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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I like the project of writing a NT Theology. However, in my view, the essay reads more like a book proposal than an academic article; and more like an apologia than an exposition. As presented, the argument is quite narrow, engaging a somewhat narrow range of scholarship on the essay topic. There is no awareness of the contributions of Latino/a, Mujerista, and Black theologians, which in the third millennium I consider a serious lacuna.

Minor corrections:

1. At times, the essay reads like a literary diatribe (example in lane 295, "But how? Well, I do have a preliminary proposal!). I recommend removing exclamation marks (lines 244 and 295) and rewriting the many sentences ending with a question mark.
2. Line 111: Religionsgehschicte is misspelled: Religionsgeschichte
3. Line 115: theologie should read Theologie (consistent with Religionsgeschichte)
4. Proof-read lines 317 and 322 (words are missing):

• Line 317: "a brief outline of the circumstance of each corpus in order orientate the reader to the text(s)"
• Line 322: "showing that believing certain things entails behaving certain way"

Author Response

Sadly, NTT is a white male activity, like drinking Budweiser I guess, so I have added the voices of some African-American scholars.

Yes, it is a bit "manifesto" like, but that is on purpose, I'm writing about why I feel justified in writing another NTT.

Otherwise, I'm grateful for the feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

The only claim that gave me pause is the claim on p.5 that the Christian movement as a whole was a "homogenous" sect. This seems demonstrably false to me. The word "commonality" is used later in that paragraph and that seemed a much more defensible claim.

Overall, I found it engaging and persuasive, written in a warm and lively style.

There are a few minor typos or errors but those could be cleared up with a thorough proofread or copy editor.

Author Response

The idea that early Christianity was relatively homogenous, goes back to Paul Trebilco, my point is that the intramural diversities were real, but not yet as radical until the second century.

I remain grateful for the reviewers' feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

I do not want to argue with the author and therefore my statements will not relate to my views on the arguments put forward, I will only evaluate the scientific and procedural side. The abstract is quite brief, but concisely represents what the authors plan to translate in paper.
We think that the argument that the authors postulate in the paper is well expressed. Its wording is clear. We agree that New Testament theology research should not circumvent non-canonical apocryphal texts, including the Gnostic Gospels. The authors speak positively about the theology of Rudolf Bultmann. The paper questions many topics and tries to take them critically. This is definitely the benefit of the text. I also appreciate the holistic notion of the issue, which pays attention to theological disciplines as a whole. The proposal to perceive NTT in the context of early Christian literature is, of course, a nice idea. The authors do not shy away from the view of historical sociology on the early Christian community. The authors also see the problem in the context of the unity of the Bible. Some conclusions are perhaps too optimistic, for example "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". The authors also focus on the writings of the apostolic men who are not part of the NT. It's definitely right. The idea of ​​anchoring the NTT in the context of early church history as well as early Christian writing is certainly correct.
The conclusion is quite brief, the text would benefit from a little prolongation.
I certainly think that the authors should add to the text references to several studies from recent years. There is only one such link in the paper. The reference literature is otherwise in line with the topic and there is also enough of it.
I think the text can be published. Before that, however, small adjustments need to be made - to supplement the references with several studies from recent years, to slightly extend the conclusion.

Author Response

I have supplemented the article with a few extra paragraphs, hopefully fixed all infelicities, and improved it along these lines.

I am grateful for the reviewers positive comments and feedback.