Reading the New Testament as Christian Scripture (Reading Christian Scripture): A Literary, Canonical, and Theological Survey

by Constantine R. Campbell, Jonathan T. Pennington

This survey textbook by two respected New Testament scholars is designed to meet the needs of contemporary evangelical undergraduates. The book effectively covers the New Testament books and major topics in the New Testament, assuming no prior academic study of the Bible. The authors pay attention to how the New Testament documents fit together as a canonical whole that supplements the Old Testament to make up the Christian Scriptures. They also show how the New Testament writings provide basic material for Christian doctrine, spirituality, and engagement with culture. Chapters can be assigned in any order, making this an ideal textbook for one-semester courses at evangelical schools.

This is the first volume in a new series of survey textbooks that will cover the Old and New Testaments. The book features full-color illustrations that hold interest and aid learning and offers a full array of pedagogical aids: photographs, sidebars, maps, time lines, charts, glossary, and discussion questions. Additional resources for instructors and students are available through Textbook eSources.

Genres: Theology, New Testament, Faith

429 pages, Kindle Edition

Published August 4, 2020

About the author

also published under Con Campbell

Reviews

[Darryl Burling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generally very good! Especially for a first introduction

If you’re looking for an introduction to the New Testament for college students, this might be just the ticket. Each book is introduced in a clear and concise way, connected with the text and peppered with useful and interesting background elements that will enrich reading and answer questions that many students have. At times it is a little less critical of philosophically driven scholarly discussion than I think it should be, but the authors come to the right conclusions for the right reasons despite this. The readability of this volume makes up for what could otherwise be a heady academic work.

[Johnny · Rating 3 out of 5]

If Reading the New Testament as Christian Scripture: A Literary, Canonical, and Theological Survey had reached the goal for which it apparently set out, it would have been the finest New Testament Survey textbook out there. Unfortunately, the three types of analysis mentioned in the subtitle are very much restricted to the colorful sidebar boxes. Such placement has the particular disadvantage of attenuating the discussions rather abruptly and often (though not always) presenting only one side of what should be robust debates. This attenuation is even more unfortunate since the assertions made in these Readers Digest Condensed discussions tend not to have documented references. Those limitations acknowledged, even in their shorter form, these sidebars (especially the canonical connections and reception history “articles”) tend to be the most valuable portions of the book. [My personal index where I note quotations or discussions that I would like to return to at a later date listed sidebars on pp. 91, 113, 127, 128, 129, 144, 151, 154, 155, 160, 161, 167, 169, 180, 187, 190, 223, 235, 238, 255, 271, 279, 286, 292, 296, 299, 302, 309, 311, 313, 327, 333, 344, 345, 349, 362, 363, 371, and 377.

Building off the disappointment with the attenuated discussions in the sidebars, one would have felt that a volume with “Literary” in the title would have had at least some mention of the structure and style of the Christological hymns in Philippians (pp. 264-265) and Colossians (pp. 270-271).
One also would have expected a slightly more sophisticated understanding of kenosis in the Christ hymn from a book with “Theological” in the title since the oversimplified rejection of the theory ignores the divine agency of self-limitation implicit in the process and the very sophisticated understanding of the doctrine from Wolfhart Pannenberg in his Systematic Theology as opposed to his rejection of kenosis in his earlier Jesus, God, and Man. Again, my bias makes me fairly certain the outright rejection of a simplified understanding of the doctrine can be traced back to the head of the institution of one of the writers. Another disappointing sidebar was the one on the descent into hell (p. 337). No mention is made of the fact that the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed doesn’t appear until circa the 4th century or that part of the reason for its existence is a confusion of hades as a neutral place of the dead and hell. Again, the head of one of the author’s institutions is completely “sold out” to the idea that it has to be hell. It is ironic that this person who made his reputation claiming to support the authority of the Bible has leaped to a conclusion beyond the biblical evidence.

Another problem with the book is the nature of any book that is co-authored. Different authors have different sensibilities. My frustration is that some of the discussions (not just in the sidebars) will start off in an interesting direction and, then, without introducing any new or decisive evidence, the author of the section (or authors of the book) immediately retreat to a traditional position. For example, p. 185 takes as proven fact that Paul was beheaded in Rome. This is solid tradition, but the authors introduce no evidence—a must when something is not explicit in the scriptural account. Here, the authors assume a second arrest after the Spanish mission attested by Clement. Yet, on p. 207, As biased as I am against Dr. Pennington’s institution since it was hijacked by extremists, my opinion without evidence is that Pennington was forced to drop back to the traditional positions and punt lest his anti-intellectual seminary president and agenda-bound trustees remove him from his job. As a result, the book feels even more uneven than the usual collaborative effort.

Again, just because I agree with the author(s) that Paul is the author of the Pastoral Letters doesn’t mean that I didn’t feel uncomfortable that the appeal was to the early church’s acceptance of the manuscripts and that there wasn’t even a modicum of documentation regarding those who disagree with Pauline authenticity (p. 291 sidebar).The same arguments that the author(s) made (or make) for Pauline authenticity here could be used for Hebrews, but the author(s) is (are) not consistent on p. 313’s sidebar, “Why Was Hebrews Accepted into the Canon?” Worse is the side on the authorship of 2 Peter on p. 341 where an entire list of reasons to doubt Petrine authorship is followed by an assurance that each reason could be countered. Unfortunately, the author(s) offer no counterpoint to the discussion.

