New Testament Theology: Too Theological, Too Difficult, and Too Repetitive?

Abstract

This essay argues that New Testament Theology (NTT) is an indispensable mediating discipline between historical exegesis and systematic theology. It defends NTT against claims that: (1) NTT should be replaced by the study of early Christian religion; (2) The NT is too diverse and disparate to sustain any unifying theology; and (3) NTT has been over-done so that there is nothing new to be said. The essay proceeds to the defense of NTT by contending that theology is part of the substance and significance of the NT. In addition, the NT contains several varieties and unities that can simultaneously challenge and aid theological reflection. Finally, the essay proposes a fresh approach to explicate the theological texture and religious impetus of the NT with a view to renewing living faith communities.

1. Introduction

According to Brian Rosner (2000, p. 10), biblical theology may be defined as the “theological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyse and synthesize the Bible’s teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible’s overarching narrative and Christocentric focus.” New Testament Theology (henceforth NTT) is a sub-species of biblical theology as applied to the literary corpus identified as the New Testament. NTT is on such a perspective a mediating disciple. On the one hand, NTT is not NT historical background, not comparative analysis of the NT with other texts from antiquity, and more than exegesis of the NT, because NTT engages in tacit synthesizing of the NT texts in search of coherences and normativities. On the other hand, NTT is not systematic or dogmatic theology, because it seeks to map the issues raised by the texts themselves, it refuses to answer alien questions, and it resists the imposition of rigid systems to organize the text. I am aware that NTT can be defined and practiced in several ways (see Klink and Lockett 2012; Hatina 2013). Yet, on my reckoning, NTT is a mutually historical and theological enterprise that stands between the descriptive and the dogmatic, between what the text “meant” and what it “means”, between analysis and synthesis, between ancient context and living communities of faith (see Morgan 1973, pp. 24–26, 32, 34, 59–62; Schlatter 1973, pp. 126, 151–52; Carson 2000; Bird 2009). NTT is part of the many discourses pertaining to the Christian religion. J. P. Gabler’s famous distinction between Biblical Theology and dogmatic theology in his 1787 essay was not intended to silo them permanently away from each other, rather, it was intended to “find tools for a meaningful dialogue between them” (Eskola 2013, p. 244). I’d aver that Biblical Theology prepares for and leans in towards Systematic and Practical Theology even as Systematic Theology is a partner in the exegetical process itself by explicating the judgments of biblical texts for their moral, ontological, and theodramatic implications (Vanhoozer 2014, p. 38).

However, there are several serious challenges to the validity of NTT. If NTT is neither pure history, nor pure theology, is there a sense in which it is a half-hearted effort at both and satisfies the aims of neither? Is a “theology” derived from a so-called NTT nothing more than a deposit of dogmatic assertions read into the text to give contemporary justification to the continuing prejudices and superstitions of religious communities? Given the radical diversities of belief, practice, and provenance in the NT, is finding a coherent theological message to the NT even remotely possible? Finally, given the sundry NTTs available, why on earth would anyone write another one since it is unlikely that anyone has anything original to say in or through a NTT?

A comprehensive defense of NTT is impossible, however, in this essay I do intend to address some of its challenges and try to assuage some of its critics. I believe that NTT is necessary as a mediating discipline between historical exegesis and systematic theology. Therefore, in light of those challenges, I will tackle the issues of whether NTT is too theological, whether a NTT is even feasible given the diversity of early Christianity, and whether it is possible to say anything fresh or pioneering by writing a NTT.

2. Is NTT Too Theological?

One upshot of J.P. Gabler’s distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology is that NT scholars periodically suggest that one must choose between them. Consequently, for some, NTT should be revised and replaced with a theology of early Christianity, or NTT should be deliberately displaced by a secular, critical, and deconstructive approach to Christian texts. There are several reasons given for such a turn from NTT to NT religion, history, and deconstruction.

First, the NT canon is allegedly a totalizing collection that was codified in the fourth century. Accordingly, to limit one’s study of early Christian religion to the NT is to accept the version of Christian proffered by catholic bishops and secured by imperial sponsorship in the fourth century (Wrede 1973, pp. 70–71). In addition, the canon was also the result of a deliberate effort to exclude the voices of “other” Christian groups such as Christian Jews, Gnostics, Valentinians, Marcionites, Montanists, and, in particular, women (Koester 1991, p. 472). To accept the canon as a collection is to place oneself under the authority of those who canonized the text and excluded so many others. Study of Christian religion must deliberately go beyond the confines of the canon and its defenders and explore the varieties and diversities of early Christianity (Wrede 1973; Räisänen 2000, 2006).

