What do you think?
Rate this book
The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library
An Introduction to the New Testament
From its earliest days as a renegade religion in the Roman Empire through its various schisms and splits to present-day disagreements between Eastern Orthodox followers, Roman Catholics, and hundreds of different Protestant denominations, Christianity has been a source of great controversy--most of it centered on the reading of Scripture. There are those Christian conservatives who view the Bible as the literal word of God and the events detailed therein as historical fact. Other, more liberal Christians see the Good Book primarily as literature, a metaphor for how people should live. Mine the pages of the Biblical Archeological Review and you'll find scientists trying to prove or disprove the historical reality of Old and New Testament events and structures--everything from the Ark of the Covenant to King David's palace. In An Introduction to the New Testament, author Raymond E. Brown, a Catholic priest, ignores the swirl of conflict surrounding the Bible as historical artifact, concentrating instead on the message it contains.
Father Brown analyzes each of the 27 books in the New Testament, devoting painstaking attention to sources, dates, and authorship, as well as commentary on the spiritual, historical, and thematic aspects. He believes that modern-day Bible readers can only interpret it within its historical context. An Introduction to the New Testament, read with a Bible in hand, can only enrich and deepen your understanding of that germinal religious text.
1325 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 1997
189 people are currently reading
1040 people want to read
About the author
Raymond E. Brown
137 books100 followersRoman Catholic priest, member of Society of Saint-Sulpice and a prominent biblical scholar, esteemed by not only his colleagues of the same confession. One of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
April 7, 2018
I finally finished! I have been working my way through this book for years!
A few years ago I decided I wanted a better understanding of the New Testament. Although I’ve read the Bible 20 some odd times over the years, I was still a bit lost at times.
My next step will not surprise most of you who know my ‘quirks’. I checked out a variety of books from the library to find the best book for research. It makes sense in my head.
So, after checking through about 20 books on the Bible I settled on this one. Then a quick trip through Amazon and this book arrived.
Easy, peasy. Unless you’re a snail scholar, of course. I trudged through the studies. But slow and steady. Right? 🐌📖
Anyway, this is a great book. The author is meticulous and explains everything without preaching. No bias, just information. Excellent!
A few years ago I decided I wanted a better understanding of the New Testament. Although I’ve read the Bible 20 some odd times over the years, I was still a bit lost at times.
My next step will not surprise most of you who know my ‘quirks’. I checked out a variety of books from the library to find the best book for research. It makes sense in my head.
So, after checking through about 20 books on the Bible I settled on this one. Then a quick trip through Amazon and this book arrived.
Easy, peasy. Unless you’re a snail scholar, of course. I trudged through the studies. But slow and steady. Right? 🐌📖
Anyway, this is a great book. The author is meticulous and explains everything without preaching. No bias, just information. Excellent!
August 2, 2010
Brown was a very highly regarded academic. Bruce Metzger (who among a lot of other things helped translate and edit the Oxford Annotated Bible) stated that this was the NT Introduction to have, which is enough for me. Brown specialized particularly in Johannine stuff. You should know that he was also Catholic. There seem to be several other really good NT Intros out there, so you should shop around and see which vibe seems best to you.
This is a rigorous introduction to the NT (900 pages packed with substance) that covers each of the twenty-seven books in light of their textual evidence, cultural circumstances, import, and more. There is also a brisk but meaty overview of biblical studies (as of '97, so yes pretty dated, but if you know as little as I do it will still be rewarding) that outlines different forms of criticism (redaction, form, textual, historical, etc.).
To get the most out of it, you should either be prepared to read through the NT as you go through Brown's book, or already have a decent level of knowledge of the NT.
Brown gives a succinct summary of manuscript evidence and delves into textual intricacies to a head-spinning extent. For example, you might have a general awareness of the posited Q document that along with Mark forms the basis of material for Matthew and Luke, but let me assure you that this is just the beginning of the textual confusion. Scholars posit, among other things, a proto-Q text that fed into Matt/Luke and then a later, separate Q doc that fed only into Luke (and maybe even John!), and that thus explains the parables and other material that is unique to Luke. Biblical scholars continually have to work backwards from the extant manuscripts to such conjectured origins, then come up with theories that are based on the tenuous evidence of what’s at hand.
Brown seems to think that the Church intentionally placed books side by side that do not share the same outlook. I think that part of this is that ancients were not concerned with contradictions and inaccuracies in the same way we are. It is difficult to imagine an ancient being distressed that Luke’s local geography is a little off, or that the chronologies of events in two books don’t match up. But also Brown says this since he is on the side of the canon, on the side of the early Church’s decisions, so you should be wary of this as you read. Not to say he isn’t rigorous, fair, and thorough, but when the breaks happen to fall in the Church’s favor, he’s happy to point it out to you.
Brown really likes Paul, who is really hard to like. He is not content with exhaustively analyzing Paul’s letters and the details surrounding them as he has the other books in the NT: He also offers up an impassioned “appreciation” of Paul, this person who did more for Christianity than anyone else outside of JC. For Brown, Paul is directly responsible for opening the religion up to the outside world, and thus eschewing the Jewish rights and traditions that James (the brother of Jesus) and likely Peter wanted to maintain. Thus, if it weren’t for Paul, Christianity may have remained a Jewish sect, or disappeared altogether. The image of Paul is usually of a downtrodden man utterly alone. This is put well by Brown, who becomes uncharacteristically poetic when discussing Paul:
“One cannot help but recognize the grandeur and power of Greco-Roman culture.... Yet here was a Jew with a knapsack on his back who hoped to challenge all that in the name a crucified criminal....” He also calls Paul a “babbling ragpicker of ideas.”
Paul has alienated his own people; but he is also mocked by the Gentiles. He is in constant danger (see II Corinthians, 11:23-29 for an astounding passage). He had been stoned, whipped, nearly drowned, imprisoned, and threatened several times over. Violence and hostility were simply a part of his life.
In Romans, Paul differentiates between “strong” and “weak” Christians. The former deems it unnecessary to honor holy days and are convinced they can eat anything and drink wine at their discretion. The latter are cautious about what they eat and drink and observe all holy days. I think Paul might evoking the contrast btw JC and John the Baptist: JC came “eating and drinking” while JBap fasted and abstained; JC was strong, JBap weak. What you can infer from this is that the strong need not be bound by man-made laws, as JC himself was often indifferent to such laws.
So it’s fascinating to consider that most sects of Christianity have a rigorous system of observances that they tell their congregations they should follow (in Catholicism more than any other). Hence, it’s clear that most Christian sects treat their congregations as if they are in the “weak” camp (and I envision that this mischievous Pauline passage is not read in many church services).
Brown does a good job emphasizing that each of Paul’s letters was written to a specific community undergoing specific problems. A particular letter was not intended to provide a codified bulwark on which to put the religion. He notes that Paul contradicts himself, and that his views are more elastic than is often credited. But still, no amount of verbal somersaulting will disguise the fact that Paul was drearily patriarchal and homophobic (anachronisms, sure), fanatical, unbalanced, and of course relentlessly dogmatic.
