The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Contexts by Gary M. Burge and Gene L. Green

Abstract

Reviewed by: The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Contexts by Gary M. Burge and Gene L. Green Craig L. Blomberg gary m. burge and gene l. green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Contexts (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020). Pp. 623. $59.99. Longtime colleagues at Wheaton College, Gary Burge and Gene Green team up for this second edition of the textbook they published with Lynn Cohick in 2009. G. is now professor emeritus at Wheaton, while B. is professor and dean at Calvin Seminary. The same twenty-seven chapters appear as in the first edition, but up to 25 percent of the text has been revised at least a little. Opening chapters cover backgrounds to the whole NT plus sources for studying Jesus, with an overview of his deeds and teachings. Then follow chapters on individual books or groups of books in canonical sequence, punctuated by an introduction to the life and teachings of Paul. A closing chapter covers text and canon. Burge and Green deal with critical questions in typically conservative fashion. Good evidence supports the historical reliability of the narrative portions of the NT. All of the books have been written by those to whom they have traditionally been attributed. The encyclical theory may explain some of Ephesians’ distinctives, and the use of an amanuensis may account for Peter’s much better Greek in his first letter. But theories of more than one John or stages of redaction for the Johannine literature, or of allonymity for the Pastorals are rejected. The contributions of rhetorical criticism to authorship, style, and outlines do not appear, except for one paragraph on Aristotle’s three species tucked away in the introduction to Hebrews. Literary and social-scientific approaches, like liberationist/advocacy methods, are not treated at all. Questions of authorship and date tend to appear in very short, discrete sections separated from the other circumstances of each book. Often, but not always, and without explanation, they appear after the mini-commentary on the NT books. Dates for books are consistently the earliest that one typically finds in surveys or introductions. B. and G. believe that Paul penned his prison epistles in Rome in the early 60s and the Pastorals a little afterward. They deal with the Synoptic Problem conventionally but in comparative detail. They highlight ancient practices of preserving oral tradition and the probability that Jesus, like other boys from Nazareth, became literate in Hebrew and memorized large portions of the Scriptures through synagogue school. Burge presents and prefers Kenneth Bailey’s approach to the parables. B. and G. favor the view that Jesus was calling Peter himself the “rock,” without implying that he was establishing some form of apostolic succession. Theophilus is likely a believer, and the Gospel of Luke was written to reassure young believers of the truth of their convictions (p. 249), yet “this book is not for those inside the church but for those who need to ‘know the certainty’ of the teaching they have received” (p. 265). So which is it? The chapter on John is the only chapter on a NT book that does not comment sequentially on the text, but it does offer a robust treatment of theological themes. B. and G. recognize that the most helpful part of the New Perspective on Paul is really its new perspective on first-century Judaism. Their introduction to Galatians is a little confusing, though, as they set up the options: late date to northern Galatia; early date to southern Galatia; and then “a widely held mediating position” (p. 336; late date to southern Galatia), which actually seems less common than the first two. But then they conclude, without argument, that they will “assume” the early date, southern Galatia view. Where did this come from? Our authors plausibly opt for an egalitarian position on the key Pauline passages on [End Page 507] gender roles, offering brief comments on 1 Cor 11:2–16 and 1 Tim 2:8–15 but not on 1 Cor 14:34–35. 2 Corinthians can be seen largely as a unity, but Paul may...