Book Review: Discovering The New Testament: An Introduction to its Background, Theology, and Themes. Volume I: The Gospels and Acts

Mark Keown has taught New Testament Studies at Laidlaw College for more than fifteen years, and from the very beginning, he gave his students voluminous lecture notes. This book is an outgrowth of those notes, now made available to a wider audience. It is published as a print book and also in electronic form, available through Logos Bible software. This review is of the print book. It is the first of three volumes, covering the Gospels and Acts; volume II will cover the Pauline Literature and volume III the rest of the New Testament. All three volumes are now available in Logos, and volume II is due for publication as a print book later this year. It is a massive work, with volume I extending to over 600 pages. This compares with David de Silva’s Introduction to the entire NT at 970 pages, although admittedly, de Silva’s work is physically larger and has more words on the page.

This is a textbook, probably a textbook for beginning students, and admirably suited for this purpose. The coverage is necessarily general, with good explanations of key issues and some brief discussions of disputed issues. There are thirteen chapters: a general introduction (1); discussion of the Jewish and then the Greco-Roman context (2–3)(chapter 3 on the Greco-Roman background is useful and wide-ranging as may be expected from a Pauline specialist like Keown, although it is mostly about Paul and I kept thinking that it really belongs in volume II); a chapter on critical methodologies (where he offers a very manageable discussion of textual criticism as well as form, source, and redaction criticism, etc., 4); and an introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (5); followed by one chapter for each Gospel and the Book of Acts (6–10). The book ends with a chapter on the Kingdom of God (11), followed by a really valuable chapter on miracles (“The Power of the Kingdom,” 12, with some useful tables on pp. 466–67 categorising the miracles) and a chapter on the parables (“The Teaching of the Kingdom,” 13). There is a useful bibliography (fifteen pages), followed by indexes of subjects, authors, and ancient texts. There are several useful maps and charts and other diagrams. All this makes it useful for the student audience for whom it has been written. Adding to this usefulness are the discussion questions at the end of each chapter (apart from the first question on p. 180 which is not really a question). Keown uses the ESV (unless otherwise stated), I expect because Logos seems to prefer the ESV. This is unfortunate as I think the NRSV and the 2011 NIV are more suited for academic use.

There are of course many NT Introductions and one might be excused for asking the question: why another one? Keown answers the question in his Preface. It is a blend of a NT introduction and a NT theology with “a good degree of application to the contemporary church … in New Zealand and some other European countries” (xiii, or as the back cover says “a New Testament Introduction for the mind and heart”). Such application emerges, for example, on pages 10–12 where he has a nice section on how to read the NT, in his approximately 70-page treatment of the Jerusalem church in Acts (336–408, although the heading is a misnomer as the treatment extends throughout the entire book of Acts, far beyond Jerusalem) and also in his chapters on miracles and parables, which contain much wise pastoral advice. Keown approaches the Scriptures with “historical-critical optimism” and “trust in the Scriptures as God’s word” (xiv)

There is, of course, no other NT Introduction written by a New Zealander, specifically aimed at the church in New Zealand. So the book fills this gap in the market. On the other hand, I wonder what those “European” countries are. I suspect he means “Western” countries, or maybe “English-speaking” countries. I can’t really see much uptake for this book in places like Belgium, Germany, and France.

Along with much contemporary NT scholarship Keown seems to operate on the assumption that there were two religions, “Judaism” and Christianity” in the first century. I am not so sure. So, while Hebrews is neither a Gospel nor the book of Acts (although I find in Stephen’s speech some intriguing echoes of parts of Hebrews—perhaps Acts and Hebrews might have common authorship), Keown writes that “Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians under pressure to return to Judaism” (3). This so-called “relapse theory” emerged in the nineteenth century and became popular in the twentieth. Later Hebrews’ scholarship is more circumspect, suggesting instead that the readers were Christ-allegiant ethnic Jews attracted to the temple ritual, something the writer of Hebrews wrote to divert them from. They had not “converted to Christianity” from “Judaism” to which they were tempted to return. They (and he) would have considered themselves faithful Israelites, (probably) diaspora ethnic Judeans.