The part on the Book of Revelation (Rev.) is good reading since that book more than any other requires a detailed glossing. What you come away with is that Rev. was a book primarily condemning the Roman Empire for, among other things, its persecution of Christians. Rome wants its people to be subservient, to worship the emperor like a deity. Jews and Christians usually refuse to do this. Rev. is a not entirely wholesome promise that revenge will come to mighty Rome (along with this is the childish idea that God “is on our side” and will make the bad guys pay). Rome = Babylon. 666 = Nero Caesar (the letters of his name add up to the number; also, it may actually be 616, Neron Ceaser). The “seven churches” are all communities in Asia Minor. Such point-to-point correspondences should help you not get carried away. There was an entire genre of apocalyptic writing back then. It seems that the end of the world was on a lot of people’s minds. (But maybe this is always the case. Are some generations/time periods more apocalyptic than others? And how does this vary by region?) Seen as an antiRome tract, a kind of revenge story with God as the eternal avenger, a lot of the mystery of Rev. is taken away.
One of the hard-to-grasp aspects of Rev. are the two tiny verses (Rev. 20.4-5) that describe the 1,000 year reign of Jesus and his saints that is to occur before the final resurrection. The Catholic church rejects even a mitigated form of such millennialism (as Brown is quite pleased to point out, not that I blame him), which is remarkable because it flies directly in the face of these two verses. It’s as antifundamentalist a stance as you can have. What’s illuminating is that Rev. has always been given a lower status than other books in the Bible. Even Luther saw it as second-tier scripture, and other early Christians and then later Protestants didn’t even accept it as part of the Bible. It has, according to Brown, the worst Greek of any book in the Bible, to the point of being ungrammatical.
The chronology, not to mention the very concept, of the millenary earthly reign of Christ is quite wacky, but as Brown shows, it’s clear that this belief arose out of a desire to reconcile OT prophecies about the restoration of a Davidic kingdom on earth with latter-day apocalyptic thought. This way, you get it all: Christ reigning on earth for 1,000 years (Davidic-like kingdom), and then shutting up shop for good at the final End Times (Armageddon).
Brown notes that the imagery of Rev. could be seen as putting the contemporary Roman propaganda on its head: instead of the Emperor slaying the dragon, the Emperor is now the tool of the dragon. (Both Augustus and Nero portrayed themselves as Apollo at times. And Apollo killed a dragon at the island of Delphi, which is not far from Patmos, where the Book of Rev. was written. The world is interesting.)
The end of Brown’s book is an appendix dedicated to eviscerating the pop academics who took part in the “Jesus Seminar.” Brown can barely contain his contempt for their project. And this is not due to Brown’s Catholicism; rather it’s due to what Brown sees as the travestying of actual scholarship that the Seminar undertook in order to grab headlines. As Brown notes: “From the beginning the seminar has sought popular media coverage to an extraordinary degree.... Thus, after almost every seminar session bombshell announcements are released to catch the public’s eye....”
Anyhow, Brown notes that actual real-life scholars who won’t appear on the local news or afternoon talk shows have had devastating judgments against the Seminar, stating, among other things, that it is “methodologically misguided” and “insignificant.”
This is a rigorous introduction to the NT (900 pages packed with substance) that covers each of the twenty-seven books in light of their textual evidence, cultural circumstances, import, and more. There is also a brisk but meaty overview of biblical studies (as of '97, so yes pretty dated, but if you know as little as I do it will still be rewarding) that outlines different forms of criticism (redaction, form, textual, historical, etc.).
To get the most out of it, you should either be prepared to read through the NT as you go through Brown's book, or already have a decent level of knowledge of the NT.
Brown gives a succinct summary of manuscript evidence and delves into textual intricacies to a head-spinning extent. For example, you might have a general awareness of the posited Q document that along with Mark forms the basis of material for Matthew and Luke, but let me assure you that this is just the beginning of the textual confusion. Scholars posit, among other things, a proto-Q text that fed into Matt/Luke and then a later, separate Q doc that fed only into Luke (and maybe even John!), and that thus explains the parables and other material that is unique to Luke. Biblical scholars continually have to work backwards from the extant manuscripts to such conjectured origins, then come up with theories that are based on the tenuous evidence of what’s at hand.
Brown seems to think that the Church intentionally placed books side by side that do not share the same outlook. I think that part of this is that ancients were not concerned with contradictions and inaccuracies in the same way we are. It is difficult to imagine an ancient being distressed that Luke’s local geography is a little off, or that the chronologies of events in two books don’t match up. But also Brown says this since he is on the side of the canon, on the side of the early Church’s decisions, so you should be wary of this as you read. Not to say he isn’t rigorous, fair, and thorough, but when the breaks happen to fall in the Church’s favor, he’s happy to point it out to you.
Brown really likes Paul, who is really hard to like. He is not content with exhaustively analyzing Paul’s letters and the details surrounding them as he has the other books in the NT: He also offers up an impassioned “appreciation” of Paul, this person who did more for Christianity than anyone else outside of JC. For Brown, Paul is directly responsible for opening the religion up to the outside world, and thus eschewing the Jewish rights and traditions that James (the brother of Jesus) and likely Peter wanted to maintain. Thus, if it weren’t for Paul, Christianity may have remained a Jewish sect, or disappeared altogether. The image of Paul is usually of a downtrodden man utterly alone. This is put well by Brown, who becomes uncharacteristically poetic when discussing Paul:
“One cannot help but recognize the grandeur and power of Greco-Roman culture.... Yet here was a Jew with a knapsack on his back who hoped to challenge all that in the name a crucified criminal....” He also calls Paul a “babbling ragpicker of ideas.”
Paul has alienated his own people; but he is also mocked by the Gentiles. He is in constant danger (see II Corinthians, 11:23-29 for an astounding passage). He had been stoned, whipped, nearly drowned, imprisoned, and threatened several times over. Violence and hostility were simply a part of his life.
In Romans, Paul differentiates between “strong” and “weak” Christians. The former deems it unnecessary to honor holy days and are convinced they can eat anything and drink wine at their discretion. The latter are cautious about what they eat and drink and observe all holy days. I think Paul might evoking the contrast btw JC and John the Baptist: JC came “eating and drinking” while JBap fasted and abstained; JC was strong, JBap weak. What you can infer from this is that the strong need not be bound by man-made laws, as JC himself was often indifferent to such laws.
So it’s fascinating to consider that most sects of Christianity have a rigorous system of observances that they tell their congregations they should follow (in Catholicism more than any other). Hence, it’s clear that most Christian sects treat their congregations as if they are in the “weak” camp (and I envision that this mischievous Pauline passage is not read in many church services).
Brown does a good job emphasizing that each of Paul’s letters was written to a specific community undergoing specific problems. A particular letter was not intended to provide a codified bulwark on which to put the religion. He notes that Paul contradicts himself, and that his views are more elastic than is often credited. But still, no amount of verbal somersaulting will disguise the fact that Paul was drearily patriarchal and homophobic (anachronisms, sure), fanatical, unbalanced, and of course relentlessly dogmatic.
The part on the Book of Revelation (Rev.) is good reading since that book more than any other requires a detailed glossing. What you come away with is that Rev. was a book primarily condemning the Roman Empire for, among other things, its persecution of Christians. Rome wants its people to be subservient, to worship the emperor like a deity. Jews and Christians usually refuse to do this. Rev. is a not entirely wholesome promise that revenge will come to mighty Rome (along with this is the childish idea that God “is on our side” and will make the bad guys pay). Rome = Babylon. 666 = Nero Caesar (the letters of his name add up to the number; also, it may actually be 616, Neron Ceaser). The “seven churches” are all communities in Asia Minor. Such point-to-point correspondences should help you not get carried away. There was an entire genre of apocalyptic writing back then. It seems that the end of the world was on a lot of people’s minds. (But maybe this is always the case. Are some generations/time periods more apocalyptic than others? And how does this vary by region?) Seen as an antiRome tract, a kind of revenge story with God as the eternal avenger, a lot of the mystery of Rev. is taken away.
