The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

by Bart D. Ehrman

Featuring vibrant full color throughout, the seventh edition of Bart D. Ehrman's highly successful introduction approaches the New Testament from a consistently historical and comparative perspective, emphasizing the rich diversity of the earliest Christian literature. Distinctive to this study is its unique focus on the historical, literary, and religious milieux of the Greco-Roman world, including early Judaism. As part of its historical orientation, the book also discusses other Christian writings that were roughly contemporary with the New Testament, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the letters of Ignatius.

Genres: Religion, History, Christianity, Nonfiction, Theology, Biblical Studies, New Testament

624 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

سه فصلش رو خوندم، و خیلی از نکاتش رو توی دوره‌های گریت کورسز ازش شنیده بودم.با توجه به حجم زیادش، دیدم دیگه وقت گذاشتن براش ضرورت نداره.

اما کتاب خیلی خیلی مهمیه، بدون خوندن این کتاب نمی‌شه حرف ارزشمندی در مورد مسیحیت، عیسی و اناجیل زد.

بعدنوشت: برای کلاس «آشنایی با مسیحیت» نشستم و کتاب رو با دقت خوندم و یادداشت‌برداری کردم.


خلاصه فصل ۲۵

زنان در کلیساهای نخستین
زنان در کلیسای نخستین مسیحی، مبشر، شبان و نبی بودند. و برخی از زنان ثروتمند نیز کلیسا را تأمین مالی می‌کردند یا خانه‌های خود را در اختیار جلسات کلیسا می‌گذاشتند‌.

پولس در ابتدا و انتهای رساله‌های خود به مخاطبانش سلام می‌رساند و از ایشان نام می‌برد، و برخی از این اسامی، مؤنثند‌. مانند فیبی خادم کلیسای کنخریا که پولس وظیفۀ رساندن نامه‌اش به رم را به او می‌سپارد. یا پرسکلا که مسئول تبشیر غیر یهودیان در خانه‌اش است. یا زنان قرنتس که در کنار مردان نبوت می‌کنند.

این سنت پس از پولس نیز در کلیساهای پولسی ادامه داشت و از برخی متون مسیحی همچون اعمال پولس و تکلا بر می‌آید که برخی زنان با پشت پا زدن به سنت ازدواج، زندگی رهبانی و خدمت مسیحی را برمی‌گزیدند و جایگاه مهم و والایی در کلیسا داشتند.

زن در الهیات آخرالزمانی عیسی
بازگشت این به خود عیساست. در اناجیل می‌بینیم که به جز دوازده حواری معروف، گروهی از زنان نیز عیسی را همراهی می‌کردند و او را از نظر مالی تأمین می‌نمودند. این زنان به هنگام تصلیب حاضر بودند و آخرین کسان از شاگردان عیسی بودند که گریختند، و سپس نخستین کسانی بودند که به زنده شدن عیسی باور پیدا کردند و به آن شهادت دادند.
علت این امر نیز آن است که عیسی پایان جهان را وعده می‌داد: زمانی که نظم اجتماعی واژگون می‌شود و آخرین‌ها اولین نی‌شوند. پس عجیب نیست که معتقد بوده باشد زنان که آن زمان جایگاه اجتماعی پایینی داشتند، در ملکوت خدا جایگاه اجتماعی بالایی بیابند.

زن در الهیات مسیح‌محور پولس
به باور پولس، مسیح با رستاخیزش نیروهای گناه و مرگ را شکست داد. اینک تعمیدیافتگان با مسیح متحد هستند، و به خلقت تازه‌ای رسیده‌اند. پولس سپس تصریح می‌کند که ارباب و بنده و زن و مردی دیگر وجود ندارد، چرا که همگی در مسیح یکی هستند.
گرچه پولس با این الهیات نمی‌خواست انقلاب اجتماعی به راه بیندازد (در مقابل تأکید دارد که وقت کمتر از آن است که بخواهیم در وضع موجود تغییری بدهیم) اما در کلیسا برابری برده و آزاد و زن و مرد رعایت می‌شد. اما زنان باید تا بازگشت مسیح و تحقق برابری کامل، نقش اجتماعی خود را می‌پذیرفتند.