Similarly, on page 142, Keown refers to the threat of Christianity in the 60s—“Christianity” as a “religion” did not emerge until much later, and even if Acts does refer to Jesus followers as “Christians,” this was probably a term of abuse and probably does not indicate an early identification of “Christianity” over against Judaism (see 406). Likewise, it is anachronistic to call Ananias and Sapphira “Christians” (386). Along similar lines, Keown refers to the OT as “the history of the Jewish nation” (10), notwithstanding that Jewishness emerged after the exile. The OT deals with the Hebrew people. And the period after the end of the OT is the Second Temple period rather than “the intertestamental period” (10). Even (and perhaps especially) in a beginning textbook precision in nomenclature is called for.

The discussion of the Synoptic Gospels as a whole (chapter 5) deals with synoptic relationships. He quickly rules out some of the more fanciful theories, and I think he settles on the classical four source hypothesis (Mark plus Q plus Matthew’s and Luke’s unique material). He does not rule out either the Farrar-Goulder hypothesis (Mark—Matthew—Luke) or the Wilke hypothesis (Mark—Luke—Matthew). His final diagram on p. 125 is a useful representation of the four source hypothesis, even if he previously claimed that “in truth, [Q] … does not exist” (116, see also note 10, 503 where this is restated). I think he really means that Q is a theoretical document, and even if it did exist, no actual copy has yet surfaced. Personally, I find the Farrar-Goulder hypothesis, as championed by Mark Goodacre over the last twenty years (http://markgoodacre.org/Q/), convincing, and it may be that scholarship ends up heading in this direction.

The authorship of the Fourth Gospel is an area of debate, with Richard Bauckham, in particular, arguing against the traditional view that the author was the Apostle John, one of the sons of Zebedee. As Ramsey Michaels suggests, the book is intentionally anonymous, written by the “beloved” disciple,” who never identifies himself. Keown argues for the traditional view on pp. 260–70. He argues first from the external evidence, from sources that mostly refer to “John” although Irenaeus refers to John as a “disciple”, something Keown concedes could “count against his apostleship” (262). Then he refers to the internal evidence, including the number of people present at the Last Supper and the unnamed disciples in John 21:2 as well as other pieces of evidence. Although Keown does give arguments for identifying the beloved disciple as someone other than the son of Zebedee (268–70), it is a pity that Bauckham’s two works on this topic (The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple and Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) are not referenced in this section. I, for one, have found Bauckham’s arguments compelling.

This treatment of the Jerusalem church uneven at times, e.g., with about three and a half pages on baptism and a single paragraph on the Eucharist. As part of his discussion of baptism (376–77), Keown (a Presbyterian) surmises that “[i]t is arguable … that where children were baptized … they had also become believers.” I (a Baptist) find that argument somewhat tenuous with reference to Acts 16:31–34, where, as Keown himself notes, “[t]he faith of the remainder of his household is not mentioned” (note 76, 376). I think the NRSV has it right when it says, “he and his entire family were baptized without delay … and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God (emphasis added).”

I found two other frustrating issues with the book. It would have benefited from stronger editing, with numerous grammatical and typographical errors throughout. A second edition is called for, or, if Lexham mainly use the electronic version, printing the paper version on demand, the electronic version needs correcting throughout. I was also disappointed with the binding. I read the book right through making notes as I went. But even after that it refused to stay open on my desk. I had to resort to two bulldog clips and a ruler across the open pages to type my notes. Note-taking students will find this frustrating.

These minor quibbles aside, it is a useful book, and I am sure future generations of students will find it so. The price differential between the paper edition and the Logos edition might even spur some students to buy Logos for themselves.

Philip Church is a Senior Research Fellow in the School of Theology, Laidlaw College, Auckland.