One of the hard-to-grasp aspects of Rev. are the two tiny verses (Rev. 20.4-5) that describe the 1,000 year reign of Jesus and his saints that is to occur before the final resurrection. The Catholic church rejects even a mitigated form of such millennialism (as Brown is quite pleased to point out, not that I blame him), which is remarkable because it flies directly in the face of these two verses. It’s as antifundamentalist a stance as you can have. What’s illuminating is that Rev. has always been given a lower status than other books in the Bible. Even Luther saw it as second-tier scripture, and other early Christians and then later Protestants didn’t even accept it as part of the Bible. It has, according to Brown, the worst Greek of any book in the Bible, to the point of being ungrammatical.
The chronology, not to mention the very concept, of the millenary earthly reign of Christ is quite wacky, but as Brown shows, it’s clear that this belief arose out of a desire to reconcile OT prophecies about the restoration of a Davidic kingdom on earth with latter-day apocalyptic thought. This way, you get it all: Christ reigning on earth for 1,000 years (Davidic-like kingdom), and then shutting up shop for good at the final End Times (Armageddon).
Brown notes that the imagery of Rev. could be seen as putting the contemporary Roman propaganda on its head: instead of the Emperor slaying the dragon, the Emperor is now the tool of the dragon. (Both Augustus and Nero portrayed themselves as Apollo at times. And Apollo killed a dragon at the island of Delphi, which is not far from Patmos, where the Book of Rev. was written. The world is interesting.)
The end of Brown’s book is an appendix dedicated to eviscerating the pop academics who took part in the “Jesus Seminar.” Brown can barely contain his contempt for their project. And this is not due to Brown’s Catholicism; rather it’s due to what Brown sees as the travestying of actual scholarship that the Seminar undertook in order to grab headlines. As Brown notes: “From the beginning the seminar has sought popular media coverage to an extraordinary degree.... Thus, after almost every seminar session bombshell announcements are released to catch the public’s eye....”
Anyhow, Brown notes that actual real-life scholars who won’t appear on the local news or afternoon talk shows have had devastating judgments against the Seminar, stating, among other things, that it is “methodologically misguided” and “insignificant.”
January 15, 2015
I’ve read a conservative New Testament introduction before so this time I wanted to read one which at least partially presents the other side. Brown is a Catholic priest, but he does try to show the views of modern scholarship and some of the questions they have on things such as dates and authorship (for example 90% of scholars do not think that the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter). This was a pretty good companion read with the Archeological Study bible, in this one Brown would present arguments why a book say 2 Peter probably wasn’t written by Peter and then in the ASB, it would present arguments as to why 2 Peter might have been written by Peter. This book has impressed me enough that I’m looking for a companion book on the Old Testament; I think it’s useful to at least be aware of less conservative views.
Read
April 11, 2020This book is more in in-depth and scholarly than I bargained for. I did enjoy the “Issues and Problems for Reflection” section related to each book. I ended up scanning most of the book except for those sections. This is my first time reading the whole Bible from beginning to end. His descriptions of Pauli’s letters were interesting to me as I hadn’t thought much about them outside of individual passages. I was struck by how much he had to continue to implore people to keep the faith in the face of persecution and others with differing beliefs. I also loved this quote from the Matthew section...
“Yet one should also recognize that if Jesus were speaking to some 20th-century contexts, he might strike out at the opposite vice. Often a highly secular society would be embarrassed by any pious action, including prayer, and would see no sense in fasting as self-denial. Jesus might well say in such a situation: When you pray, pray publicly to challenge those who never pray, and see no sense in prayer; when you fast, let others see it so that their presuppositions about comfort may be challenged. Readers may find it fruitful to see if there are other injunctions in Matthew that might have to be rephrased to make 20th-century audiences catch the challenge of the kingdom of God. Rephrasing, however, is not without peril because it may lead to presenting Jesus as permissive of what some Christians today would want him to permit. The “challenge” of the kingdom that put stern demands on people should not be rephrased away.” P. 220
“Yet one should also recognize that if Jesus were speaking to some 20th-century contexts, he might strike out at the opposite vice. Often a highly secular society would be embarrassed by any pious action, including prayer, and would see no sense in fasting as self-denial. Jesus might well say in such a situation: When you pray, pray publicly to challenge those who never pray, and see no sense in prayer; when you fast, let others see it so that their presuppositions about comfort may be challenged. Readers may find it fruitful to see if there are other injunctions in Matthew that might have to be rephrased to make 20th-century audiences catch the challenge of the kingdom of God. Rephrasing, however, is not without peril because it may lead to presenting Jesus as permissive of what some Christians today would want him to permit. The “challenge” of the kingdom that put stern demands on people should not be rephrased away.” P. 220
Read
April 13, 2016A useful scholarly introduction to the New Testament, covering its content, current scholarly thought regarding authorship of various books and letters, and forays into the cultural and historical background of authors and events. At 350+ pages, it's still a hefty tome, but the structure is logical, and the format of the chapters devoted to specific books/letters makes it relatively easy to navigate.
stopped-reading
February 8, 2019I ought to read the introduction of the New Testament from other author, Bart D. Ehrman.
September 2, 2012
I purchased and read this book after it was recommended to me by my friend Matt Grey. It was very interesting to read a summary of scholarly thinking about the Bible written by someone who clearly believes in the Bible (Dr. Brown is a Catholic Priest).
The questions raised in this book make me wonder how the spiritual/revelatory value of a book of scripture is affected if it turns out that the book was not written by the person tradition may claim was the author. For example, almost uniformly, Bible scholars do not believe that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Does Hebrews still have spiritual value to me if its author was someone whose identity was lost to the ages? I believe that it does. So long as that person was divinely inspired to write what he did in Hebrews, and God wanted Hebrews included within our canon of scripture, why does it matter who actually wrote it? The same thing goes for the letters to Timothy and Titus, although the question there is much closer because in those books, if we believe the vast majority of the Bible scholars, the pseudepigraphal author pretends to be Paul and was actually writing these letters many, many years after Paul's death.
More troubling for me, however, as a believing Latter-day Saint, is the relatively uniform belief among Bible scholars that John -- the apostle who was the brother of James, sometimes called John the Beloved -- did not write the Gospel attributed to him or the Book of Revelation. There is at least one chapter in the Book of Mormon and a Section of the Doctrine and Covenants that demand that John be the author of those books. According to Dr. Brown, the scholarship on the authorship of John's Gospel and Revelation is not uniform, and thus, it could just be that most Bible scholars are wrong. Unfortunately, Dr. Brown's "Introduction" was not detailed enough -- even at 900 pages -- to allow me to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the several points of view on this issue. I need to get some more books . . .
The questions raised in this book make me wonder how the spiritual/revelatory value of a book of scripture is affected if it turns out that the book was not written by the person tradition may claim was the author. For example, almost uniformly, Bible scholars do not believe that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Does Hebrews still have spiritual value to me if its author was someone whose identity was lost to the ages? I believe that it does. So long as that person was divinely inspired to write what he did in Hebrews, and God wanted Hebrews included within our canon of scripture, why does it matter who actually wrote it? The same thing goes for the letters to Timothy and Titus, although the question there is much closer because in those books, if we believe the vast majority of the Bible scholars, the pseudepigraphal author pretends to be Paul and was actually writing these letters many, many years after Paul's death.