زنان پس از پولس
موضع دوگانۀ پولس (برابری در مسیح، عدم برابری اجتماعی فعلی) باعث شد پس از او دو جریان موافقان و مخالفان برابری بتوانند به یک اندازه به آثار او استناد کنند. اما در نهایت مخالفان برابری بودند که آثار بعدی عهد جدید (رسالۀ اول به تیموتائوس) را نوشتند و در آن، فضیلت زن را سکوت و فرمانبری و فرزندآوری دانستند.
در دوران‌های بعد، چنین مطالبی به نامه‌های پولس نیز افزوده شد (۱قزنتیان ۱۴: ۳۴-۳۵) که امروزه مشخص شده افزودگی‌های بعدی هستند. چرا که نظم بیانی مطالب به هم پیوسته را به هم می‌زنند.

زن در فرهنگ یونانی رومی
در جهان یونانی و رومی، برابری انسان ها اندیشه ای ناشناخته بود. انسان ها بر طیفی قرار می گرفتند و بر اساس توانایی اثرگذاری جسمی، سیاسی و اجتماعی، جایگاه بالاتر یا پایین تری داشتند. زنان در پایین ترین جایگاه بودند و باور آن بود که اشکالی در رشد جنین کودک باعث نقص او و زن شدن او می شود. این نقص جسمانی تبعات اجتماعی هم داشت، چرا که زن همچنان که در رابطۀ جنسی نقش منفعل دارد، فضیلت او نیز فرمانبری و کناره گیری از اجتماع و خانه‌داری تلقی می شد. در حالی که فعالیت اجتماعی به مردان واگذار شده بود که در رابطۀ جنسی نیز نقش فعال داشتند. زنانی که به دنبال اثرگذاری و فعالیت اجتماعی می رفتند، زنانی مردصفت تلقی می شدند که نظم اجتماعی و جایگاه طبیعی چیزها را به هم می زنند.

با توجه به خانگی بودن فضائل زنانه، عجیب نیست که کلیساهای اولیه، که عموماً دور از منظر عموم و در خانه ها برگزار می شد، در حوزۀ نفوذ زنان بودند و زنان اکثریت جامعه مسیحی اولیه را تشکیل می دادند. رومیان مخالف مسیحیت، زنانه بودن جو مسیحی را دستمایۀ تمسخر این دین نوپا قرار می‌دادند. شاید علت اقبال زنان به مسیحیت این بود که این دین خانگی، به ایشان امکان اثرگذاری و ایفای نقش می داد.

اما به تدریج با گسترش مسیحیت و ایجاد کلیساهای بزرگ، دین خانگی به دین اجتماعی تبدیل شد و از حوزۀ نفوذ زنان بیرون رفت. می توان تصور کرد که زنانی که پیش از این خادمان کلیساهای خانگی بودند برای حفظ جایگاه خود در کلیساهای بیرون از خانه، تلاش کرده باشند، اما در نهایت قدرت فرهنگ غالب بیشتر بود و دیدگاه های این گروه نتوانست به دیدگاه رسمی مسیحی تبدیل شود.

[Huyen · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of my friends once said Christianity was a great idea, unfortunately, Jesus' disciples made it into a religion. I was never sure if I could agree with him. One thing to take away from this book, like other books by Ehrman, is that once you look critically into the historical stuff about Jesus and what he actually said and did, not what others interpreted him to say, things aren't as romantic as moralists or philosophers (not to mention theologians) would like us to think.

Unlike what most people would imagine, that Jesus was an asteroid hitting the earth with great moral force, he was more like a pebble thrown into the sea. His influence outside Palestine was nil, very little was known or written about him in the pagan or non-Christian Jewish literature, the best we had was a passing mention of some guy called Christos by the historian Josephus. He was more like a typical village preacher than a great philosopher. Apart from the four Gospels, each with a distinct theological orientation, very few other Christian sources actually described Jesus' life and deeds, often with contradictory and unreliable information. Jesus' preaching had little to do with reforming society or inculcating better morality but much more about what people had to do to enter the imminent Kingdom of God when all current social institutions would be destroyed to be replaced by God's eternal happy paradise. on this topic Ehrman's "Jesus, the first millennium apocalyptic prophet" is a much better read.

I think the most interesting thing I learned from this book is the increasing anti-Jewish tendency of early Christianity. Most Jews at that time probably found it ridiculous that some people believed that Jesus could be the messiah. The messiah is supposed to be a fantastically powerful, glorious warrior with aura shining and angels flying above his head not a humiliated, helpless little guy. To recruit more followers, Paul made it very clear that Gentiles could also be salvaged by Jesus' suffering given that they believed in him. Unlike Judaism, which was exempted from persecution by the Roman empire in many aspects, as a weak emerging religious movement without any political clout, early Christianity had to defend itself against subversive charges, and had to create an "enemy" in its process of self-definition. And if you can't tickle the big guy (Rome), the easiest target was Jews who refused to believe in Jesus, and these attacks became increasingly vitriolic and took tragic turns once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire.
Another minor interesting thing is how Ehrman explains the evil number 666 (mine is that it sounds like sex sex sex). He says that in ancient Hebrew, each letter can have a numerical value, and 666 makes Rome, the evil centre of the world at that time, which makes pretty good sense.
The book gets a bit tedious at times, but is still an excellent textbook to learn about early Christianity. I love Ehrman as always, his writing is so brilliant and engaging that even a mind-numbingly boring topic like this can be interesting.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

