Customer Reviews

New Testament Fundamentals

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I teach New Testament to university undergraduates. This is the best textbook for New Testament, and probably the best textbook for ANY course, that I have ever used. The book itself is short, so that the student has time to read the Bible itself, not just the textbook. It approaches the New Testament from a scholarly, non-doctrinal, non-denominational perspective. It is an introduction to academic, as distinct from a church-oriented, study of the Bible, something surprisingly few students are even aware is possible. The exercises and underlining suggestions the author makes invite the student to learn about being a scholar by actually practicing Biblical scholarship for him/herself. The writing style is remarkably clear and easy to follow. I give this book my highest recommendation.

If you are interested in reading the New Testament critically and you need a place to start, this is a good book for you. This is especially true if you're a tinkerer, and you really like finding things out for yourself.

I recommend anyone who reads this book to have a copy of a Bible handy in order to do the exercises. There are reading, writing, and underlining excercises throughout the book that I found very worthwhile to do. One can learn a lot simply by sifting out the Signs Gospel (from John), Q in Matthew and/or Luke, and other text fragments.

This book takes a non-doctrinal, hands-on approach. Davies does not analyze the text for you, but gives background historical and cultural information, indicates textual parallels, presents well-designed charts and timelines, and suggests ways for you to analyze it yourself.

I have read the reviews above and I think some balance is in order. I teach NT Biblical Studies at the undergraduate level and also use this book, among others. Davies has written a short concise and well-written introduction. However, short and concise also bring their problems. Davies often throws in opinions from his scholarly bent, unsupported and non-clarified that can confuse a student. For example, his opinion that Luke shows no evidence of ever knowing Paul, and as having derived his knowledge of Paul primarily by the Pauline Epistles does not deal with the "we" passages of Acts. His opinion that there is no evidence that Luke was a physician overlooks the substantial studies dealing with Luke-Acts and the medical terms used by Luke. I'm not here to criticize this book, but to give warning to readers and instructors who honor a more conservative view of Biblical Studies. I would have like to have seen a more rounded introduction, and at least an acknowledgment that different scholarly opinions exist in areas of NT studies.