More troubling for me, however, as a believing Latter-day Saint, is the relatively uniform belief among Bible scholars that John -- the apostle who was the brother of James, sometimes called John the Beloved -- did not write the Gospel attributed to him or the Book of Revelation. There is at least one chapter in the Book of Mormon and a Section of the Doctrine and Covenants that demand that John be the author of those books. According to Dr. Brown, the scholarship on the authorship of John's Gospel and Revelation is not uniform, and thus, it could just be that most Bible scholars are wrong. Unfortunately, Dr. Brown's "Introduction" was not detailed enough -- even at 900 pages -- to allow me to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the several points of view on this issue. I need to get some more books . . .
March 2, 2009
A great introduction to the New Testament. Has lots of detailed information for new readers, and detailed breakdowns of each book in the New Testament which are very helpful in interpreting the symbolism and polyvalent messages. Very useful in reading through the New Testament (seriously) for the first time.
July 26, 2021
Note- I read the abridged version (300 + pages) which was a bit tough as it reads more like notes taken on a course than a real book with a normal flow. But I used this book to follow Dale Martin's fantastic Yale U. New Testament course which anyone can see online in YouTube. Totally worth the time if you are interested in a critical history of the New Testament canon and how it came to be.
The New Testament is a founding document of western thought and it is ignored at one's peril. Conservative politicians love to say we are a 'Judeo-Christian' civilization (by which they really mean solidly and immutably Christian with a few commandments carved in courthouses) but this book shows two things, how the Jewish religion spawned Christianity and how diverse the expression of Christianism really was from the start.
There is a lot that one can glean from this book (and those lectures) and that make reading the New Testament a whole new adventure. This book is not a discussion book , it is quite dry and could be considered more of a reference book. But following along with some outside lectures the book confirms some ideas that stand out and that I point out here even though they are not the main thesis of the book or even discussed per se :
a) The notions most people, including Christians, including me, have of the 27 books of the New Testament are woefully incomplete. While reading them for divine inspiration and guidance is perfectly legitimate, in fact, the most common use without a doubt, being aware of the vicissitudes of the physical texts and the different agendas of the authors is absolutely essential to understand these writing. This book doesn't spell the agendas or delve deeply into the historical context out but it points out the salient ideas on every text.
b) Almost from the beginning the manifestations of Christian belief are very diverse and even contradictory. With emphasis on different aspects of the figure of Jesus and its divinity as well as the Law in regards to everything from marriage to food. Most people don't realize for example that evangelists like Mathew were not aware they were starting a new religion but saw themselves as perfecting their own Jewish faith. Again, this book doesn't spell that out but it is there for those who dig a bit deeper.
c) The weight of St. Paul in our understanding of Christianism soars above all others. He wrote 13 books , almost 30% of the New Testament.
d) Some notions about Second temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman world that saw the birth of these documents are so different from our highly mediated perspective of those historical times that the New Testament is almost incomprehensible without them. From institutions like slavery and patronage, to the actual role of the Hellenistic Jewish kings and their enemies as well as the changing attitude of Romans towards the Jews and the actual insignificance -or relevance- in historical terms of events that have been magnified or obliterated out of proportion. Moreover, the majority of these documents were originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.
e) Why only a few texts made it into the final canon accepted as the New Testament and what was the criteria to choose and organize them is a subject on its own. The existence of myriads of other letters and documents is something that most people ignore - may be with the exception of the Agnostic Gospels or St Thomas gospel, a fascinating document rooted in a completely different theology.
f) The enormous amount of quotations and the references to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament. From the structure of the text of its themes and subjects, there is not a single text that is not referencing older books and laws well understood by the mostly Jewish audience.
The book gives every document a header in which the date of composition, author, audience and main structure is described quickly. Then it breaks the text down into its main blocks and offers some special chapters comparing the text to others, most prominently the Hebrew Bible, and elaborating on the salient issues raised in each particular book, some dealing with Christology (did Jesus always exist or was he adopted as the son of god? Was he really a mortal being? Was he really divine?) and other with Liturgy or Church structure or something similar.
It would be pointless for me to offer an opinion on the contents of the book per se or even the literary quality of an abridged version. That said, the book seemed very complete and with no evangelical agenda even though it doesn't quibble with main Christian principles like the idea that the NT can be read as fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible's messianic yearning and assumes some historical facts might be unknowable, resurrections, miracles, etc.. It knows its audience and it doesn't coddle it.
Just for fun, here are some questions about Christianity that most people find difficult to answer (the answers to some of them are in the book, others are not.)
How many wise men went to honor baby Jesus in Bethlehem? What Gospel doesn't mention Jesus doing any exorcisms? Why were Jewish evangelists writing in Greek? Which is the NT book that is closest to the death of Jesus in time? Can you name any gospels that didn't make it to the canonical 27 books? Does the NT mention the Holy Trinity? The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary? Who wrote almost a third of the NT? Why wasn't Paul crucified but beheaded in Rome? Was Paul
a Pharisee? What Roman general gave special status to Jews? What Roman emperor leveled the Temple? What is James opinion regarding gentiles complying with the Law of Moses? What is Paul's opinion on women being active in the Church? What is the only miracle mentioned by all synoptic gospels? What was the Marcian heresy? The Arrian heresy? Have fun.
The New Testament is a founding document of western thought and it is ignored at one's peril. Conservative politicians love to say we are a 'Judeo-Christian' civilization (by which they really mean solidly and immutably Christian with a few commandments carved in courthouses) but this book shows two things, how the Jewish religion spawned Christianity and how diverse the expression of Christianism really was from the start.
There is a lot that one can glean from this book (and those lectures) and that make reading the New Testament a whole new adventure. This book is not a discussion book , it is quite dry and could be considered more of a reference book. But following along with some outside lectures the book confirms some ideas that stand out and that I point out here even though they are not the main thesis of the book or even discussed per se :
a) The notions most people, including Christians, including me, have of the 27 books of the New Testament are woefully incomplete. While reading them for divine inspiration and guidance is perfectly legitimate, in fact, the most common use without a doubt, being aware of the vicissitudes of the physical texts and the different agendas of the authors is absolutely essential to understand these writing. This book doesn't spell the agendas or delve deeply into the historical context out but it points out the salient ideas on every text.
b) Almost from the beginning the manifestations of Christian belief are very diverse and even contradictory. With emphasis on different aspects of the figure of Jesus and its divinity as well as the Law in regards to everything from marriage to food. Most people don't realize for example that evangelists like Mathew were not aware they were starting a new religion but saw themselves as perfecting their own Jewish faith. Again, this book doesn't spell that out but it is there for those who dig a bit deeper.
c) The weight of St. Paul in our understanding of Christianism soars above all others. He wrote 13 books , almost 30% of the New Testament.
d) Some notions about Second temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman world that saw the birth of these documents are so different from our highly mediated perspective of those historical times that the New Testament is almost incomprehensible without them. From institutions like slavery and patronage, to the actual role of the Hellenistic Jewish kings and their enemies as well as the changing attitude of Romans towards the Jews and the actual insignificance -or relevance- in historical terms of events that have been magnified or obliterated out of proportion. Moreover, the majority of these documents were originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic.
e) Why only a few texts made it into the final canon accepted as the New Testament and what was the criteria to choose and organize them is a subject on its own. The existence of myriads of other letters and documents is something that most people ignore - may be with the exception of the Agnostic Gospels or St Thomas gospel, a fascinating document rooted in a completely different theology.
f) The enormous amount of quotations and the references to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament. From the structure of the text of its themes and subjects, there is not a single text that is not referencing older books and laws well understood by the mostly Jewish audience.