The chosen textbook for many History of the NT classes, and it's easy to see why. The primary strength of the book is its clarity, which is not easy to achieve in this subject area. Ehrman is careful not to stray into theological arguments, but when the historical context makes it impossible to avoid, he describes the conflict without taking sides. The result is a clear presentation of the history that avoids controversy. Of course there are historical disputes in addition to theological ones, but Ehrman has written the book carefully to deflect misplaced theological criticism. Separating out the history from the theology of the NT has been extremely helpful to me in understanding my own religious beliefs.

The scope of the book is fairly broad, historically speaking, but the examination is thorough and provides helpful suggestions for further study. Ehrman's text was also a great companion to the HIstory of the NT open course taught by Dale Martin (available for free via Yale Open Courses.) I enjoyed both immensely.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 2 out of 5]

now this one is fairly bad, but bad in an intriguing way. He laughably holds to the long-refuted Wredian thesis. Thirdly, he fails to engage Tom Wright or GB Caird on the points where the specifically challenge and overthrow Ehrman's thesis. He is aware that NT Wright has completely ravaged his thesis, but it doesn't bother him.

Some of the chapters on Gnosticism are interesting and helpful. He does go out of his way to show that certain historical details could not have happened. For example, he says the census by the Roman Emperor could not have happened for two reasons: 1) there is not corroborative evidence for it and 2) it would have been impossible to carry out. In response: (1) is not as big a problem as he thinks. He has already filtered out the NT acting as primary evidence, but says that it must be interpreted in light of Roman records. But the NT is the most attested ancient document in the world, whereas Roman records are woefully scanty. It is simple prejudice that keeps him from accepting the NT as evidence. (2) This isn't a problem at all. Big Governments routinely embark on projects which cannot possible work (healthcare.gov, anyone?).

[Ed Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t often read textbooks cover to cover, but when I do, they are written by UNC Chapel Hill professor and self-proclaimed agnostic atheist Bart Ehrman. Just a refreshingly thorough and sober overview and analysis of so many aspects and features of early Christianity. Maybe if they taught this stuff in Sunday School, discerning skeptics wouldn’t be as likely to feel as though they were hoodwinked, bamboozled, indoctrinated, and/or simply fed the company line in what was referred to in all sincerity by k-12 educators in private schools and Catholic churches as “education.” (Yes, yes, I have an axe to grind, thank you very much 😂). Great book.

[Oliver · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ehrman strikes the perfect balance between accessibility and scholarly rigour, as is expected from the often provocative but always authentic bible scholar.

Previous to picking this up for a class of the same name, I had already become well accustomed to Ehrman’s debates and general public presence; that he often renders the former an actually worthwhile and edifying format is a feat in itself.

Obviously this is hardly one of his more academic efforts, which makes it particularly impressive that he was no less able to provide such a panoramic and rich view of the NT without sacrificing accuracy or watering down the motley complexities and tedious contradictions. A historian of real integrity, Ehrman consistently situates the NT not only in its socio-religious context, but also its shared literary landscape, allowing for some really quite fun comparative work between the canon and the apocrypha, from the gnostics and beyond. I also welcome his characteristic sensitivity to the stakes of contemporary biblical hermeneutics, respectfully yet firmly emphasising the responsibility to avoid the anachronistic dogmatism of careless eisegesis.

Whilst I was already familiar with a fair amount of the book’s content, as someone still only in the very early stages of grappling with Christianity (both historiographically and theologically), on the precipice of reading the NT for the very first time, works like these don’t go unappreciated.

[Jeff Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bart Ehrman is a former "Christian" who after studying the history of the New Testament has become an atheist. This is NOT a book that most Christians will enjoy because it strips away all of the supernatural elements of Christianity and focuses on actual evidence. This leads to all sorts of problems, but it also leads to a better understandings of the Scriptures.

A mature Christian can read this and enjoy it, and not have their faith tested. Someone who is not familiar with textual criticism will read this and hate it. There may be some Christians who read this and turn to atheism, as it does not hold back on all the differences found in the New Testament.

