I've been searching for a good, brief undergraduate-level textbook on the New Testament for a course in Biblical Theology. There are plenty of such textbooks for the literary and historical background of the various New Testament documents, but (at this level) precious few that devote themselves to the theological *message* of the New Testament documents.

The late F.F. Bruce, a highly distinguished scholar and believing Christian, provides such a summary here. After a brief consideration of method, Professor Bruce swiftly moves on to consider the earliest written witness to the life and teachings of Jesus -- the gospel of Mark --, presses into the question of the relationship between the historical Jesus and the Apostle Paul, and expounds some of the central ideas of Pauline theology such as the two ages, justification, the cosmic Christ, and the church as the body of Christ.

Taking Luke and Acts as one extended work, Bruce expounds the mission of Jesus and its continuation in the mission of the Apostles according to this historical witness. Subsequent chapters (among others) deal with the Gospel of Matthew, the strange Letter to the Hebrews, and the Gospel of John.

For reasons I cannot fathom, Bruce discusses the Apocalypse two chapters *before* he discusses the Gospel of John. Yet he offers no explanation of this choice -- not even the hypothesis that the writing of the Apocalypse preceded the Gospel. This is all the stranger, since Bruce thinks both books came from the same writer, the Apostle John.

The book, originally published in 1972, wears well for its age. It cannot, of course, discuss the latest fads spewed forth by the so-called "Jesus Seminar." But then, it doesn't need to.

This is a work of historical description and theological summary of the Christian gospel as it was preached and taught by the earliest Christians. On this most important subject, it's refreshingly sane and sober.

I haven't really gotten a great deal from this book... although I know that F.F.Bruce is one of the great scholars on the book of Acts. I know they say that sometimes the art and artist critique the critic-- and what you say reveals more about you yourself than about the great master. That could definitely be the case here. No doubt this man 1) knows the Scripture, and 2) has written and ministered with the power and authority of God...

But, if you can only buy one book (commentary) on Acts, go try Adjith Fernando's NIV Application Commentary.

This commentary on Acts offers a great deal of historical background on the people, places, and events of the 1st century Christian church. In some places it gets a little bogged down with the names of all the people, but quite often Bruce offers interesting insights into the climate of the times. Taking the time to slow down and review some of the accounts in Acts really opens your eyes to details that are easily missed, or left out in the translation. There could have been more discussion of theological issues in the commentary, but Bruce seemed to be content in describing historical aspects. The commentary did convey a respect for the book of Acts as the Word of God, and would be a good place for a reader to get some additional insight into Acts.

F.F. Bruce is a great scholar and many of his commentaries have held the attention of many pastors and laymen to this day. No matter what your view is of his conclusions, his exegesis is almost always a force to be reckoned with.

Moderate/conservative and reformed in his roots, this commentary wins five stars because of it's valuable sholarship. I would also recommend Acts commentaries by I. Marshall Howard (Tyndale) and Richard Longenecker (Expositor's) if you are looking for exegesis and sholarly contribution... if you want "application" and "light devotional" material there are plenty of others to choose from (that are generally mediocre in terms of interpreting and explaining the meaning of the text).

A word of caution to the traditional "charismatic": You may not agree with all he has to say about the traditional "baptism of the Spirit" proof text passages... I still recommend reading it so that you may be challenged to interpret Acts again.

The NICNT series has some very distinguished volumes (most notably Fee on 1 Corinthians), and most of them represent a good value for most pastors. Davids' volume on 1 Peter is a good volume, but not a great one. I am a pastor currently preaching through 1 Peter and I find that Davids' work is always reliable, but not especially incisive. It seems to me that the author did not have quite enough time to put into the commentary as he might have liked (he admits as much in the preface), and so we are left with a decent contribution, but not one of my top choices on 1 Peter. I am sorry to say this, since I am such of fan of the NICNT series as a whole. Davids work suffers in comparison with other available commentaries on 1 Peter: Grudem in the TNTC series is less than half the price, written with more verve, and almost as long; Kelly's 30 year old work in the BNTC series is still my top choice for overall value (it covers 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude for less $ than Davids); Michaels commentary in the Word series sells for about the same price as Davids, but it is at least twice as full, giving much more detail (sometimes too much)and has some really excellent exegesis of the Greek text; Achtemeier's more recent contribution to the Hermenia series is the fullest yet, but also the most expensive by far (twice as much as Davids or Michaels). While being a fine work, it does not break new ground, and is no more insightful that Michaels. In conclusion, I would like to see Davids' volume on 1 Peter revised in the near future and have about 50-75 pages added and more interaction with recent authors. If this is done, and the price remains the same, Davids may be in the running.