Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times

Rating:
Summary: Very good NT historical survey
Review: "The thesis of this book has been that Jesus of Nazareth, the historical Jesus, became through death, bodily resurrection and ascension the Christ of faith." Jesus Seminar fans will not want to read this book.

The book is an excellent text for those conservative Christians who want to know more history (and we should want to know more) than what can be learned in the typical church service, Sunday School class, other discipleship training.

The writer is conservative, but obviously not narrow (i.e., fundamentalist). He goes mostly with traditional views of NT authorship.

His references to other scholars are not extensive but adequate. He often refers to Martin Hengel, F.F. Bruce, Rainer Riesner, etc. He is critical of N.T. Wright, but not seriously, and not convincingly. His references to other historical sources are primarily Josephus and Eusebius, etc. He refers a lot to early church fathers. Although he firmly believes Christianity was born of Judaism, Barnett refers only lightly to relevant Jewish literature (apart from OT), and he does not refer to writers like Bruce Chilton or Jacob Nuesner.

Barnett presents well traditional views, and contributes some interesting obsevations of his own, plus some less well know ideas. For example, he believes Nazareth was a village of King David's descendants who re-settled there after the return from Babylon and wanted to maintain a low profile in a time when such an ancestry might put one in danger of political execution.

I didn;t get much out of his traditional presentaton of why Jesus' blood sacrifice was necessary to make things right with God. I also thought he was weak in the current discussion about justification (convenantal nomism). He admittedly stayed away from theological issues and focused more on historical issues.

Barnett is a sensible scholar, not afraid to make sensible comments such as, "Such a brief gap [between Jesus and Paul] allows no time for Jesus to become what he was not in himself."

It was a good read, and I recommend to others as an intermediate level text.

Rating:
Summary: Very good NT historical survey
Review: "The thesis of this book has been that Jesus of Nazareth, the historical Jesus, became through death, bodily resurrection and ascension the Christ of faith." Jesus Seminar fans will not want to read this book.

The book is an excellent text for those conservative Christians who want to know more history (and we should want to know more) than what can be learned in the typical church service, Sunday School class, other discipleship training.

The writer is conservative, but obviously not narrow (i.e., fundamentalist). He goes mostly with traditional views of NT authorship.

His references to other scholars are not extensive but adequate. He often refers to Martin Hengel, F.F. Bruce, Rainer Riesner, etc. He is critical of N.T. Wright, but not seriously, and not convincingly. His references to other historical sources are primarily Josephus and Eusebius, etc. He refers a lot to early church fathers. Although he firmly believes Christianity was born of Judaism, Barnett refers only lightly to relevant Jewish literature (apart from OT), and he does not refer to writers like Bruce Chilton or Jacob Nuesner.

Barnett presents well traditional views, and contributes some interesting obsevations of his own, plus some less well know ideas. For example, he believes Nazareth was a village of King David's descendants who re-settled there after the return from Babylon and wanted to maintain a low profile in a time when such an ancestry might put one in danger of political execution.

I didn;t get much out of his traditional presentaton of why Jesus' blood sacrifice was necessary to make things right with God. I also thought he was weak in the current discussion about justification (convenantal nomism). He admittedly stayed away from theological issues and focused more on historical issues.

Barnett is a sensible scholar, not afraid to make sensible comments such as, "Such a brief gap [between Jesus and Paul] allows no time for Jesus to become what he was not in himself."

It was a good read, and I recommend to others as an intermediate level text.

Rating:
Summary: a good introduction or refresher
Review: Paul Barnett has written a timely book. There has been much written in recent times about how Jesus and history cannot be ever matched. Barnett who is faithful to the Bible and to history has brought the two together. It is a refreshing approach after the various ultra liberal writers publishings, which seem to just rubbish every aspect of faithful Biblical belief.

this book is a must for every Biblical and theological scholar, and for the faithful Christian who feels that the ultra liberal writers are under-mining their faith.

Rating:
Summary: About Time
Review: Paul Barnett has written a timely book. There has been much written in recent times about how Jesus and history cannot be ever matched. Barnett who is faithful to the Bible and to history has brought the two together. It is a refreshing approach after the various ultra liberal writers publishings, which seem to just rubbish every aspect of faithful Biblical belief.

this book is a must for every Biblical and theological scholar, and for the faithful Christian who feels that the ultra liberal writers are under-mining their faith.

Rating:
Summary: a good introduction or refresher
Review: This book does a good job of supplying basic background for a better understanding of the New Testament. NT history,social and cultural, is clearly set out. The genres (gospel,epistle etc.)are discussed and correctives are provided to balance the baleful influence of the 'Jesus Seminar' yahoos. Good, modern, conservative evaluations, not fundamentalist knee-jerk reactions.