If you are a believer, agnostic or an atheist, you will find this book to be quite interesting. My only recommendation for any who read it is to hold Ehrman to his own standards. When he says things like, "We don't have enough evidence to support the New Testament claims" but then turns around and states that there were all sorts of documents against the New Testament, you must understand that he is going by much later sources.

An example of this would be when he talks about a local Messiah figure that mirrors Jesus as if it happened without any actual written evidence from the time. He never questions it, and just states it as fact. His only source comes from much later writing.

I am not saying it didn't happen, as I believe it quite possible could have happened. All I am saying is, he does not take an honest route at times.

When he presents the irrefutable facts, the book works great. When he has an agenda, the book fails as a trustworthy source, if you ask me.

[Wouter van der Hoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eindelijk deze dikke pil uitgelezen en aantekeningen van gemaakt. Een uitstekende introductie tot de wereld en geschiedenis van het vroege christendom. De boeken van het Nieuwe Testament staan hierin centraal; niet-canonieke teksten en de Grieks-Romeinse alsook de joods-apocalyptische contexten worden ook uitvoerig besproken. Vrijwel elke grote onderwerpen en vraagstukken met betrekking tot het vroege christendom - het synoptisch probleem, de historische Jezus, de ontwikkeling van heterodoxe christendommen, om maar een paar te noemen - wordt in een haast perfecte synthese gecompileerd in makkelijk taalgebruik, zonder schade te doen aan de inhoud. Een echte aanrader voor wie zich wil verdiepen in het vroege christendom als een historisch fenomeen.

Ik had de tweede editie gelezen en zo te zien is inmiddels al de zevende editie uitgegeven. Hopelijk heb ik niet al teveel gedateerde informatie overgenomen...

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating look at the New Testament from an historical perspective.

[Geoff Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Ehrman does an excellent job of explaining historical and theological concepts in a way that a lay person can readily understand.

Great subject!

[MaryKate Berg · Rating 5 out of 5]

pretty lit for a textbook about the New Testament. Great discussion about women in the Early Church and in the canonical works.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE POPULAR SCHOLAR PROVIDES A USEFUL OVERVIEW/INTRODUCTION

Bart Denton Ehrman (b. 1955) is an American New Testament scholar and Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He wrote in the Preface to the First Edition of this 2000 book, “While there are several outstanding introductory texts, most of them approach the New Testament from a theological or literary perspective… In this book, I am first and foremost interested in questions that pertain to the history of early Christianity and to the early Christian writings both as they reflect that history and as they helped to shape it… I am interested, for example, in the life of the historical Jesus… My historical orientation has led me to situate the early Christian literature more firmly than is normally done in the social, cultural, and literary world of the early Roman Empire... since the books of the New Testament represent only some of the writings produced by the earliest Christians, I have taken pains to situate them within their broader literary context.”

He further explains, “this book is a historical introduction to the early Christian writings, principally those found in the New Testament, rather than a confessional one… Historians deal with past events that are matters of the public record… Does that mean that historians cannot be believers? No, it means that if historians tell you … that Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, they are telling you this not in their capacity as historians but in their capacity as believers… The historical disciplines cannot supply them with this kind of information… Many such historians … find historical research to be completely compatible with---even crucial for----traditional theological beliefs; others find it to be incompatible… My approach will instead be strictly historical, trying to understand the writings of the early Christians from the standpoint of the professional historian who uses whatever evidence happens to survive in order to reconstruct what happened in the past.” (Pg. 13-14)

Of the apparent difference between the crucifixion/Passover between the Synoptics and John, he says, “The day of Preparation for the Passover? [Jn 19:14-16] How could this be? This is the day before the Passover meal was eaten… But in Mark, Jesus had his disciples prepare the Passover on that day, and then he ate the meal with them in the evening… In [John’s] account Jesus never instructs his disciples to prepare for the Passover, and he evidently does not eat a Passover meal during his last evening with them… We seem to be left with a difference that is difficult to reconcile… If we concede that the later account (John’s) is on general principles less likely to be accurate… an intriguing possibility arises to explain why John… may have changed the detail concerning Jesus’ death. John is the only Gospel in which Jesus is actually identified as ‘the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’ …. In this Gospel, Jesus dies on the same day as the Passover lamb, at the same hour…” (Pg. 50-52)

