Reddit reviews An Introduction to the New Testament

• An Introduction to the New Testament
  
• Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity
  
• An Introduction to the New Testament (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)
  
• New Testament History and Literature
  
• Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years
  
• New Testament History: A Narrative Account

1. Second Michael Kruger! He's great.
   
   
2. Likewise, OP, take a look at Don Carson and Doug Moo's An Introduction to the New Testament for a solid scholarly overview of all the NT books including a defense of their authenticity, canonical status, and authorship. In the case of Revelation, Carson and Moo argue for apostolic (Johannine) authorship based on factors like early Christian testimony and internal evidence. They further respond to arguments against apostolic authorship and show why these arguments fail in their academically informed and considered view.
   
   
3. Also, you might be interested in a free-to-read online introduction and commentary on Revelation from Vern Poythress (PhD, Harvard) who is a professor at Westminster Theology Seminary in Philadelphia, PA. It will help you see the big picture of Revelation and how it fits into the rest of the Bible. I think it's an excellent introduction to Revelation.

A good study Bible like this will include a couple of introductory pages at the beginning of a book to help, plus tons of notes, charts, timelines, etc. Definitely helpful in understanding context! There's also more in-depth resources like these excellent Introduction to the Old Testament and Introduction to the New Testament books.

Thank you! Got An Introduction To The New Testament by Carson and Moo.

For the New Testament, Carson and Moo's Introduction to the New Testament is great: https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0310238595/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=&sr=

You can get it for a good price, and it gives very balanced views. It will outline the different positions and go through the current academic questions.

For the Old Testament, there's a counterpart by the same publisher, but I have no experience with it: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Old-Testament-Second-ebook/dp/B000SEL1FQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UN4C24G87RZ3&keywords=an+introduction+to+the+old+testament+longman&qid=1561995832&s=books&sprefix=an+introduction+to+the+old+testament%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C128&sr=1-1

Another option is a Catholic Introduction to the Old Testament, which is excellent: https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Introduction-Bible-Old-Testament-ebook/dp/B07H46F524/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1RP4QZX3LE5HE&keywords=a+catholic+introduction+to+the+bible+the+old+testament&qid=1561995878&s=books&sprefix=a+Catholic%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C131&sr=1-1

The two first ones get called 'Evangelical,' and that's true. But, they don't settle things with pure theology. They argue both sides on any issue and give their opinion. The Catholic Introduction is Catholic, but that doesn't mean that it only gives one view either.

• F.F. Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
  
  
• Richard Bauckman's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
  
  
• Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
  
  
• Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
  
  
• D.A. Carson and Douglass Moo's An Introduction to the New Testament
  
  
  
  (Note, these will probably go against or "provide a nice contrast with" captainhaddock's view --the current most popular post in the thread).

I'm not quite sure what you are looking for, or where the 700 years comes from that you are referring to, and I'm not as experienced in books written from Christian perspectives as I am with others but I'll just leave these here for you to look into until someone else has more suggestions so you have somewhere to start for now. They are all written by Christian professors/scholars. This being the case however I am not sure that they will accomplish your goal. I only have real experience with the one written by Jeffers which is more about life in the era the NT was written.

http://www.amazon.com/Backgrounds-Early-Christianity-Everett-Ferguson/dp/0802822215

http://www.amazon.com/The-Greco-Roman-World-New-Testament/dp/0830815899

http://www.amazon.com/Arius-Heresy-Tradition-Rowan-Williams/dp/0802849695

http://www.amazon.com/An-Introduction-New-Testament-Carson/dp/0310238595/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

I trust Dr. Martin's lectures are quite beneficial, though I confess the busyness of the season will likely preclude my viewing them. However, rest assured I am familiar with a very similar series by Dr. Fantin, this book by Dr. Carson & Dr. Moo, and the writing of John Drane in his Introducing the New Testament. They assert synoptic dates in the late 50s through late 60s, mid 50s through the mid 60s, and mid 70s through mid 80s, respectively.


Your response was significantly more stream-of-consciousness than before and I trust you'll forgive me some questions of clarification? Which "more accurate description of events" are you referring to? In the wikipedia article's reference to oral tradition I see Halivne, Kalet, Herford, Wansbrough, and Henaut listed as authors asserting Christians had no written Gospels before AD 70, but I admit I am not familiar with any of them. Which would you recommend?


For further clarification, which assurances of mine are you referring to? More specifically, which assurances have lacked evidence? If you are indeed accusing me for failing to produce undeniable (concrete) evidence for the dating of the writing of the gospels... there's not any? If there was concrete evidence, it wouldn't be a dating puzzle, scholars would agree, and you and I would not be having this conversation.


You're right, we don't know where the apostle John was exactly in AD 70-75. However, whether he was in Judea or Asia Minor (Turkey), each was a center of Christianity by that point anyways. The notion that the only living disciple/apostle would be unable to correct an honest mistake (written or oral) strikes me as an unacceptably large assumption.


Unless I am mis-reading (and I apologize if it's the case!), your final assertion is that your weak assumption is negated by my weak assumption that early Christians were of trustworthy character. Did I not present valid historical evidence, dated within forty years of the AD 70s, that vehement enemies and torturers of Christians bore witness to their commitment to trustworthy character? This would be the equivalent of a letter from a British governor to the British monarchy, dated 1816, stating "I tortured those damned patriot Americans I captured. I hate their guts, but the only thing they had done wrong was trying to be the most upstanding men they could be."


My assumption is not based on conjecture, intuition, meditation, fasting, prayer, mushrooms, divine inspiration, dreams, voting, accepting a story I heard, or the most vivid story 2000 years later, but primary evidence from the time period.


I found this statement of yours particularly thought-provoking.
>If one is willing to risk one's life for a cause, one might also be willing to sacrifice historical accuracy.

It prompted me to do a willy-nilly google search on "Why do people risk their lives." I've read some interesting stuff, most of it about adrenaline junkies (though that's clearly not what we're talking about). Most interesting though, this quote, which I found here.
>Rohit Deshpande, a professor at Harvard Business School, has delved into the science of heroism to find out what causes someone to spring into action despite the danger to help or save someone else.
>
>In his research, Deshpande focused on how hotel workers took extreme risks to protect guests during the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, in 2008. ...
>
>He found heroism had nothing to do with age, gender or religion. It started with personality.
>
>"It seems that they have a much more highly developed moral compass," he said. "They have this instinct for doing something good for other people. We find this across a whole series of situations. We find people who risk their own lives to protect people from harm."


I found nothing about people dying for a cause they know is a historically inaccurate lie.