Second, NTT is purportedly premised on the notion that religion is cognitivist rather than phenomenal and NTT is apparently exercised in such a way as to provide historical warrant for authoritative truth claims that prop up dogmas in contemporary religious groups (Meeks 2005, pp. 167–68). The function of NTT is to establish a hierarchy of truths which may then be wielded in an authoritative manner in religious institutions in the present day. Instead of NTT, one should pursue an account of early Christian religion, by exploring the texts and voices of popular devotion with equal concern for mainstream actors as marginalized figures. As such, scholars of religion must see their task as questioning rather than defending of theological dogmas subtlety derived from the NT texts.

In response, I have no problem with rooting NTT in the traditional Einleitung, considering texts and traditions beyond the canon, and incorporating a comprehensive understanding of ancient religion into a NTT. I find these illuminating rather than interdicting the NTT project. However, I remain concerned and confused as to the rejection of the canon as a theological entity and I am likewise disinclined to abandon theology for comparative religious history.

To begin with, concerning the canon, it was not an arbitrary collection, but was formed as a consensual corpus. The basic architecture for the New Testament was in place by the end of the second century with the four Gospels, Paul’s epistles plus Hebrews, as well as 1 John and 1 Peter, were widely recognized, commonly cited, and read in public gatherings (see Trobish 2000). The periphery of the canon was contested, 2 Peter and Revelation the most earnestly debated, while the Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and Apocalypse of Peter came close to inclusion. The texts that became canon need not be regarded as carrying some ontological feature that separated them from other Christian literature. Yet, what became the NT was a literary corpus that was thought to contain the essential and unifying elements of the church’s testimony to Jesus Christ and believed to carry authentic apostolic memory of Jesus. The canon was not everything the church had to say about Jesus Christ, but it was the beginning of what many believed must be said. The canon was considered the literary testimony of the apostles that met with catholic consensus.

As for displacing NTT with the study of early Christian religion, this poses a false dichotomy. For example, Esler (2005, pp. 2, 6–7) is aware of the problems that occur in reducing NTT to excavating theological ideas that are to be merely made available to systematic theology. Yet Esler (2005, p. 1) detects no dissonance with “an avowedly theological” aim to speak of “God’s ongoing relations with human beings and with the cosmos” especially when married with an approach that attempts to join the dialogical connection between canon and community. In Esler’s mind, one can avoid the reductionism of cognitivist or moralizing approaches to NTT by a pursuit of the social-historical dynamics which itself may speak towards contemporary Christian experience and identity (Esler 2005, pp. 35–36, 39). One may valorize the descriptive task precisely because it is concerned with texts which furnish identities, carry cultures, and bear testimony to enduring theological truths. There is, then, no reason why “primordial Christ-oriented experience, understood in its own terms, cannot enrich contemporary Christian experience and identity within the model of social-theological communion” (Esler 2005, p. 36).

It also must be asked if “theology” and “religion” can really be neatly compartmentalized. For a start, theology is merely the ideation of religion, the beliefs which sustain the praxes, rituals, devotional habits, symbols, and community of the early church. Even Wrede (1973, pp. 76, 106) could not really isolate Paul’s “theology” from Paul’s “religion” in the end. Similarly, the genius of Bultmann, arguably Wrede’s greatest successor, was his synthesis of Religionsgehschicte with the existential quest to discover theological meaning for human existence. Bultmann was committed to describing the historical processes behind early Christianity, but only in the context of the meaning of history itself as unveiled in the kerygma. Bultmann’s theologie was geared towards mending what others had rented asunder, namely, the act of thinking and the act of living (Bultmann 1952–1955, 2.244-51). Also, I must point out that preferencing “religion” over “theology” is itself a theological judgment. Pietist theologians such as Philipp Jakob Spener eschewed dogmatic theology in favour of biblical theology precisely because biblical theology was a type of theology that connected Christian belief to habits of a Christ-shaped heart (Scobie 2000, p. 13). Even John Calvin, the most dogmatic of Protestant dogmatists, named his magnum opus not Institutes of Christian Theology but Institutes of Christian Religion. Calvin was focused on “religion” because, for Calvin, theology was pointless and perilous without the discipline and devotion of true religious piety. In which case, the purported dichotomy between theology and religion is wordsmithery since preferencing religion over theology emerges precisely out of a commitment to a lived-out theology. Gerd Theissen (1999, pp. 274–82) has pursued an explicitly descriptive approach to early Christian religion and yet still believed that such an approach permitted one to plot the normative power of religion in the Christian life. He identified Christian thought as a “semiotic cathedral” combining axiomatic beliefs, myth, rites, and ethics. Thus, to ascertain ideational patterns, diversities, and coherences within the NT, in both its constituent parts and as a whole, whilst showing how they come to empirical expression and attain normative status, is necessary and unavoidable for the study of early Christian religion.