He points out, “Jesus attempts to keep his identity a secret on a number of other occasions in Mark’s gospel… When he casts out demons, he refuses to let them speak … When he heals a leper, he commands him to ‘say nothing to anyone’… he never speaks openly to anyone about his identity. And… when someone finally recognizes that he is the messiah, he commands silence. How does one explain this ironic feature of Mark’s Gospel… This puzzle has been called the ‘messianic secret’ since... a German scholar named William Wrede propounded a now famous solution---that the historical Jesus himself never urged secrecy at all because he did not actually see himself as the messiah. After his death, however Jesus’ followers began to proclaim that he HAD BEEN the messiah.” (Pg. 68)

He notes, “It was not blasphemous to claim to be the messiah. Other persons before Jesus had done so and others would later… Nor was it blasphemous to call oneself the Son of God… other people were also called this, both in the Jewish Scriptures and during Jesus’ own day. Nor, finally, was it blasphemous to predict that the Son of Man was soon to arrive on the clouds of heaven… there were a number of Jewish preachers who proclaimed that his much awaited appearance would soon come. So what was Jesus’ blasphemy? From a historical point of view, Jesus does not appear to have committed one in Mark’s narrative. But it is possible that Mark THOUGHT that Jesus committed one, at least in the eyes of the Jewish high priest.” (Pg. 71)

He says, “You may have already been struck by certain similarities between … these Gnostic views and those of some members of the Johannine community. While we cannot assume that the secessionists, let alone the author of the Fourth Gospel, considered themselves to be Gnostics, the similarities in their views are nonetheless quite interesting, particularly with respect to Christology.” (Pg. 177)

Of miracles, he comments, “How can we know whether or not any of these Gospel miracles actually happened? A lot of modern people … believe that … miracles are, strictly speaking, impossible… I do NOT want to address this particular issue here. For the sake of argument, I’m willing to grant that miracles… can and do happen… [But] Even if miracles ARE possible, there is no way for the historian who sticks strictly to the canons of historical [evidence] to SHOW that they have ever happened…. even if they did, the historian cannot demonstrate it.” (Pg. 208)

He states, “We find Jesus portrayed as an apocalypticist in Mark, Q, M and L… On the grounds of these criteria alone I should think that we would be justified in thinking that Jesus must have been an apocalypticist in some sense of the term… In a nutshell, the argument is that we know beyond any reasonable doubt what happened at the very beginning of Jesus’ public ministry and we know what happened in its aftermath… This ministry began on a decidedly apocalyptic note; its aftermath continued apocalyptically. Since Jesus is the link between the two, his message and mission, his words and deeds, must also have been apocalyptic.” (Pg. 231-232)

He argues, “It appears that Jesus expected the kingdom to be brought by one whom he called the Son of God… did [Jesus] actually refer to himself as the Son of Man?... Some of Jesus’ sayings mention the Son of Man coming in judgment on the earth… Jesus himself seems to have expected the imminent appearance of such a cosmic judge… from heaven who would bring in God’s kingdom.” (Pg. 242-243)

Of the Book of Acts, he says, “For a historically accurate account of what Paul said and did, can we rely on Luke’s narrative? Different scholars will answer this question differently… My own position is that the book of Acts is about as reliable for Paul as the Gospel of Luke is for Jesus. Just as Luke modified aspects of Jesus’ words to reflect his own theological point of view… so too in the book of Acts Paul’s words and deeds have been modified in accord with Luke’s own perspective. Thus, Acts can tell us a great deal about how Luke understood Paul, but less about what Paul himself actually said and did.” (Pg. 262-263)

He concludes, “you may have heard someone claim that the New Testament can be trusted because it is the best attested book from the ancient world…. Given what we have seen … it should be clear why this line of reasoning is faulty… Moreover, even if scholars have by and large succeeded in reconstructing the New Testament, this, in itself, has no bearing on the truthfulness of its message. It simply means that we can be reasonably certain of what the New Testament authors actually said…. Whether or not any of these ancient authors said anything that was TRUE is another question, one that we cannot answer simply by appealing to the number of surviving manuscripts that preserve their writings.” (Pg. 449)

This book will be of great interest for those looking for a contemporary introduction to the New Testament.

[Wing · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very comprehensive textbook written for undergraduates. To introduce the student to the different methods of biblical criticism, the author uses genre criticism to analyse Mark, redaction criticism to analyse Matthew, the comparative method to analyse Luke, the socio-historical method to analyse John, and the contextual method to analyse the Johannine epistles. The author's stance is that the earliest traditions portray Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, and he, perhaps unfairly, suggests that it is how Jesus saw himself. He then explains convincingly the evolution of christology (from low to high). Six full chapters are devoted to the undisputed Pauline letters. These are really very well written. The letters are rendered clear and patent. It is a marvel to have Paul's concerns and theology explained in a way that a layperson can actually understand! Finally, the pseudepigrapha and apocalypses are discussed. Indispensable and thoroughly engaging - five stars!

[GrandpaBooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

A terrific book, with writing that is clear, concise and logical as noted by one of the back cover testimonials. Professor Ehrman provides historical context for the New Testament as well as explanations for the different methods used in the study of the NT: literary - historical, thematic, comparative, and redactional. Also, discussed are the many problems found in the NT: the Gospels don't agree with one another in many instances, many of Paul's letters were not written by Paul, the books in the NT are presented in the order they were written (i.e. all of Paul's actual letters were written before any of the Gospels), and on and on. Highly recommended for anyone interested in reading about the history of the founding of Christianity that doesn't add layers of theological viewpoints and arguments.

[Aketzle · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are parts of this that are slow reading if you're not very interested in the New Testament, but there are other parts that are really interesting for anyone with an interest in the formation of sects/religions or the composition of the New Testament documents.

I'm not even close to done yet, but I've already learned so much. This is a fantastically researched, scholarly, objective account of the development of early Christianity, the Bible (as we now know it), Jesus' life and the time and people around him, the historical context of it all, and much more. Really, really fascinating. I would definitely recommend this for anyone, religious or not, who is interested in history or religion.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

My book study group viewed this book as a series of lectures by the professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Excellent presentation and delivery: just the right pace and amount of repetition to give me a chance to absorb the material. This is very much a historical look at the New Testament, showing how different parts support or conflict with each other, and why. It was especially interesting to me to see how the four gospels contradict each other, having been written at different times. The accompanying guidebooks made a good reference, as would the hard copy of the book. The author has written a number of other books on the Bible.

[Agathe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bart Ehrman can we get coffee pls?

[Jc · Rating 3 out of 5]

[my apologies: this is by far my longest GR review ever – but for me there were important things to discuss here]

MARCH 2023: SEVENTH EDITION: Over the past 40+ years, I have read 4-6 undergrad-level texts published as introductions to the christian “New Testament,” as well as a small library worth of related works. I find that reading 100/200 level intro texts, in most any subject, is a great way to review the basics of a topic outside of your main field, as well as to see how the foundations of a particular field may have changed in recent decades. Religion and philosophy intro texts work particularly well for this sort of overview/review. With that in mind, when I saw that Bart Ehrman – a very learned, erudite scholar of early christianities – had updated his own New Testament introduction (7th edition, 2020), I figured it was worth a read through.

In general I liked it, but with a few reservations. Most of my reservations center around Ehrman’s tendency to shoehorn his particular perspective into such a basic text. To me, 100/200 level texts should be fairly neutral, talking about the consensus of current academic viewpoints, as well as touching on the major important, if less commonly accepted among top scholars, approaches that are also considered part of the relevant scholarly discourse. Ehrman basically does this, but he sneaks in a few things that are very particular to his own work and understanding, and does it in a way that implies that they are THE agreed academic standards. While I think that approach does belong in his other works, which are more specialized than this and are supposed to be reflective of his own research, I see it as out of place here. The intended audience for this work is students who have never encountered much of the academic details he is discussing, they would not have the background to notice or criticize his biases. An example: while Ehrman is one of the best popular-level writers on what is wrong with much of the textual material we have, centering on issues of its history and its translation/transmission, he at the same time holds that not only was Jesus definitely an historical figure who closely parallels that depicted in the gospels (assuming they are in agreement on this point), but also that much of what is quoted in the canonical gospels as out of the mouth of Jesus himself is composed of what Jesus actually said [regarding his comments on the questionable nature of the canonical works that have survived to modern times see e.g.: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why [2005]; Forged: Writing in the Name of God [2011]; Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior [2016]). This often makes for some have-it-both-ways issues (but I do highly recommend these and others of books of his, he really is a brilliant historian of the 1st-3rd c. history of early christian movements). This particular issue [the contradiction between we can trust what Jesus said, and cannot, at the same time, trust what the gospels say about Jesus] is better discussed elsewhere (and has been by those more learned in the topic than I), but it is an example of where Ehrman in this introductory text can confuse those with little or no background in the material outside of what might be heard in churches or similar places. Ideas he disagrees with, or more often just are not the consensus, are put to the side in “some say” type comments (which is appropriate, no complaints there), but the some-says that reflect Ehrman’s own view are often presented as just the way it is (another example is the dating of John, e.g., which he puts earlier [ca. 90-95 ce] than say Robert Price, Howard Clark Kee, Richard Carrier, and many other top scholars, all of whom put John at the earliest ca. 100 to as late as the 120s ce).* Again, the problem isn’t that he is stating his view, but that he (I believe not quite consciously) over emphasizes his conclusions above the variety of scholarly opinion (no, not doctrinal beliefs – I am talking about respected academic scholars specializing in these topics, not priests or preachers) theories that are out there.

