(Part 2) Best new testament interpretation books according to redditors

AFAIK, a NT scholar named E.P. Sanders was the one who first wrote about this. It is most of the reason that the New Perspective on Paul exists. D.A. Carson and a bunch of other people put out a monster two-volume work in response called Justification and Variegated Nomism. I haven't read them, but I've heard a couple of recordings of Carson talking about it. This might be one of them.

This is a good start.

A somewhat clunky fictionalized delivery of similar info.

A more poetic/reflective approach.

1. Here is a great article on the Old Testament view of life after death by TD Alexander. The question of what the OT teaches concerning the eternal state is very difficult. To answer your question on the hope of the OT people: For the righteous who are down in Sheol, suffering the consequences of God’s punishment, there is hope for them because God has the authority to raise men from the intermediate state at the resurrection. Resurrection is the hope, which is what the Pharisees taught.
   
   
2. The Scripture, taken on its own terms, teaches there is one divine author. So this unity must always be thought of when understanding the plurality of the many authors of Scripture (and vice versa). You can more on Hebrew cosmology with this excellent resource.
   
   
3. I can't really speak to this one. It is interesting, though.
   
   
4. No, He did not. Judaism was always a monotheistic religion. It taught that God is one (in number) and one (in essence). Deut 6:4 teaches this. Furthermore, I think taking the first Chapter of Genesis clearly shows that God is the Creator, he's not vying for his title against other Gods, he's the creator, and anyother gods which exist are idols made by man's hands or imagination.
   
   
5. Do you mean the royal "us" in Genesis 1:26?
   
   
6. Yes. I think a sound Biblical Theological argument can be made for this. Adam was original prophet/priest/king who fails in this garden-temple. GK Beale has done lots of work on this. See "The Temple and the Church's Mission.
   
   
7. I personally believe Jonah died and was resurrected. A full-orbed way to understand Jonah is to look at the life and ministry of Christ, who actually identifies with Jonah in Matt 12:40. I think it is a stretch, and inconsistent with what Christ teaches about Jonah to identify the Peter incident with Jonah's decent into Sheol.
   
   
8. Water can often be used as judgement in the OT (Noah, Egyptians), however we see that Jesus goes under the baptismal waters of Judgement, so to speak so that the church would safely be carried through them. (Noahs family = church, Israelites passing through red sea = church). Futhermore, after these OT water episodes, a New Creation emerges. Noah's family (and a new earth), and Israel (a people and a promised land) are born as new creations after the waters of Judgment flood their enemies. This adds significance to Jesus' acts of rebuking the waters, being baptised in water, and the Holy Spirit's continued ministry of creating new life as the (lord, so to speak) of the waters of judgement (Gen 1:2). And what are we told in Revelation? There will be no more ocean. Reading Revelation on it's own terms, we should think of what this would mean to a Jewish reader -- God has completely done away with judgement and wrath and chaos. The New Creation has arrived.
   
   If these topics interest you, I highly recommend this work: New Testament Biblical Theology, A. The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New.
   

The N. T. Wright Christian Origins and the Question of God series are all $4.99 each. If you purchased the print copies at some time in the past, they are only $2.99. Whether you love or hate Wright, all four of these are excellent and a great value at a mere $5.

New Testament People God

Jesus Victory of God

Resurrection Son of God

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Two Book Set, Biggest bang for your buck.

You might be interested in Mark S. Smith's book Where the Gods Are: Spatial Dimensions of Anthropomorphism in the Biblical World. Although you appear to be more interested in the character of God, I think his character, or different views of his character are linked to the views of his form and where he resides. In this respect, Smith shows from the biblical text and from the Ugaritic material that there are 3 forms of God. The first form is the Yhwh that visits Abraham. This form of God is of a human-sized being that is actually confused as a human by Abraham. The second form is that of a giant. The third is a God that is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Anyway, it seems to me that the 3 forms are also related to the capacities of God.

I'd also particularly recommend:

Mark S. Smith, Where the Gods Are: Spatial Dimensions of Anthropomorphism in the Biblical World (New Haven; London: Yale University Press), 2016.

My wife really appreciated Justification and Variegated Nomism.

I'd recommend against Barth's Church Dogmatics unless you are quite well versed in theology, and like reading long and sometimes confusing sentences.

Interested in Church Fathers?

Oden's Classical Christianity is pretty decent. It tries to break down the typical "systematic theology" headings using the early church (and some later ones). Not perfect, but there isn't one I've read yet that beats it.