The book gives every document a header in which the date of composition, author, audience and main structure is described quickly. Then it breaks the text down into its main blocks and offers some special chapters comparing the text to others, most prominently the Hebrew Bible, and elaborating on the salient issues raised in each particular book, some dealing with Christology (did Jesus always exist or was he adopted as the son of god? Was he really a mortal being? Was he really divine?) and other with Liturgy or Church structure or something similar.
It would be pointless for me to offer an opinion on the contents of the book per se or even the literary quality of an abridged version. That said, the book seemed very complete and with no evangelical agenda even though it doesn't quibble with main Christian principles like the idea that the NT can be read as fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible's messianic yearning and assumes some historical facts might be unknowable, resurrections, miracles, etc.. It knows its audience and it doesn't coddle it.
Just for fun, here are some questions about Christianity that most people find difficult to answer (the answers to some of them are in the book, others are not.)
How many wise men went to honor baby Jesus in Bethlehem? What Gospel doesn't mention Jesus doing any exorcisms? Why were Jewish evangelists writing in Greek? Which is the NT book that is closest to the death of Jesus in time? Can you name any gospels that didn't make it to the canonical 27 books? Does the NT mention the Holy Trinity? The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary? Who wrote almost a third of the NT? Why wasn't Paul crucified but beheaded in Rome? Was Paul
a Pharisee? What Roman general gave special status to Jews? What Roman emperor leveled the Temple? What is James opinion regarding gentiles complying with the Law of Moses? What is Paul's opinion on women being active in the Church? What is the only miracle mentioned by all synoptic gospels? What was the Marcian heresy? The Arrian heresy? Have fun.
July 7, 2008
A little old, but in my opinion, still the best introduction to the scholarly study of the NT for the layman or beginning scholar.
March 26, 2016
To compliment my study of the gospel of Matthew
August 24, 2024
A MASTERFUL NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLARLY RESOURCE FOR "LAY" READERS
Fr. Raymond Brown (1928-1998) was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th century. In this 1997 book (which received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur), he summarizes a lifetime of research on the New Testament, as he did in his masterful books 'The Birth of the Messiah' and 'The Death of the Messiah.' (He also wrote some much shorter and more "popular" books, such as /An Adult Christ at Christmas' and 'A Coming Christ in Advent.')
He explains in the Foreword, "This book is introductory, and therefore not written for fellow scholars. I envision both readers who have become interested in the NT on their own and readers who take NT beginning courses on different levels... this book concentrates on the New Testament, not on 'Early Christianity'... the primary goal is to get people to read the NT books, not simply to read about them... religious, spiritual, and ecclesiastical issues raised by the NT will receive ample attention throughout this book... the book aims to be centrist, not idiosyncratic." (Pg. vii-xi)
He suggests, "In the thesis that Matt and Luke used Mark, we must not assume that their dependence on a written account erased the evangelists' personal memories of what they had heard about Jesus." (Pg. 28) But he also notes, "The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels. In the older approach, wherein the evangelists themselves were thought to have seen what they reported, it was very difficult to explain differences among their Gospels." (Pg. 109)
He admits, "The Roman Catholic position has also undergone changes. The Church formally teaches doctrines that cannot be found literally in Scripture, e.g., Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption... Some Catholics would appeal to a more-than-literal sense of certain biblical passages... Another approach would posit a second source of revelation different from Scripture... Neither of these two views has much knowledgeable following today; indeed Vatican Council II rejected a proposal that would have spoken of two sources of revelation." (Pg. 33)
He explains, "The Roman Catholic Church decided canonicity on the basis of long steady use in the liturgy, not on scholars' judgments about who wrote or copied what. Thus the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 and the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) were designated by the Council of Trent as belonging to Scripture, even though they are missing from many NT textual witnesses. Catholics remain free to accept the judgment of competent scholars that these passages were not part of the original text..." (Pg. 52-53)
Of the Census of Quirinius in Luke 2, he notes, "Historically this description is fraught with problems: There never was a census of the whole Empire under Augustus (but a number of local censuses), and the census of Judea (not of Galilee) under Quirinius... took place in AD 6-7, probably at least ten years too late for the birth of Jesus. The best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately... In Acts 5:36-37 ca. AD 36 he has Gamaliel speak about Theudas' revolt which occurred ca. 44-46 and thinks that Judas 'at the time of the census' came after Theudas, when in fact he was forty years earlier. Those convinced of Bible literalism are hard pressed to explain away all these inexactitudes." (Pg. 233)
Of the authorship of the book of Hebrews, he states, "We have to be satisfied with the irony that the most sophisticated rhetorician and elegant theologian of the NT is an unknown." (Pg. 695) Of Jude's citation of the noncanonical 'Book of Enoch' and 'Assumption of Moses,' he says, "the writer accepts and feels free to cite a wide collection of Israelite and Christian traditions, and is not confined to a collection of written books ever deemed canonical by any group that we know. Thus canonicity may never have entered the writer's mind." (Pg. 754-755) Of 2 Peter, he acknowledges, "Without naming his source, he quotes large sections from the letter of Jude, the brother of James (modifying what might be objectionable therein), thus drawing on a tradition venerated by those Christians for whom 'the brothers of the Lord' were authorities." (Pg. 761)
This is a scholarly text that will be enlightening to virtually anyone---Catholic or otherwise---who reads it (including the FOOTNOTES!).
Fr. Raymond Brown (1928-1998) was perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of the 20th century. In this 1997 book (which received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur), he summarizes a lifetime of research on the New Testament, as he did in his masterful books 'The Birth of the Messiah' and 'The Death of the Messiah.' (He also wrote some much shorter and more "popular" books, such as /An Adult Christ at Christmas' and 'A Coming Christ in Advent.')
He explains in the Foreword, "This book is introductory, and therefore not written for fellow scholars. I envision both readers who have become interested in the NT on their own and readers who take NT beginning courses on different levels... this book concentrates on the New Testament, not on 'Early Christianity'... the primary goal is to get people to read the NT books, not simply to read about them... religious, spiritual, and ecclesiastical issues raised by the NT will receive ample attention throughout this book... the book aims to be centrist, not idiosyncratic." (Pg. vii-xi)
He suggests, "In the thesis that Matt and Luke used Mark, we must not assume that their dependence on a written account erased the evangelists' personal memories of what they had heard about Jesus." (Pg. 28) But he also notes, "The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels. In the older approach, wherein the evangelists themselves were thought to have seen what they reported, it was very difficult to explain differences among their Gospels." (Pg. 109)
He admits, "The Roman Catholic position has also undergone changes. The Church formally teaches doctrines that cannot be found literally in Scripture, e.g., Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption... Some Catholics would appeal to a more-than-literal sense of certain biblical passages... Another approach would posit a second source of revelation different from Scripture... Neither of these two views has much knowledgeable following today; indeed Vatican Council II rejected a proposal that would have spoken of two sources of revelation." (Pg. 33)
He explains, "The Roman Catholic Church decided canonicity on the basis of long steady use in the liturgy, not on scholars' judgments about who wrote or copied what. Thus the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 and the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) were designated by the Council of Trent as belonging to Scripture, even though they are missing from many NT textual witnesses. Catholics remain free to accept the judgment of competent scholars that these passages were not part of the original text..." (Pg. 52-53)
Of the Census of Quirinius in Luke 2, he notes, "Historically this description is fraught with problems: There never was a census of the whole Empire under Augustus (but a number of local censuses), and the census of Judea (not of Galilee) under Quirinius... took place in AD 6-7, probably at least ten years too late for the birth of Jesus. The best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately... In Acts 5:36-37 ca. AD 36 he has Gamaliel speak about Theudas' revolt which occurred ca. 44-46 and thinks that Judas 'at the time of the census' came after Theudas, when in fact he was forty years earlier. Those convinced of Bible literalism are hard pressed to explain away all these inexactitudes." (Pg. 233)
Of the authorship of the book of Hebrews, he states, "We have to be satisfied with the irony that the most sophisticated rhetorician and elegant theologian of the NT is an unknown." (Pg. 695) Of Jude's citation of the noncanonical 'Book of Enoch' and 'Assumption of Moses,' he says, "the writer accepts and feels free to cite a wide collection of Israelite and Christian traditions, and is not confined to a collection of written books ever deemed canonical by any group that we know. Thus canonicity may never have entered the writer's mind." (Pg. 754-755) Of 2 Peter, he acknowledges, "Without naming his source, he quotes large sections from the letter of Jude, the brother of James (modifying what might be objectionable therein), thus drawing on a tradition venerated by those Christians for whom 'the brothers of the Lord' were authorities." (Pg. 761)
This is a scholarly text that will be enlightening to virtually anyone---Catholic or otherwise---who reads it (including the FOOTNOTES!).