Okay, those are my complaints, mostly having to do with being somewhat, but not purposefully, misleading to a college freshman audience who likely are encountering these ideas for the first time. BUT there is also wonderful stuff in here that I have NOT seen addressed before at the basic undergraduate level in religious studies classes/texts. These include a wonderful coverage of the social/cultural context in which early proto-christianities (to use Ehrman’s own favored term) were birthed. Also discussed, the importance of Jewish beliefs and their varieties at the time, the history of the Greek then Roman control and influences over the regions in question, the influence of “Pagan” belief systems, how women were treated in the region in the first few centuries ce as well as in the canonical writings, and the wide variety of different philosophies and “christianities” that tend to be glossed over by many even today as just “early apostolic christianity” or as early “heresies” (often ignoring that essentially every leader and movement in 1st-3rd centuries of proto-christrianity was soon seen as heretical, even those who mostly wrote about other heretics!). So, the range of topics outside of who wrote what when makes this a very special approach to an introductory text. So, better than some intros in much of the material covered, not as good as others in some details – I may be a little harsh on Ehrman here, but it is because I respect his work and think he could have done much better with little effort.
[note: Ehrman states in the preface that a lot of this added material is new to this edition, and he should be respected for adding it to the complete picture of what is the NT, and what it was meant to be at the time of the writings. He is a great biblical historian and a respected scholar, so yes I AM nit picking.]

*this may sound nit-picky, but when trying to establish historical and social context, 15-30 years can make a big difference. Most more conservative “apologetic” scholars, as well as conservative churches, push for earlier dates, say from 80-90 ce [they also tend to insist that the author of the gospel is also the aged “beloved disciple” of the gospels].

DECEMBER 2025 - EIGHTH EDITION (with Hugo Méndez):
I read the 7th edition fairly recently, in about 2.5 years ago, so one may justifiably question why I bothered reading the 8th ed. Among the main reasons were my desire to see if Ehrman has evolved his views much in that time. There is also a second author, I assume an understudy, on this edition which might also affect the way the discussions would go. Mainly, even with my minor disagreements with Ehrman (my previous reservations, described in my comments on the 7th edition, mostly still hold here.) I do use his “Historical Introduction” in my informal lectures, and use his work as the outline text for my lessons (note: these are just for friends, and I pretend no connection between my actual professional studies and the history of western religion). Given all that, I think the collaboration with a second author may have helped the flow and arrangement of this very useful book.

[note: I previously mislabeled the 7th edition as published in 2022; it was actually published in 2019.]

[Joe Bruno · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a textbook on the New Testament writings, not the theology. It is used as an introductory text to the New Testament in many seminaries in the US. This has less to do with belief in the Bible or its claims than it does with the writings themselves. Ehrman makes that clear many times.

I learned a lot just reading this. I didn't study it as I would have for a class, but Ehrman included lots of explanations of how the academic community operates, how the academic world approaches the New Testament. I can see how this would be an great textbook for an undergraduate course in the New Testament. Erhman does an excellent job of presenting and organizing the material.

I borrowed this from the library. There was only one copy in the SLPL and SLCL systems, it might be hard to find in smaller libraries. I thought I was getting a newish edition, it is on like the 8th, but this was only the 2nd edition. For my purposes it was just fine. My friend Tommy the professor says you have to get the newest edition on principle. You can get an early edition for like 10 bucks online, but the 8th is textbook price, near a hundred dollars.

[Will Thorpe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Been churning through this book for about 5 months now actually studying a few pages each day. It’s been incredibly helpful in reprogramming my brain and to look at the Bible as any other anthology of ancient documents vs the “word of god”. It’s one thing to no longer be convinced the Bible is the word of god but it’s another to be able to replace that gap with helpful information and processes.

If you’re unfamiliar with Professor Bart Ehrman then please consider watching some of his lectures. I do disagree with him on some points and I made notes in the textbook showing this, but it’s rare when I do. And often times his opinions line up with the majority of scholars- he is just the more outspoken of most of them and I think layman like myself are all the better for it.