Augustine's Confessions is a must if you haven't read it yet. Its autobiographical yet very spiritual and insightful at the same time.

Chrysostom's On the Priesthood is a great writing that can apply to anyone, not just those seeking ordination.

Athanasius' On the Incarnation focuses on the person of Christ, and what it meant for God to become man.

Basil's On the Holy Spirit is a great exposition on not just how the Holy Spirit is argued to be part of the Trinity, but also Christ. Very great reading for people questioning it or curious about it.

Reformation Fathers?

Peter Martyr Vermigli's Predestination and Justification is great. John Calvin in a letter said Vermigli had a better understanding of Predestination than he did, which is funny since Calvin is known for predestination today.

Martin Luther's Theological Works has most of his important works, including Bondage of the Will.

Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. but try not to pay $325 for it. Its out of print so might be a bit hard to find for a reasonable price. If you are able to find it though, it's a gold mine. Also check out other of his books.

More contemporary?

Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism is a classic on the Reformed faith.

Herman Bavinck's Abridged Reformed Dogmatics is great, and in my opinion one of the best Systematic Theologies available. More of a Dutch Reformed than Presby bent, but essentially the same.

Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline is a very abridged version of Church Dogmatics, and would recommend it over the original source unless you have a lot of free time or want to be a Barth scholar.

Thats what I can think of off the top of my head. If you have other specific ones I can find other stuff.

Vorster, W.S. (1993) “The production of the Gospel of Mark: An essay on intertextuality”. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies. pp. 385–396 https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/2499/4312

>(eta) That [Mark's] Gospel echoes the Old Testment is clear from both the quotations and the many allusions to Old Testament writings.
>
>attempts have been made at describing the Gospel as the rewriting of Old Testament stories … to regard Mark’s Gospel as a creation of a new text … New Testament writers created what [these scholars] call new midrashim on older texts. They argue that Mark did not simply interpret the Old Testament midrashically. Mark created a new midrash – that is, new scripture in typical Jewish fashion …

Thomas L Brodie (2004) The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings, Sheffield Phoenix Press.

How John Wrote the Book of Revelation; the author has started a thread on BC&H forum outlining how Revelation chapter 13 was a product of Daniel 7, and about parallel formation of other sections within Revelation.

Wow, that is really weird. When I click it goes to the book. It might be because I use the "smile" links which contribute to a charity when I buy something and maybe you just use the regular site. Here's the link to the "regular" site: [Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World] (https://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Mediterranean-Wissenschaftliche-Untersuchungen-Testament/dp/3161531248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505679086&sr=8-1&keywords=crucifixion+in+the+mediterranean+world).

For a first step into biblical study, I'm not sure I would only read Carrier's book. As I haven't read it fully, I can't really comment on it like /u/koine_lingua.

But if you want to get a broad spectrum, you can check out:

John Meier Marginal Jew - (maybe vol. 2 or 3)

NT Wright's How God Became King

John Dominic Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography

Marcus Borg Jesus: An uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary

Craig Blomberg Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey

You can take a stab at Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus

or Raymond E. Brown's Death of the Messiah or Birth of the Messiah if you want. I found Schweitzer's book difficult to get through. And one Easter holiday my plans were to read Death of the Messiah. After page like 17, I quit and played WoW.

That will give you a healthy dose of different perspectives - and will not only give you a survey of the scholarship but also will argue for a model, as opposed to Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus which just criticizes one aspect of HJ studies.

I definitely wouldn't dispute that Q is a reality that, at this moment of scholarly consensus, is used to account for the textual parallels in Matthew and Luke. But my point is that this does not constitute "evidence of a second source" as such––it constitutes a theory that fits the data. A coherent theory is a useful thing that should not be tossed out necessarily, but a theory is not equivalent to evidence. My point about the textual remains that may or may not exist on the papyrus mummy mask mentioned in the article is that supposing that Q is part of the realia of early gospel traditions is turning a theoretical placeholder into a piece of evidence, i.e., turning a useful hypothetical into a material artifact. That kind of slippage is dangerous precisely because it requires a theoretical rigidity that, as scholarship is beginning to suggest, is not warranted by what we actually have.

Q as a hypothetical source is a wonderful mental tool that allows us to consider points of connection, overlap, and interrelationship in what was unquestionably a diverse oral tradition. Q as a definitive source for which there is no extra-textual evidence and no basis for assuming beyond form-critical speculation introduces a hornets nest of assumptions and theological speculation that imposes judgment over questions we could HARDLY begin to answer definitively.