Furthermore, to end NTT or a theology of early Christianity at the point of description is mundane and misses an opportunity. The NT does not contain a “theology” as a treatise let alone bequeath to us a specific system. Rather, the NT is the literary deposit of authors who engaged in “theologizing,” that is, trying to work out the significance of Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, and exaltation for their faith and the fellowships united around it (Hooker 2006, p. 77; Dunn 2009, p. 38). NTT is a contemporary continuation of that theologizing, it is conversing with and contextualizing from the NT, working out afresh who is “the prophet Jesus from Nazareth” (Mt 21:11) and looking to imbibe “what is true, noble, righteous, pure, lovable or admirable” (Phil 4:8). To avoid curatorial antiquarianism in the study of the NT surely one must ask the question, “So what?” What is the significance and relevance of the NT for anyone today? For those of us who are a part of living communities of faith, the NT theologian must provide some notes as to how his or her results can assist those operating in the realm of systematic theology, ethics, missions, human flourishing, inter-faith relations, and contemporary religious life (see e.g., Schlatter 1973, pp. 117–66; Bockmuehl 2006, pp. 44–47; Ashton 2006, p. 10; Thielman 2005, p. xxvii; Stuhlmacher 2018, p. 772).

The pursuit of contemporary significance should not be considered alien to the study of NTT or NT religion. I gained a whole new appreciation for Bultmann’s project upon discovering that Bultmann had little interest in identifying a theology of Paul or a theology of John as much as he was in engaging in a creative theological reading from Paul and from John that spoke into the human situation in his own day (Bultmann 1952–1955, 2.251). Even Räisänen, for all his advocacy for a secular and global approach to NTT, still acknowledged that NTT “may be a legitimate part of a self-consciously ecclesial theology” (Räisänen 2000, p. 8). Laffey (2005, p. 54) takes her cue from Räisänen and affirms that “increasing numbers of people who identify with both church and society, or who understand themselves as church in society, are studying the church’s Scriptures with an overtly contemporary agenda.” Morgan (1973, p. 26) would seem justified in saying: “[I]t is one thing to say that theological interest in the New Testament must not contravene the canons of modern historical method, and quite another to imply that these prohibit any theological interest in it or interpretation of it by a historian while he is wearing his historian’s hat.” In which case, the task of NTT is, says Udo Schnelle, “to envision the past in view of the present, to explicate it in such a way that its future relevance can be seen” (Schnelle 2009, p. 25).

The first movements of a NTT, as an exegetical and excavational exploration of the texts are indeed important, as they provide the crucial minerals for assembling a Christian worldview and its corollaries. There is no manufacturing of doctrine and no melding of praxis without first extracting minerals for refinement through detailed exegetical analysis. Yet the descriptive and exegetical task cannot, should not, and never really is pursued without reference to its theological, sociological, and existential entailments. For example, it is useful to scan Pauline ethics for traces of Stoic philosophy, thereafter, one cannot help but wonder how a Christian and Stoic interface can resource people with the facilities of resilience and contentment in their quest for human flourishing today. Furthermore, while it may not be fashionable to want some kind of payoff for historical study beyond antiquarian interest, there is a case to be made for the kind of “academically unorthodox experiment” proposed by Brian Blount so that study of the biblical texts is informed by contemporary experiences of Blacks in America while the text also speaks to contemporary Black experiences (Blount 2001, p. 16). An observation that Esau McCaulley believes invites Black readers to fuse together a sense of Scripture’s power and authority with Black experiences of oppression and subjugation. He writes: “If our experiences pose particular and unique questions to the Scriptures, then the Scriptures also pose unique questions to us” (McCaulley 2020, p. 20). In effect, descriptive and reader-oriented interrogations of texts can still be liberative and normative for contemporary human experience. Thus, without an interest in the abiding meaning and significance of the NT, the most one is doing is updating the bibliography and re-arranging the footnotes for an over-done domain of discourse. Instead, the NT Theologian should be alert to how the NT is a force for renewal in living communities of faith and also has a meaningful voice in mainstream secular and religiously pluralistic cultures (Hatina 2013, pp. 3–4).