I was also incredibly annoyed by the sidebar on p. 259 where the author or authors completely “copped out” on the issue as to whether submission was commanded in asymmetrical relationships. Indeed, he or they finished that short sidebar sounding like they favored a compromise where the incredible ethical demand in the verse was completely emasculated. One could completely mitigate any command in the Scripture by claiming it applied “as appropriate to the situation.” This sounded so much like the executive in charge of one of the author’s institutions that I’m almost sure where this gutting of the scriptural imperative originated. Further, the sidebar on universalism (p. 292) would have been helpful if author(s) or editor would have excised the last sentence which evokes, unnecessarily, a double-predestination which is unhelpful in the current argument. Of course, my bias tells me that we know where that came from. A better job is provided in the sidebar on p. 296.

As a result of my personal bias, I almost gave this book a rating of two stars, “It was okay.” In all fairness, though, that was because I had read several chapters on my favorite biblical material in isolation and made no effort to read through the book in the order intended. Once I went back and did a “read-through,” the book worked better, despite its unevenness.

Lest one think that I see little value in this book outside of the refreshing, but all too brief, sidebars, I will endeavor to highlight some of the discussions or quotations that I found most valuable. For example, my initial readings in the book missed this marvelous way of expressing the goal of the Christian reader of the New Testament: “Our goal in reading is not merely to garner information but also to experience transformation: not to be smarter people but to become a different kind of people.” (p. 3) Those “pick and choose” readings also missed another important line in the introductory section where the authors emphasize the importance of cultural aspects as well as historical facts and setting. “Rather, we need a method of reading the New Testament that is sensitive to historical facts but, more importantly, realizes that individuals live in cultures, not just historical events.” (p. 23)

I enjoyed the insights on the possibility of the two miraculous feedings in Matthew as pointing to the Jews in the one and the non-Jews in the other (p. 97). I liked the idea of “upside-down” kingdom expectations described in Luke (pp. 127-128). I was inspired by the phrase that combined “glory of Christ” and “living into our design” (p. 190). The nuance of shifting the translation of being silent to leading a “quiet life” seemed quite helpful to me (p 279). The discussion defending Paul from the lazy, sloppy charge of misogyny should be most helpful to readers (p. 294). The textual observations on Jesus saving Israel during the Exodus in Jude and the extra-biblical possibilities on Michael facing the devil in Jude were handled nicely (p. 362 sidebars). And I loved the quotation at the end of the sidebar about the Lion and the Lamb in Revelation: “The imagery of the lion and the lamb are obviously juxtaposed to show that Christ’s power and authority are mediated through humility and sacrifice.” (p. 371)

[Carina Shephard · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars // read August 2024

Required for New Testament class. A good overview that goes into some depth while remaining accessible to the layperson.

[Nickolas Wingholt · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are studying a book in the New Testament, this won't be much help to you - except on preliminary matters like setting, authorship, etc. But if you are reading through the New Testament, whether that be a Bible reading plan or memorization, this is a welcome companion. I tend to gravitate toward the former, but I have seen the merit in reading large portions of the New Testament in one sitting. For that kind of biblical theology, Pennington and Campbell do quite well. 1st time read. 3/5.

[Braley Chambers · Rating 5 out of 5]

For an undergraduate level introduction to the New Testament, this is a great book that keeps the focus on what the focus should be on, namely, the text of the NT itself.

[Will van Delft · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this one for a course. Informative and thorough, and fairly easy to read for a textbook.

[Alan Castro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great survey of the New Testament. Simple to read and understand. Includes plenty of historical context for proper understanding of the text.

[Richard Fitzgerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book because the students in my New Testament class (primarily adult lay people who want to do some preaching) have complained that N. T. Wright's New Testament book is difficult to read. I've always found that surprising since Wright has a very accessible writing style. I discovered this book at the annual Wesleyan Theological Society meeting and ordered a copy to review. It is very well put together. And it is very accessible. The book looks and reads like one of my old high school social studies textbooks. It is hardly college-level stuff.

Despite its very low reading level, the book is valuable. It surveys every passage of the New Testament. The literary, canonical, and theological survey, though, is limited to very many colorful sidebars. They are tied to the body of the text. They are also mostly enlightening. But they are so short that they don't give much substance. I mostly agreed with the authors' conclusions, but they gave very few reasons for their positions. It was shocking that they accepted the Pauline authorship of the pastoral letters (as do I) with a simple statement that this is highly disputed, but the early church accepted Paul as the author.

I will likely use this text for my class but grieve not using a more robust text. I will mourn the loss of the depth of engagement by the authors. And I will grieve the low-level reading ability of the American public that makes books like this necessary for adults.

Addendum: I used this book for my Certified Lay Minister class on the New Testament. The students loved the book. They interacted well based on the text, making for a successful class. I have raised my rating by one star, but I still mourn the low reading ability of the American public.