This is to say, it is not "automatically non-existent" because it wasn't written down. It is "automatically non-existent" because it's existence was always tenuous and never had any substance to it in the first place. The problem is that scholars, some of whom are lazy and others of whom are willing to entertain speculative claims beyond what can actually be substantiated, have created a certainty around Q to the level that there is even a Hermeneia commentary on the "document." While this might be an interesting speculative exercise, it is not warranted by an unsubstantiated document––it amounts to surmising about a passing breeze, or, in a more conspiratorial vein, to scouring the Great White North for Yeti. When searches presume about facts that are not in evidence, it leads to misinformed conclusions.

This emphatically is not my area of expertise in the study of the New Testament and Early Christianity. But I would point anyone interested to the materials conveniently gathered by Mark Goodacre here: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ (admittedly, Goodacre is a Q-critic, and he has written lengthily on the subject of Markan priority and against the theoretical underpinnings of the four-source hypothesis. On the other side of the equation, I would also point you to the very Hermeneia commentary I reference, in which the exhaustive bibliography (especially the work of Kloppenborg, one of the authors) gives good places to go to find some of the kinds of rebuttles that Q-apologists might use to respond to critics and skeptics. (here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Critical-Edition-Translations-Historical/dp/0800631498)

Try that

https://www.amazon.com/Trial-Jesus-Studia-Judaica/dp/3110022834/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I've been reading a book lately, Kingdom, Grace, Judgment: Paradox, Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus and I highly recommend it. The parables are picked over a lot, but we don't always think about why Jesus used them. At first glance, we might say that he's using these earthy analogies to make heavenly things easier to understand, but the text says the exact opposite: that he's purposely obfuscating, that ONLY those who have ears to hear will understand, that people will see and not perceive. The parables are not just delivering information to their listeners- they are revealing the hearts of the listener.

Not to go all Stanley Fish on you here, but it's as though Jesus is a reader-response critic who is just as concerned with what the parable says about the person who hears it as he is with the subject matter itself.

Other ideas I found interesting: in the parable of the sower, we're told that the seed is the "word of God", and Capon argues that the synoptics can't be unaware of John's ideas about Jesus being the Word of God. So it's Jesus that gets sown in the hearts of all men, and the parable is not just a morality play on whether "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" or not.

Look up the Big Omission. There's a huge chunk that is only found in Mark and Matthew that Luke knows nothing about. That's because there was an "original Mark," that Luke copied from, and a "longer Mark" that Matthew copied from.

Basically, Mark 6:45-8:26 was not part of the original GMark.

We know this not just because Luke didn't copy from it, but because it has a number of bizarre features that don't match the rest of Mark. These include:

1. Ignorance of the geographic of the Holy Land;
   
2. Jesus engages in "magical manipulation" while performing miracles, like groaning and using spit and dirt;
   
3. Duplications of miracles, like the water miracles and the mass feedings; and
   
4. It breaks up the elegant "mirrored" design of original Mark, which has a fascinating "sandwiching and bracketing" framework, which scholars call "chiasms," and the entire Gospel is mirrored around a central event, and events in the first half are mirrored in the last half.
   
   There's a great book called Decoding Mark that I encourage everyone to read: http://www.amazon.com/Decoding-Mark-John-Dart/dp/B003GAN1RA
   
   A quick review: http://michaelturton2.blogspot.ca/2005/02/secret-mark-marks-secrets-decoding.html
   
   

I mean, there's just so many...

Knowing Scripture by R. C. Sproul

A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis by Craig Blomberg

Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G. K. Beale

The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism by G. K. Beale

Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles by Graeme Goldsworthy

Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation by Graeme Goldsworthy

That should get you started.

Dude. I'm not a religious person. I'm not trying to convince you that the bible is real. But the existence of Jesus as an actual person is pretty well agreed upon by virtually every historian who has researched the time period. That's not to say they think he committed miracles or any of that stuff, just that there was a person by the name of Jesus of Nazareth at that time period who was renowned enough to be written about by numerous contemporaries.

Here's a book on the topic.

Here's another one.

And another one.

And another one...

There is a shitload of research on the topic. If you actually google'd it, like I recommended, you'd find a mountain of information.

You were wrong about something on the internet. It's not a big deal.

>Do we believe the stars and moon are made of "wind" or "breath"?

You're trying to tell me what the 1st century belief is. The same pneuma you're using to mean "wind", is the same pneuma used to describe celestial bodies.