3. Is NTT Even Feasible?

On a more critical perspective, NTT might be begrudgingly permitted if pursued in a piecemeal fashion whereby one focuses on the theologies of each part or perhaps each sub-corpus. Yet that would be the limit of any NTT because the diversity of the NT precludes any unifying enterprise. In some minds, early Christian literature, such as the writings that became the New Testament, are “a collection of conflicting and competing religious views, symbols that represent institutionalized experience” (Eskola 2013, p. 309). It must be conceded that NT diversity is indeed a challenge to creating a synthetic and unifying NTT (see Bird 2009, pp. 274–76). Is there really a theological unity between Philemon and Jude? How does one derive a normative theology from religious reasonings that were contingent upon pre-modern assumptions, local circumstances, were improvised, and contested by other Christian groups? What of development within an author’s thinking such as Paul’s thoughts on the Torah from Galatians to Romans? Then there are genuine differences between authors such as Paul and James on faith vis-à-vis works (Rom 4:1–25; Jas 2:14–26) and Paul and John the Seer on whether believers can eat food sacrificed idols (1 Cor 8:1–13; Rev 2:14, 20). Some argue, not without reason, that if there is to be a unity to the NT, it cannot be found within it, but is artificially constructed and imposed upon it. To this end, Helmer and Landmesser (2004, p. 7) preface their volume on the canon by saying: “The argument unifying all contributions in this book is that the unity of the canon is hermeneutically constituted. Unity is a function of interpretation. The unity is ‘outside’ not ‘inside’ the text. It is imposed onto the text by its hearer or reader, by a community of interpretation or by academic scholars, whether from an intra-biblical or an extra-biblical location.”

These objections cannot be glossed over, and I would add to them the inherent subjectivity and dangers that accrue in pursuing a “canon within the canon”. However, I’m persuaded that there are types of coherences or unities across the NT and these are significant for the history of early Christianity just as they are for application to contemporary Christian theology.

The NT, for all its diversity, is not a chaotic collection, as if it comprises of a Twilight novel, a shopping list, a weather report, and excerpt of a Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus. There are similarities ranging from literary genre, language, symbols, narratives, and patterns of devotion. As such, I think there are several clusters of convergence across the NT.

First, theologically there are several shared convictions across the NT. Theissen (1999, p. 282) detects several “religious axioms” that were widely held by various Christians. He asserts: “[T]he consensus of primitive Christianity is governed by two basic axioms, monotheism and belief in the redeemer. In addition, there are eleven basic motifs: the motifs of creation, wisdom and miracle, of renewal, representation and indwelling; of faith, agapē and a change of position; and finally the motif of judgment.” I would add that Paul evidences a basic agreement with the Jerusalem leaders about the gospel (1 Cor 15:11; Gal 1:6–9, 2:1–15) and he also assumed that churches he did not establish shared in the same “tradition” as he did (Rom 6:17; Col 1:6–7). The four Gospels, for all their variety, share a pool of Jesus traditions and comprise of kerygmatic biographies with Jesus at the centre, that all climax in his death and resurrection, and intend to motivate readers towards following in the way of Jesus (see Johnson 2006). There was already developing in the mid-first century a notion of faith as “the faith,” a distinct body of belief even if it lacked the specificity and formality of later creeds (Balla 1997, pp. 200–7).

Second, scripturally, unity was expressed in a shared literary culture among NT authors. There was a common reverence for and usage of the Jewish Scriptures. Plus, several shared interpretive strategies based on common rhetorical and midrashic techniques. The basic story of Jesus and what was required of his followers was universally considered to be “according to Scripture.” There was a collective concern, evident from Matthew to Revelation, to root the new messianic movement in Israel’s religious heritage and its sacred literature.

Third, phenomenally, unities are exhibited in certain theological intangibles. These include shared religious experience of the risen Lord and the Spirit’s effervescent life, rituals such as baptism and the eucharist, demonstrations of hospitality to believers from other regions, co-belligerence against sectarian rivals, the adoption of mutually recognized modes of worship, and a shared commitment to embody God’s love in Jesus’s name.

