Week 1 – Preface: The Perspective of this Introduction;
- Using the “Exegetical Skills” Sections;
- Chapter 1: The New Testament as Pastoral Response.

Prof. Zacharias’s first lecture on September 15, 2009, followed the text fairly closely, which felicitously allows one to both hear and read the most important points. Both Prof. Zacharias and Mr. De Silva emphasized in their opening words the contrast between a devotional reading of the Bible and its academic study, which emphasizes an understanding of the Bible in its historical context.

Firstly, Mr. De Silva emphasizes that he is taking a “text-centered” approach and thus his book is not an attempt to elucidate “early Church history,” “Christian origins” or “the Jesus of history.” Thus the focus is on the chapters of the New Testament as pastoral responses to challenges faced by the early Church fathers.

Secondly, he states that he will be devoting a substantial portion of the book to “interpretive strategies that represent the major trends in scholarly stud of the New Testament,” through one or more “Exegetical Skills” sections in every chapter. This is amplified in the next part of the book, “Using the “Exegetical Skill” Sections,” which contains a daunting Index of Exegitical Skills by order of their appearance and by area of focus.

Thirdly, De Silva states that the discussion of how the texts being studied contribute to ministry formation gives the book a “distinctive focus on the church” and “the work of ministry.” By this he means not only men and women who are actually engaged as pastors or who are envisaging becoming pastors but also “the general ministry of all Christians.” So the book is intended to be of use to any Christian engaged in the serious study of the New Testament, not those who are involved in professional ministries per se.

Chapter 1 commences with a discussion, as the chapter heading indicates, of the New Testament as a pastoral response. He notes that the composition of the New Testament was a two-stage process, in which, first, the individual texts were composed, and second, those which were to comprise the agreed canon were selected. He notes that the earliest followers of Jesus had the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament), but that both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians had been reoriented by the creation of the Christian community. Thus they needed something more particular to their needs.

De Silva devotes relatively little space in Chapter 1 to the discussion of the creation of the Gospels and more to the determination, after the texts were written, of which ones would be considered part of the approved canon.

I don’t have a source off-hand but recall having read that the first followers of Jesus believed, in light of his words, that the Kingdom of God was imminent. Presumably if it had in fact come about in the first years after Christ’s death and resurrection, the compilations which became the Gospels would not have been necessary. But as time passed and the Kingdom was postponed, the early Church felt the necessity of having the words of Jesus and the apostles written down before all living memory faded. This is alluded to only in passing by De Silva.

De Silva discusses the methods used by prominent men of the early Church – like Eusebius and Origen – who sought establishment of the canon by seeking consensus, classifying the texts as “acknowledged” and “disputed.” But he also notes significantly, despite acknowledging these early Church leaders, that the process appears to have been at work at the grass-roots level among the Christian communities of the day. The criteria which became established were 1) apostolicity, 2) antiquity, and 3) catholicity. And he also notes that some of the very earliest Biblical codices in existence, from the 4th, 5th, and 6th. centuries do nevertheless leave out some material (e.g. Hebrews) later included and include other texts (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas) which were later generally eliminated from the approved canon.

De Silva concludes that, while all texts included were inspired by God, there were also other inspired texts (such as the letters of Clement) which, because they did not adequately meet the above criteria, were not included in the New Testament.