provided exegesis/commentary (my objection is not really that material to the over all message). So … Not only do you get a solid overview of the Gospels, but you also get a pretty good summary of the what and why of Paul’s letters and the rest of the New Testament (including the catholic/universal and John tradition letters) that is largely responsible for how christians actually live their faith … so in that regard, it is actually a good resource to non-christians as well if they are even remotely interest in understanding the scared text of that religion.


The chapters and sections in this work are:

1. Introduction
2. The Canonical Context for the New Testament
3. The Hermeneutics of the New Testament Authors
4. The Gospels and Acts
5. The Pauline Epistles
+ The Pastoral Epistles
6. The Catholic Epistles
+ The Johannine Epistles
7. Revelation

Appendix 1: The Relationship between the Gospels
Appendix 2: The Test of the New Testament
Scripture and Ancient Writings Index
Subject Index

Some of the other points that really got my attention are:

In whatever form it was inherited, Christians were sufficiently aware of its essential contents to discern writings that were in accordance with the normative teachings of the church.

According to Bruce Metzger, “These three criteria (orthodoxy, apostolicity, and consensus among the churches) for ascertaining which books should be regarded as authoritative for the Church came to be generally adopted during the course of the second century and were never modified thereafter.”

Regardless of its anonymous authorship, Hebrews has historically been situated in the Pauline corpus. In the present order, its placement as the last of the letters associated with Paul serves as a link between the Pauline epistles and the Catholic epistles, encouraging believers to persevere in following Jesus into the kingdom, which saints have long desired to inherit.

By the first century AD, there were various translations of the Hebrew Scriptures and recensions of prior Septuagint versions with which Christian communities would have been acquainted. Some were more formal (word-for-word), others more dynamic (thought-for-thought).

In sum, typology opens our eyes to how Old Testament shadows find eschatological fulfillment in the New Testament. We see these in terms of associations between Old Testament types and New Testament antitypes. Most types are realized in the person and work of Jesus.

Mark’s use of Latinisms—such as lepta (two Roman coins, Mark 12:42), praetorium (governor’s home, 15:16), legion (cohort of Roman soldiers, 5:9), and centurion (Roman soldier, 15:39)—points to a Roman audience familiar with such terminology.

Turning water into wine recalls Isaiah 25:6–7, where wine symbolizes the arrival of the messianic age, when God will restore his broken people.

As it stands, Acts provides a canonical bridge between the Gospels and the Epistles. First, Acts shows that the Spirit who empowers Jesus to proclaim the arrival of the kingdom in the Gospels also empowers the apostles to preach the kingdom in Acts.

The placement of Romans at the head of the Pauline corpus testifies to its primacy in the letter collection. In this position, it sets the literary and theological expectations for the remainder of Paul’s epistles. […] He adds, “Not only was it the longest letter, but also it exposited Paul’s theology with greatest detail, showed less historical particularity (except chapter 16), and seemed to provide the final and most profound formulation of Paul’s theology.”

A more contextualized reading of Romans sees works of the law as the boundary markers of Judaism that traditionally distinguished those inside the covenant from those on the outside, such as circumcision, Sabbath observance, and dietary laws. But according to Paul, all that distinguishes God’s people is faith in Jesus Christ.

The Romans are instructed to, among other things, welcome and assist deaconess Phoebe (16:1–2) and be watchful of those who cause divisions among believers (16:17).

The designation “Catholic” suggests that the letters of James, Peter, John, and Jude are intended for a universal audience, whereas Paul’s letters are intended for specific audiences. […] Whereas Paul’s epistles designate the addressees, the Catholic epistles designate the author of the respective letters.

John’s apocalypse is analogous to Jewish texts like 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, where God “reveals” eschatological events through a series of inspired visions.

I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.

#EngagingTheNewTestament #NetGalley

[Ryan Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very accessible, short yet thorough, introduction to the New Testament. This volume is a great resource for pastors, Bible teachers, missionaries, and Christians to have as a reference guide to the 27 books of the New Testament. While outlining them into their natural canonical sections, Echevarría does a faithful job to give substantive background information, as well as outlining the book according to it's intended reading, and providing a summary of authorship/date/audience, along with the individual books contribution to the entire cannon of Scripture. He does a faithful job of connecting (where appropriate) Old Testament references and allusions to show how the New Testament, and the incarnation, life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus fulfills the promises made in the Old Testament. This is a resource I'll come back to time and again when studying and teaching the New Testament.