Fourth, sociologically, the Christian movement as a whole was an identifiable and homogenous sect according to several Christian and non-Christian authors (Acts 11:19–21; 24:5, 14; 28:22; Suetonius, Nero, 16; Justin, Dial. Tryph. 108; Tertullian, Apol. 5). Indeed, we can speak of an acute consciousness within the early churches of being a worldwide movement that saw itself connected to various groups, Jewish and Gentile, with a shared ethos and identity, who were interested in each other’s affairs, quite evident from the Pauline, Johannine, Clementine, Ignatian, and Quartodeciman letters. Ehrman (2003, pp. 179–80) comments: “The proto-orthodox were in constant communication with one another, determined to establish theirs as a worldwide communion … The proto-orthodox were interested not only in what happened locally in their own communities but also in what was happening in other like-minded communities.” To which I would also add that Trebilco’s (2004, p. 716) study of Christianity in Ephesus shows how different Christians groups in close proximity could certainly rub up against each other with some friction, but degrees of “commonality” still existed and the Ephesian Christian assemblies in particular were quite willing “to acknowledge the validity of each other’s claim to be part of the wider movement that we call early Christianity”.

Consequently, the early church was not fraught with endlessly endemic disunities. There were several clusters of convergence in belief and practice shared by churches from east to west. Matera (2005, p. xvi) identifies a “diverse unity” in the New Testament. Hurtado (2013) prefers the term “interactive diversity” to account for the unities and diversities in early Christianity. Otherwise Markschies (2015, pp. 343–44) proposes a “plural identity” with an identity-forming center labelled as the “Holy Spirit” and pluralistic expressions in different institutions in the church. So, it may be fashionable to say that there is no single theology of early Christianity available in the NT, but there were in fact unitive fixtures manifested in shared beliefs and sacred texts, common practices, shared experiences, and collective identity. These unities are expressed precisely in the NT! In the words of Bockmuehl (2006, p. 103): “At the end of the day, when everything is said and done about the genetic vagaries of the New Testament canon’s formation, it remains an equally historical phenomenon that the church catholic came to recognize in these twenty-seven books the normative attestation of its apostolic rule of faith.”

In which case, it is a justifiable and perhaps even necessary task of NTT to identify the types of unity across the entire NT in order to have an overarching sense of what the New Testament is about (Carson 1995, pp. 30–31). In terms of a unity to the NT, one could opt for a fairly minimalist version like Dunn (2006, p. 403) who posits a “unity between the historical Jesus and the exalted Christ, that is to say, the conviction that the wandering charismatic preacher from Nazareth had ministered, died and been raised from the dead to bring God and man finally together, the recognition that the divine power through which they now worshipped and were encountered and accepted by God was one and the same person, Jesus, the man, the Christ, the Son of God, the Lord, the life-giving Spirit.” Schröter (2013, p. 327) acknowledges that position but extends it further through a “unifying bond” or an “interpretation of reality with a centre” that includes “faith in the God of Israel as the creator of the world and human beings, in the fact that Jesus Christ represents this God with full vitality, and in the fact that he is active by the Spirit.” Or else one could opt for a cluster of convergences as Frey (2007, pp. 50–51) does: “[The] collective interpretation of the New Testament witness to the life, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is arguably the most significant reason why it is fitting to ask about the unity of New Testament theology. The common assumption of the Old Testament belief in God and, even more precisely, the testimony of the divine love of God in Christ, the eschatological tension between the ‘already-now’ and the ‘not-yet’ first present in the proclamation of Jesus and then constituted by the conscious awareness of eschatological fulfilment, or even the agreements between the Jesuanic basileianic-proclamation and the later Pauline construal of justification doctrine are further points of convergence and lines of concurrence” (trans. M. Bird). After one identifies a cluster of unities one is then free to pursue “the normative exposition of a religion through an interpretative summary of its canonical texts” (Theissen 2006, p. 207).

4. Are NTTs Too Repetitive?

Although biblical theology more broadly has a wide and diverse set of practitioners, the people who write NTTs tend to be white, male, and Protestant. They are, almost exclusively, German or Anglo-American men. In addition, NT theologians appear to pursue their NTT in three basic ways: (1) Corpus by corpus; (2) Thematically; and (3) Analyzing diversity and unity. Given the proliferation of NTTs since World War 2, given the ethno-religious homogeneity of NT theologians and the predictable methods and findings that they proliferate, and given that no NTT since Bultmann (1952–1955) and Ladd (1993) have really had any impact upon the academic or ecclesial scene, do we really need another NTT?

