<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: I thought it was pretty good.
Review: Actually, I rather enjoyed the book. It didn't look as though Patzia is so concerned with making a strong position as he is with expressing a summary and the different positions on the topics he covers. The glossary looked helpful and I really appreciated the extensive end notes and annotated bibliographies included in them. I thought there was a lot of good information here for someone wanting an introduction to the issues.
Rating:
Summary: I thought it was pretty good.
Review: Actually, I rather enjoyed the book. It didn't look as though Patzia is so concerned with making a strong position as he is with expressing a summary and the different positions on the topics he covers. The glossary looked helpful and I really appreciated the extensive end notes and annotated bibliographies included in them. I thought there was a lot of good information here for someone wanting an introduction to the issues.
Rating: 
Summary: OK, not great
Review: This book offers some good information for considering different aspects about the new testament literature. However, I'd recommend "Fortress Introduction to the Gospels" by Mark Allan Powell as a place to start, rather than this book. Patzia sometimes makes incredible statements of fact, which in reality are points of debate among scholars. For example, in one half sentence, Patzia declares (with no backing) that the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus in the late 1st Century. Contrast that with Powell's two page discussion of the when and where questions of that same gospel. Basically, there is not enough discussion of the reasoning of the scholars on particular points. In one odd twist, the Patzia states that the authorship of some of Paul's letters is questioned. This includes, among others, 2 Thessalonians. A couple of pages later, though, he makes the statement that "Paul himself" gives (in 2 Thessalonians) an explanation about how to tell that the letter is authentic. Of course, if Paul didn't write 2 Thessalonians, then the explanation is bogus, a point that Patzia seems to miss. I have to admit that I was surprised that the book didn't contain more information about the decision making process for what was considered canon. This work only gives the Council of Carthage of 397 brief treatment. The book does contain some valuable information, but it wouldn't be my first choice. It's too bad the author (or editor) didn't spend a little extra time refining the material.
<< 1 >>
| 