This comparison is further highlighted in Corinthians by Paul's usage of soma (body) over sarx (flesh) so that he can more directly draw the parallel and show this is not a fleshy "soulish" body that we currently have, but a pneumatic body in literally the same way as that of the celestial bodies.

>call me a heretic, or you might understand that this is pretty close to how the ancients, with their limited understanding of science, understood things.

Heretic in terms of non-orthodox, sure. But the issue isn't about what you believe, but the words and concepts you're trying to anachronistically place into the text.

There's literally no room in the scripture or teachings for the kind of incorporeal "being of light" that your talking about in 1 Corinthians 15.

You're welcome to make that case, but so far you've offered nothing but your own interpretation of the text that, as I point out, flatly contradicts common scholarly understanding of Paul's teachings on the resurrection body (I also highly recommend Dale Martin's The Corinthian Body which deals with the pneumatic body at length).

>The whole account reeks of literary invention - it is not meant to be taken literally!

But the problem is we're deciphering what the early Christians believed.

Even if we accept the entire passion and resurrection narratives as literary invention, that's not what Paul's teaching.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is a creed that is intended literally, not metaphorically. A creed that is accepted as a legitimate teaching of the Jerusalem church even by the likes of Ehrman and dates to only a few years after the Crucifixion.

So again, even if we say the whole thing is made up, within a year Christians are teaching it as literal.

Any notion the early Christians took bodily resurrection as metaphor or symbol doesn't fit with the historical evidence we have.

35 years ago, the Jesus Seminar was formed to determine if people could pull out from the gospels things Jesus really said and did, as opposed to simply what the gospels reported.

The results of their work were published in the Acts of Jesus. It's been a while since I read it, but I do believe it mostly relies on the canonical gospels, though I seem to remember maybe something from the Gospel of Peter. And of course, the theoretical lost Gospel of Q (which is pulled from Luke and Matthew. That entire thing is fascinating to dissect, both in terms of how it was posited and how it is derived.)

It is an interesting idea. The methodology can be questioned, but the quest to figure out what might actually have been his words and what was added later is a good one. To tease out the man from the myth.

Whether that is possible, frankly, I don't know. For Jesus to have become the focal point for so many people so quickly indicates that the things he taught had to be something revolutionary. Of course he would be co-opted by people seeking power (I'm looking at you, Paul).

In other words, it is likely that that particular illustration (the man who went off to get the kingship and when he returned, ordered the death of those who didn't want him) likely was not said by Jesus.

Then again, there's no way we can be sure.

It might not be exactly what you are looking for, but I recommend Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Three authors take turns giving a defense of pre/post/a millennialism and then the other two authors respond. Ken Gentry is the Postmill guy.

One fairly decent series is the Counterpoint series from Zondervan. It has a number of books where different authors make the case for their beliefs and then interact with the other authors with opposing beliefs. I have the one on miraculous gifts and find it useful. They do have one on the millenium/end times: the book. Or this one on different view of Revelation

"on David Aune, it is surely the best commentary on Revelation"


You wrote 'best' but you probably meant 'longest' which is different


I like a lot of Aune's content, but Ian Paul has a pretty good takedown of Aune's general hypothesis and methodological assumptions, although I can't really enthusiastically endorse Ian Paul's counter-hypothesis

I'd direct you to a book called "The Corinthian Body".

Essentially when Paul refers to resurrection, it's not the same body that was buried, but its resurrected into a newer "spiritual body". Which is spiritual more in the sense of saying "ted is a spiritual kind of guy"

Corinthians 15 provides a decent overview.'

Earlier in Corinthians 15 we also see Paul describe Christ as "that he was buried, that he was raised..."

I don't think it makes sense to say a "spirit" was buried and raised or that the story should skip from a physical body to a spirit in the same sentence without qualification.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Sins-Scripture-Exposing-Bibles/dp/0060762055
This is a good book to check out from your library if you're interested in the subject.

Another movie you could have suggested would be Latter Days. It's quite powerful, even if it is only about one sect of Christianity. Another book that I found helpful in explaining things to other Christians (I am in fact a queer Christian) is Sins of Scripture by John Shelby Spong.

All in all, it was a well thought out response. Although, I also disagree with you about addiction, depression and self harm, but such is the nature of religion. How boring we would all be if we agreed about everything. Disagreement is healthy, as long as it is done in a respectful manner.

Back in 1997, he wrote The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, which is basically a defense of Christian (and hence Catholic) orthodoxy. Which he felt, at the time, was under public attack by the work of the Jesus seminar.