This is a question I have much pondered precisely because I am contracted to write a NTT which is 10 years over-due, so I have been mulling over these very questions. My procrastination has been partly because I have become acutely aware that adding another NTT volume to the existing collection is like adding a glass of water to Lake Michigan or adding a buzzing sound to a cacophony of noises on a busy freeway. And yet, I remain hypnotically captured by the project, attracted to the task like metal to a magnet, and drawn to the challenge like a moth to a flame. That is because writing a NTT presents the chance to pursue a theology of the NT and to engage in theologizing from the NT. A NTT is a once in a life time chance for a scholar to state what matters most in the NT and translate that into a face-finding report for theologians and practitioners. Further, a revitalized NTT may even open up new vistas for wrestling with the faith of the first Christians and exploring ways in which such a faith can be renewed today. But how? Well, I do have a preliminary proposal!

First, in terms of structure, I intend to adopt the following approach. I think NTT needs a prolegomenon with an overview of the historical Jesus and the historical church prior to Paul. In other words, we need to explain why and how the NT began to be written. Here I partly agree with Bultmann (1952–1955, 1.3) that the historical Jesus is not part of a NTT but is the presupposition of a NTT. But that presupposition needs an exposition before writing a NTT. The same holds true for the Jerusalem church, one must start, “beginning from Jerusalem” (Lk 24:47) and end with how believers “went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus” (Acts 11:20).

Second, as to how to materially organize a NTT proper, I hope to proceed with a survey of (1) Paul, (2) the four Gospels and Acts, (1) Apostolos [Catholic letters] and Apocalypse [Revelation], (5) the edges around the New Testament with a glance at the Didache, 1 Clement, Ignatian letters, and Papias of Hierapolis; and (6) conclude with comments on what is the center of gravity in the NT in terms of beliefs, ethics, and praxes with accompanying commentary on how this matters for living communities of faith today. The purpose of such a structure is to engage in an analytic exposition of the NT in the context of early Christianity before shifting to the synthetic task of mapping out the meaning of NTT for contemporary faith.

The closest analogue to my proposed structure of first examining Jesus and the early church, followed up with Paul, the Gospels, and early Christian letters, is Craig Blomberg’s A New Testament Theology (Blomberg 2018). However, my proposed project differs when it comes down to the brick and mortar construction of each chapter, hence the next point!

Third, as for what to include in a chapter on each NT sub-corpus, we need more than a listing of key theological ideas since that has already been done to death. Instead, I propose the following approach: (1) Situation and setting, a brief outline of the circumstance of each corpus in order orientate the reader to the text(s); (2) Old Testament substructure, analysis of how each sub-corpus is built upon the Jewish scriptures because the OT provided the architecture that the NT is established upon and establishes the arc that NT faith largely follows; (3) Rhetoric, examination of what attitudes and actions the author is trying to persuade the audience to accept, showing that believing certain things entails behaving certain way; (4) Canonical conversations, mapping the distinctive contributions of each sub-corpus and how they relate to or grate against other NT writings; (5) Global perspectives, illustrating the influence of the texts upon different Christian traditions and showcasing the wisdom from different wings of the global church; and (6) Challenges, this has two sides, noting the ways that the NT exhorts us to better discipleship (e.g., attitude to wealth), but also how the NT presents us with problems that we must address (e.g., acceptance of the normalcy of slavery).

5. Conclusions

There are many reasons why another NTT does not need to be written and I have tried to address some of these concerns. Yes, NTT needs to be anchored in the study of early Christian religion. But the NT itself is irredeemably theological in contents and concerns and explicating its significance for living communities of faith is a task that needs no apology. Yes, the diversities within the NT are real as they are radical, and they present a strenuous challenge to anyone trying to find a central or unifying message in the NT. But clusters of convergence can still be found even amidst the range of diversities. Yes, NTT seems to be done, re-done, and over-done by the same group of white Protestants males through a limited range of approaches. But NTT can be retooled, renewed, and refocused by deploying some fresh approaches at the macro (book structure) and micro (chapter structure) levels. As one who hopes to soon write a NTT, my objective is that such a volume would move beyond the descriptive exegetical task and begin the first movements toward an informed normative theology that assists Christian disciples on how “to learn to think accurately, behave morally, preach passionately, sing joyfully, pray honestly, obey faithfully” (Peterson 2005, p. 182).