August 20, 2022
An introduction to the New Testament is a comprehensive yet introductory text of the NT. It was written by a man who clearly has been in the field of NT studies for a long time and is well-acquainted with his stuff. This is primarily a good introduction for those engaged in NT studies without religious affiliation and those who simply wish to read an introduction devoid of heavy theological statements.
However, just because this book separates itself from religious dogma does not mean that it is not prone to the same type of unsupported conclusions and bold theories that fundamentalist scholars are often accused to make. There are quite a few times in this introduction where Brown seems to leave a seemingly neutral position and make bold assumptions that simply aren't warranted in the text. For example, Brown makes the point that Matthew's use of Palestinian geography in the event of the casting of the demons in Matthew 8:28-34 due to the reference of the location of 'Gadarenes' renders the story implausible and incorrect. Whilst issues such as these may seem problematic for the average reader, there have been many writings by scholars that clear up this confusion of Palestinian geography through noting that Matthew never species the city of Gadarenes, and merely references a region - that much is clear in the text.
Therefore, for Brown to make the claim that Matthew's rendering of the location is incorrect clearly flies in the face of what's actually written in the text - Matthew is clear on stating the region, not a specific location. Any attempt to assert otherwise is twisting the words of gospel authors and anachronistically imposing modern standards of geography onto the text. Especially since we cannot know exact geography of Palestine since it was 2000 years ago and sources are very limited, the conclusions Brown makes are hasty and without thoughtful judgement and conclusions, and could be avoided had he engaged more widely with diverse scholarship or even read the text without a modern lense.
Granted this is a very niche and somewhat pedantic example, but it is an example of the occasional times throughout this book that Brown makes certain conclusions that simply are not supported strongly by evidence - even knowledgable scholars can be prone to hasty statements that can lack some sense of logic. That is not to insult Brown's knowledge, he is a very smart scholar, but there are quite a few times in this book where he argues a position that is not supported in both the text itself and wider extra-biblical evidence. This book is not as objectively neutral as it would suggest - Just because it is devoid of theological material does not mean that it presents a perfect picture of what the materials in the gospels actually say. One does not even have to subscribe to inerrancy or the belief that the bible is inspired to be able to point out areas where Brown deviates from impartial scholarly reflections to unsubstantiated claims that do not correlate with the material in the text.
Overall, this is a fairly solid introduction to the NT, especially for those studying the NT without religious commitment or a faith of their own and who wish to see an introduction that focuses on the text as a text and not religious scripture.
However, be wary of certain hasty statements and conclusions that seem to be one-sided and lack support from the text. It would have been good to see Brown engage with more diverse scholarship as quite a few times he falls victim to asserting the same dogmatic view of certain ideas in the text that fundamentalists may hold on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Just because somebody is a scholar, does not mean that the ideas being argued are the consensus or ideas held by the majority. That's why it's important to engage with a wide variety of viewpoints in order to avoid making hasty statements that lack strong evidence. Good introduction by Brown, but he still is prone to making unwarranted assertions that somewhat lower his show of objectivity and scholarly impartiality.
However, just because this book separates itself from religious dogma does not mean that it is not prone to the same type of unsupported conclusions and bold theories that fundamentalist scholars are often accused to make. There are quite a few times in this introduction where Brown seems to leave a seemingly neutral position and make bold assumptions that simply aren't warranted in the text. For example, Brown makes the point that Matthew's use of Palestinian geography in the event of the casting of the demons in Matthew 8:28-34 due to the reference of the location of 'Gadarenes' renders the story implausible and incorrect. Whilst issues such as these may seem problematic for the average reader, there have been many writings by scholars that clear up this confusion of Palestinian geography through noting that Matthew never species the city of Gadarenes, and merely references a region - that much is clear in the text.
Therefore, for Brown to make the claim that Matthew's rendering of the location is incorrect clearly flies in the face of what's actually written in the text - Matthew is clear on stating the region, not a specific location. Any attempt to assert otherwise is twisting the words of gospel authors and anachronistically imposing modern standards of geography onto the text. Especially since we cannot know exact geography of Palestine since it was 2000 years ago and sources are very limited, the conclusions Brown makes are hasty and without thoughtful judgement and conclusions, and could be avoided had he engaged more widely with diverse scholarship or even read the text without a modern lense.
Granted this is a very niche and somewhat pedantic example, but it is an example of the occasional times throughout this book that Brown makes certain conclusions that simply are not supported strongly by evidence - even knowledgable scholars can be prone to hasty statements that can lack some sense of logic. That is not to insult Brown's knowledge, he is a very smart scholar, but there are quite a few times in this book where he argues a position that is not supported in both the text itself and wider extra-biblical evidence. This book is not as objectively neutral as it would suggest - Just because it is devoid of theological material does not mean that it presents a perfect picture of what the materials in the gospels actually say. One does not even have to subscribe to inerrancy or the belief that the bible is inspired to be able to point out areas where Brown deviates from impartial scholarly reflections to unsubstantiated claims that do not correlate with the material in the text.
Overall, this is a fairly solid introduction to the NT, especially for those studying the NT without religious commitment or a faith of their own and who wish to see an introduction that focuses on the text as a text and not religious scripture.
However, be wary of certain hasty statements and conclusions that seem to be one-sided and lack support from the text. It would have been good to see Brown engage with more diverse scholarship as quite a few times he falls victim to asserting the same dogmatic view of certain ideas in the text that fundamentalists may hold on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Just because somebody is a scholar, does not mean that the ideas being argued are the consensus or ideas held by the majority. That's why it's important to engage with a wide variety of viewpoints in order to avoid making hasty statements that lack strong evidence. Good introduction by Brown, but he still is prone to making unwarranted assertions that somewhat lower his show of objectivity and scholarly impartiality.
October 24, 2023
Published in 1997, just before the author died in 1998, this represents the mature thinking of one of the twentieth century’s leading biblical scholars. Writing from a Catholic background he considers a full range of religious and academic perspectives about the New Testament. Readers will therefore get a good sense of the New Testament as a Religious and a Spiritual document, as well as a view of it as an academic and a historical text.
The book works its way through the New Testament with a clear presentation and a relatively fast pace. The enormous scope of the New Testament means that the book often has to signpost readers to other places in order to pursue issues. For example, there is a difference between John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels about which day of the week the Last Supper occurred on. I was interested in what the author would say on that issue, but it is one of the issues which need to be pursued in other more detailed commentaries.