[Hugh Brein · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ehrman’s work is well put together and teaches both teacher and student alike in a way which engrosses the mind and keeps the attention at hand. However, whilst the medium of expression is more than excellent, the content often falls short. Ehrman engages in a variety of NT topics but does not provide the soundest of arguments. Quite frequently (and this is by no means an attack on his work), he relies on fallacies and strawman arguments (forgive my lack of knowledge in terminology related to the realm of logic) and these are not resolved nor are reliable sources pointed towards. If you want to use this as an introduction to NT studies, be aware that it is quite lacking and it is obviously clear which biases Ehrman holds.

TLDR: A good effort but not really a comprehensive analysis.

[Mariah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll forgive Ehrman's attempt to provide an unknowledgeable philosophical theory of language and his handful of argumentative errors (the argument from silence concerning Paul's knowledge of Jesus is pretty bad, but at least he gives it as only one option among three). Ehrman is an otherwise excellent writer and a clearly knowledgeable scholar (in his field, anyhow). His Intro to the New Testament is an enjoyable read and makes an otherwise often weighty and occasionally dry subject a breeze. It's an excellent intro text, even if it might make some unsuspecting Christian undergrads at secular universities squirm. Fortunately, I knew what I was getting myself into ;)

[AJ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book. This is not a religious guide or written with a theology in mind. It's a history book. It's a college textbook for an entry level class on the New Testament. This book covers the who wrote what and when, the audience to whom a writer was writing, major themes of books in the New Testament, and I believe most important, the context of the times the books were written. This book does not discuss any of the theological meanings or interpretations of the books in the New Testament other than how people at the time and later interpreted the New Testament. Just a great book. I learned so much.

[Al MacKinnon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This took me a year to read because I would pick it up in between other books. I found it extremely well written with a great mix of depth and occasional humor. This is a text book and it leads you through different ways of studying and interpreting early Christian writings, including the New Testament and some material that didn’t make the cut. It does not try to convince you that Jesus was real, but rather looks at how he was viewed and written about in the first couple of centuries. I rank it as high as Isaac Asimov’s History of the Bible, but that work covers both the Old and New Testaments. Highly recommended if you like the historical aspects of Christianity.

[Igor · Rating 5 out of 5]

The opinion of this great work will depend on personal beliefs and level of interest of the historic Jesus.

The book goes deep and it not a 'easy' reading. Despite the fact that the author does what he can to smooth the subject for non specialists.

Therefore, for my purpose and personal understanding of reality – since I consider myself to be an agnostic, this book is great and the author the best in this field.

So, I advise you to read other review before beginning this ‘journey’.

Following Kant advice: Sapere aude!

[John Warner · Rating 4 out of 5]

NYT-bestseller and University of North Carolina professor provides an academic, but easily understandable treatise of the New Testament. He skillfully sets the scene for the historical Jesus through lectures on ancient Greek and Roman and Jewish culture before discussion the gospels and letters which comprise much of the New Testament. He closes the book with a defense of textual criticism in as one of the tools in studying the New Testament. I have read and enjoyed several of Professor Ehrman's books, including this one, and none have let me down.

[Orion · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading the book with a later edition but when the library wanted it back, I found this old edition at an inexpensive price. This is the companion text to the excellent Open Yale Course entitled "Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature" taught by Dale B. Martin. The book is easy to read and it kept my attention throughout its 450 pages. It fleshed out the subject matter presented in the Yale course. I read it in conjunction with the New Testament itself, which made reading the scripture much easier.

[Oleg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Очень рад, что переплыл этот учебник. Хорошее научное введение в тематику. Одну звездочку снял лишь за "воинствующий атеизм" автора и немного предвзятое, как показалось, построение аргументов. Кстати, забавно, как Эрман подробно объясняет, почему он использует термины BCE и СЕ вместо ВС и AD; вот и американцы в конце хх /начале ххi века пришли к тому, к чему советские ученые пришли намного раньше.

[Petter Wolff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was super interesting to me, as a (pretty thorough) introduction to the historical analysis of the basis of our Christian culture, and how various interpretations have been around, melted together, diversified again, and been carried by a few accounts that were taken as gospel (with a small "g") by some (more or less) random majority at some (more or less) random point in time.
Highly recommended reading, especially the Gospel (with a capital "G") parts and and the Paul sources!

[Cuiper]

For me as a non believer the new testament had always been a strange and even weird collection of writings, even when I had a couple of strict protestant friends. This book by Ehrman was a joy to read and gave me insight in the making and understanding of christianity from the year 30 on. That is mostly done by sketching a presentation of the pagan world surrounding the first christians. I would almost say: it takes a pagan mind to understand the things happening in the new testament.