78 EQ

Reviews and Notices

demning some people to a place of everlasting torture and unquenchable fire

or can we deconstruct it in the light of
a loving and gracious God? What do we
do with the sharp dualism of the Gospel
of John where the only choices are to accept or reject Jesus in todays world that
has become increasingly pluralistic and
postmodern?
To sum up, the book is lucidly written
and should appeal to a broad audience from academics to pastors to
lay people with an interest in theology.
Flemming provides a new and refreshing way of reading the New Testament,
challenging todays church to participate in the ongoing task that the early
church was engaged in to contextualize the gospel of Jesus Christ in different cultures and new settings. Despite
the few critical comments, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is
interested in how the gospel was communicated in new cultural settings and
times in which the early church found
herself. Standing on the shoulders of
the New Testament authors, we must
engage our cultures by contextualizing
the gospel story in fresh and appropriate ways. To close with Flemmings own
words, [c]ontextualized theology is not
just desirable; it is the only way theology can be done (298).
Cornelis Bennema
SAIACS, India
EQ 80.1 (2008), 78-79

The Birth of Christianity: The First

Twenty-five Years
by Paul Barnett
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
x+230pp. pb. ISBN 978-0-8028-2781-4
This book starts with the provocative
observation by J D Crossan that the decades before the first NT documents appear are the lost years. Paul Barnett dis-

agrees. He shows that a great deal can

be said by the serious historian, committed to academic rigour in the use of
texts. Barnett believes that presuppositions may obscure the way in which
the data are considered or which data
are included. For instance, too many
work from the assumption that the Jesus of History must be separated from
the Christ of Faith, but for Barnett the
birth of Christianity and of christology
are inseparable on historical grounds.
He argues that the development of
christology is primarily down to Peter
and is therefore pre-Pauline. Peter is the
significant leader here; this is consistent
with his pre-Easter role as spokesperson
for the disciples. Hence, Paul is not the
arch innovator. Rather Pauls christology
is essentially the same as those who are
believers before him; christology therefore gives birth to Christianity, not vice
versa. Barnett is also convinced that the
evidence to be considered must include
Acts. Although Acts does not address all
our historical questions, it is still primary material. The we passages, for example, are a primary source for Pauls life.
Indeed, the picture that emerges from
Acts is consistent with that in Pauls
early epistles. Christianity emerges in a
wider world that is experiencing many
calamitous events. But these are largely
inconsequential to the early church,
which in turn does not even appear
on the radar screen of secular history.
Within the fledging community, however, these years are fraught with difficulty. Not least is Pauls persecution of
the believers. Barnett thinks Pauls actions virtually destroyed the messianic
community in Jerusalem.
In a lengthy chapter, Barnett considers the transmission of the Jesus tradition. In the earliest period, the tradition
is likely preserved orally. But this was
not the orality of the village storyteller
in which the material would be subject
to appropriate embellishment. Indeed,

EQ 79

Reviews and Notices

the writing down of Jesus teaching
could have been quite early. The relative
stability of the tradition may be seen in
the letters of Paul and James, which actually reflect the teaching of Jesus. Because Barnetts concern is with the first
few years of the early church history,
he needs to address the question of Q.
Generally, he accepts the possibility of
a discreet document Q but rejects the
rather ideological approach to Q taken
by some scholars in the Jesus Seminar.
Here again, Barnett demands rigor.
Since Q is not extant, any methodology
that builds too heavily on what is not
contained in a re-constructed document is suspect. Careful consideration
of a re-constructed Q, however, arrives
at a Jesus that is consistent with what
we find in the rest of the NT.
Mark is the primary gospel source. Barnett accepts the tradition that links it
with Peter, so it contributes to our understanding of the years between Jesus
and the first written evidence. John is
also a primary source, independent
from the synoptic tradition, and is more
or less in fixed written form before the
fall of Jerusalem. It has a Palestinian
provenance and reflects a mission to
the Jews by the early church, one that
was unsuccessful in Judaea but moderately successful in Samaria and Galilee.
Barnett admits that these views are unfashionable but thinks that the evidence
should be read this way.
The book concludes with a chapter on
what cannot be denied about the early
years on historical grounds, plus two
appendices. For Barnett these facts of
history emerge from disciplined historical enquiry. Three controls on historical
imagination are used: chronology (the
period between Jesus and the earliest
records is very brief in historical terms),
geography (the events narrated take
place in a very small geographical location), and activity (the period between
the crucifixion and the earliest written

documents is full of action that has to

be explained). When these are used,
two undeniable historical phenomena
emerge. First, Jesus is proclaimed as
Messiah within earliest Christianity.
Second, the resurrection of Jesus is the
fundamental proclamation from the
start. These twin convictions energise
the first Christians and are the only sufficient explanation for the undeniable
historical rise of Christianity.
This is a very good book, clearly written and accessible, solidly based on
judicious weighing of the evidence in
the texts available. Barnett arrives at
conclusions that prove to be essentially conservative, but are nonetheless
valid for that. There are places where
other scholars may wish to differ with
Barnetts reading of the evidence for
example, his willingness to accept the
Q hypothesis, or his minority views on
John. He has more confidence in the Q
hypothesis than may be warranted. Aspects of his perspective on John, on the
other hand, are more persuasive. These
points of debate cannot, however, obscure the insights gained from the wider
project. In this book we have an excellent resource that should serve students
well as they seek some illumination of
the years between Jesus and the earliest
documents from the early church.
Kent E Brower
Nazarene Theological College,
Manchester
EQ 80.1 (2008), 79-82

Knocking on Heavens Door: A New

Testament Theology of Petitionary
Prayer
by David Crump
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
345pp. pb. ISBN 978-0-8010-2689-8
Do we really need another book on
prayer? Christian bookshops are full of