The author has a well known expertise with the Johannine literature and so the discussion of the final chapter of John’s gospel was particularly well explained. Many commentators have wondered if it was added to the original text. The author suggests that problems with false teachers appealing to the Holy Spirit to justify their views, might be evident in the Johannine Epistles. That problem may well have led to a clarificatory chapter being added to John’s gospel, which refers to Peter’s role as ‘feeding the lambs’ of the Christian community. Thus, false teachers can be seen if their feeding of the word, is different than Peter’s. Perhaps (?).
The discussion of authentic and deuteropauline epistles was clear, but I thought a little inconclusive in its significance. Its all very well to refer to a Pauline school of writers which felt justified in writing in Paul’s name, even though they may have been writing decades after his death. But doesn’t this misrepresentation raise issues of honesty and integrity? The ancient world was familiar with the idea of forged letters and people misrepresenting themselves as others, and that generally attracted negative judgments. So writing in Paul’s name, decades after his death, and making the letters look as if they are by the historical Paul, can’t be just treated as a common stylistic device of the era. Does this mean that there is a question of ethics? Are Christians effectively condoning an ancient forgery when they use the New Testament? These are interesting questions, and I would have welcomed the author’s view on them, but the book didn’t really go into those issues.
Overall this is an impressive work of scholarship which is written to be accessible to academics and to general readers. Its bibliographies and references are a little out of date in places, but the main body of the text is still a great introduction to the New Testament.
The book works its way through the New Testament with a clear presentation and a relatively fast pace. The enormous scope of the New Testament means that the book often has to signpost readers to other places in order to pursue issues. For example, there is a difference between John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels about which day of the week the Last Supper occurred on. I was interested in what the author would say on that issue, but it is one of the issues which need to be pursued in other more detailed commentaries.
The author has a well known expertise with the Johannine literature and so the discussion of the final chapter of John’s gospel was particularly well explained. Many commentators have wondered if it was added to the original text. The author suggests that problems with false teachers appealing to the Holy Spirit to justify their views, might be evident in the Johannine Epistles. That problem may well have led to a clarificatory chapter being added to John’s gospel, which refers to Peter’s role as ‘feeding the lambs’ of the Christian community. Thus, false teachers can be seen if their feeding of the word, is different than Peter’s. Perhaps (?).
The discussion of authentic and deuteropauline epistles was clear, but I thought a little inconclusive in its significance. Its all very well to refer to a Pauline school of writers which felt justified in writing in Paul’s name, even though they may have been writing decades after his death. But doesn’t this misrepresentation raise issues of honesty and integrity? The ancient world was familiar with the idea of forged letters and people misrepresenting themselves as others, and that generally attracted negative judgments. So writing in Paul’s name, decades after his death, and making the letters look as if they are by the historical Paul, can’t be just treated as a common stylistic device of the era. Does this mean that there is a question of ethics? Are Christians effectively condoning an ancient forgery when they use the New Testament? These are interesting questions, and I would have welcomed the author’s view on them, but the book didn’t really go into those issues.
Overall this is an impressive work of scholarship which is written to be accessible to academics and to general readers. Its bibliographies and references are a little out of date in places, but the main body of the text is still a great introduction to the New Testament.
January 7, 2024
This book by Raymond Brown is a seminal work in the field of biblical studies, particularly within the context of the ongoing research into the background and history of the writing of the New Testament books. Brown, a renowned biblical scholar, demonstrates his profound knowledge of the subject matter and provides readers with a good overview of the New Testament.
One of the strengths of Brown's work is his meticulous attention to historical and cultural contexts. He skillfully navigates through the complex web of historical events, societal norms, and cultural influences that shaped the New Testament writings. This contextual approach enhances the reader's understanding of the texts, allowing for a more nuanced interpretation. His engagement with critical scholarship is commendable; he addresses various scholarly perspectives on the authorship, dating, and authenticity of the New Testament books, presenting a well-rounded view of the academic discourse.
However, some critics argue that Brown's emphasis on historical and critical methodologies may overshadow the theological dimensions of the New Testament. While he does touch upon theological themes, the depth of theological analysis might be perceived as somewhat limited compared to other works in the field. On the other hand, such criticism fails to distinguish between a historical, structural, and literary analysis of the New Testament materials, and a theological analysis of each writing’s content. This book, after all, is an introduction to the New Testament.
Understandably, the sheer volume of information presented in the book can be overwhelming for readers who are not already well-versed in biblical studies. Brown assumes a certain level of familiarity with the subject matter, which might pose a challenge for those approaching the New Testament for the first time. At the same time, however, he is clear in making the recommendation that readers actually read each New Testament text that is the subject of a chapter.
One of the strengths of Brown's work is his meticulous attention to historical and cultural contexts. He skillfully navigates through the complex web of historical events, societal norms, and cultural influences that shaped the New Testament writings. This contextual approach enhances the reader's understanding of the texts, allowing for a more nuanced interpretation. His engagement with critical scholarship is commendable; he addresses various scholarly perspectives on the authorship, dating, and authenticity of the New Testament books, presenting a well-rounded view of the academic discourse.
However, some critics argue that Brown's emphasis on historical and critical methodologies may overshadow the theological dimensions of the New Testament. While he does touch upon theological themes, the depth of theological analysis might be perceived as somewhat limited compared to other works in the field. On the other hand, such criticism fails to distinguish between a historical, structural, and literary analysis of the New Testament materials, and a theological analysis of each writing’s content. This book, after all, is an introduction to the New Testament.
Understandably, the sheer volume of information presented in the book can be overwhelming for readers who are not already well-versed in biblical studies. Brown assumes a certain level of familiarity with the subject matter, which might pose a challenge for those approaching the New Testament for the first time. At the same time, however, he is clear in making the recommendation that readers actually read each New Testament text that is the subject of a chapter.
November 5, 2019
Earlier this year I did a deep dive studying John and soon realized that scholars in Johannine literature universally acknowledge their debt to the Roman Catholic scholar Father Raymond Brown. To be honest, I was not prepared for the deep end of Johannine studies. What I needed first was a more introductory-level foundation on which I could later build. This Introduction to the New Testament gets it just about right for someone like me. What I appreciate is how Brown presents the best available scholarship, highlights salient information, and when competing interpretations engaged the academy, he lays out the strongest arguments for each case, acknowledging which position, if any, reflects the consensus view among scholars.
If I were only rating scholarship, I'd give this a five. But I'm going to reserve five stars for those rare academics whose prose sparkles. Brown's doesn't. Passage after passage falls flat. No vigor. No knack for telling a good story–even with such magnificent material to work with.
There is an abridged version with 1/3 the pages. The preview I read online of THAT book suggests the work of a supremely talented and free-handed editor. If I weren't so paranoid I'd be missing out on a key insight, that abridged version would have been a better choice.
If I were only rating scholarship, I'd give this a five. But I'm going to reserve five stars for those rare academics whose prose sparkles. Brown's doesn't. Passage after passage falls flat. No vigor. No knack for telling a good story–even with such magnificent material to work with.
There is an abridged version with 1/3 the pages. The preview I read online of THAT book suggests the work of a supremely talented and free-handed editor. If I weren't so paranoid I'd be missing out on a key insight, that abridged version would have been a better choice.
November 29, 2023
Read this as my commentary on the NT during 2023, when my Church was reading that book of scripture as part of its rotation. I had also decided to read the NT in (near as we can tell) chronological order, not the order it's in the Bible itself, traditionally, so there was a lot of jumping around and reading this book out of order, but I finished the entire thing.
Brown's commentary is thorough and useful. He tried to discuss various aspects of biblical scholarship on which there are disagreements, and then would weigh in himself. (Because sometimes you have to pick a side to do a good commentary.) Though I do not agree with it in every particular, his commentary was thoughtful and he made his arguments well. I don't know that I'd recommend this as a bare-bones introduction to the NT writings, and for the record I had this book because it was a textbook I needed for one of my MA classes at the Yale Divinity School to give you an idea of the level of this text, but for someone moderately conversant in biblical studies, it's a fine one-volume commentary on the NT.
Brown's commentary is thorough and useful. He tried to discuss various aspects of biblical scholarship on which there are disagreements, and then would weigh in himself. (Because sometimes you have to pick a side to do a good commentary.) Though I do not agree with it in every particular, his commentary was thoughtful and he made his arguments well. I don't know that I'd recommend this as a bare-bones introduction to the NT writings, and for the record I had this book because it was a textbook I needed for one of my MA classes at the Yale Divinity School to give you an idea of the level of this text, but for someone moderately conversant in biblical studies, it's a fine one-volume commentary on the NT.
March 30, 2020
This book was indispensable in helping me understand the books and writings of the New Testament thematically, both as individual books and as a cohesive whole. Brown offers various possible intended thematic structures for the gospels and shows the arguments for and against their plausibility. It was also incredibly valuable that he provided theological implications for the books and certain passages, showing how various groups of Christians and scholars have thought about the New Testament throughout the ages. He's a moderate Catholic scholar and does a good job providing both the consensus view of scholarship while also discussing the merits of opposing viewpoints from more progressive Christian scholars and more fundamentalist ones.
October 6, 2023
First thoughts: It took me a long time but it was worth it. An incredible overview of the early writings of a group composed of mostly Jewish followers of Jesus which would become the New Testament. The language is accesible but it's also pretty succinct and detailed as an introduction, it treats its reader seriously. A highlight of the book for me are the sporadic theological and sociological "problems for reflection" which are interwoven among the long academic (but still interesting) explanations.
Read
December 15, 2023I can't find any flaws to this introduction but if I could change one thing, I would include the words in Greek (e.g. ἀγάπη) instead of doing just a transliteration (agapē), or just include both for clarity! Other than that, it's very instructive, easy to follow and with tons of references.
April 25, 2025
This is a well known critical (historical-critical) NT-introduction.
I found many of his critical claims to be unsubstantiated. Though, if you’re going to interact with critical NT scholarship, this is probably the best you’ll find.
I found many of his critical claims to be unsubstantiated. Though, if you’re going to interact with critical NT scholarship, this is probably the best you’ll find.
March 12, 2019
A wonderful reference text for the study of the New Testament.
September 14, 2020
Want to read
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
September 14, 2020very good perspectives. Includes historical stuff (like who wrote?) as well as analysis. he draws from a myriad of scholars.
December 8, 2020
A great intro to the books of the New Testament!
November 7, 2022
This truly is the place to start, magnificent overview
December 29, 2023
I've been reading this during the last year as my church has been studying the new testament. It is very dense but has been a great reference!
November 28, 2024
A really good intro the the NT by a respected Bible scholar. It concisely covers the necessary ground for the NT books and also offers some insights on Biblical studies.
November 9, 2024
A good book of its kind - but how useful is textual criticism really?
No thoughtful Christian can entirely afford to ignore modern Biblical scholarship; to do so risks detaching faith from reality. The late Fr Brown has tried to produce a work that engages with modern methods of textual criticism while at the same time being consistent with the faith. That he is judged by the Catholic church to have succeeded is shown by the granting of a Nihil Obstat.
When all’s said and done, though, this is a process in which, whether you are a believer or a sceptic, huge trains of consequences are drawn from very slight clues; and in any case, most of the scholarship is devoted to considering the historical context of the books, not their content. But as a book I was recently reading on Barth puts it, 'the task is not to reconstruct the historical situation from which [eg] Paul wrote, but to stand before the theological realities before which Paul stood, and share his understanding of man's situation before God'. Having used this book for a couple of years now, I can't honestly think of any instance - other than perhaps over quite minor details - where it has helped me to a clearer understanding of, or a deeper relation with, the NT.
But this may (like economics) be one of those studies with which it is worth engaging if only to be reassured that there isn’t much in it. I now know that when someone says that 'they' think this or that about the Bible - eg that some of the books were not written by the traditionally attributed author - 'their' reasons for doing so are often of the flimsiest, sometimes no more than a stylistic tic. I guess Biblical studies is a competitive discipline, like others, and that there is the same standing temptation to get attention by espousing extreme, perhaps improbable theories. Unfortunately though, this tendency is more destructive than in other disciplines, because it is ultimately supposed to be 'faith seeking understanding'.
Brown’s prose is okay, with a minimum of technical terms, and (unlike most specialist theology books) easy to follow for any good reader; however, although he likes a prefix he seems allergic to the hyphen (preChristian, nonJewish); he tends to use abbreviations and initials without explanation; and in some other respects the text reads as though it should have been cleaned up a little more before publication. What Christian wants to see John the Baptist referred to as JBap? Makes him sound like a rapping baker.
No thoughtful Christian can entirely afford to ignore modern Biblical scholarship; to do so risks detaching faith from reality. The late Fr Brown has tried to produce a work that engages with modern methods of textual criticism while at the same time being consistent with the faith. That he is judged by the Catholic church to have succeeded is shown by the granting of a Nihil Obstat.
When all’s said and done, though, this is a process in which, whether you are a believer or a sceptic, huge trains of consequences are drawn from very slight clues; and in any case, most of the scholarship is devoted to considering the historical context of the books, not their content. But as a book I was recently reading on Barth puts it, 'the task is not to reconstruct the historical situation from which [eg] Paul wrote, but to stand before the theological realities before which Paul stood, and share his understanding of man's situation before God'. Having used this book for a couple of years now, I can't honestly think of any instance - other than perhaps over quite minor details - where it has helped me to a clearer understanding of, or a deeper relation with, the NT.
But this may (like economics) be one of those studies with which it is worth engaging if only to be reassured that there isn’t much in it. I now know that when someone says that 'they' think this or that about the Bible - eg that some of the books were not written by the traditionally attributed author - 'their' reasons for doing so are often of the flimsiest, sometimes no more than a stylistic tic. I guess Biblical studies is a competitive discipline, like others, and that there is the same standing temptation to get attention by espousing extreme, perhaps improbable theories. Unfortunately though, this tendency is more destructive than in other disciplines, because it is ultimately supposed to be 'faith seeking understanding'.
Brown’s prose is okay, with a minimum of technical terms, and (unlike most specialist theology books) easy to follow for any good reader; however, although he likes a prefix he seems allergic to the hyphen (preChristian, nonJewish); he tends to use abbreviations and initials without explanation; and in some other respects the text reads as though it should have been cleaned up a little more before publication. What Christian wants to see John the Baptist referred to as JBap? Makes him sound like a rapping baker.
September 24, 2012
Considered by many as the greatest New Testament scholar of the twentieth century, at a seminar he once said, "Back then people knew Jesus was human, they just didn't know how God-like he was. . .today, we believe he is God, but don't know how human he was. . ."
He also said, " the hierarchy of the church has every right to tell us what the scriptures means for us today. But they do not have the right to tell us what the scriptures meant. That is reserved for the scholars."
He also said, " the hierarchy of the church has every right to tell us what the scriptures means for us today. But they do not have the right to tell us what the scriptures meant. That is reserved for the scholars."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews