These five books were very formative on my experience back in 2000-2002, but not necessarily the most important books in my library now. I’m not sure if I would choose the same five books tomorrow, but this is what I came up with.

F. F. Bruce, In Retrospect: Remembrance of Things Past (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). Bruce, like no other biblical scholar, caught my attention during the early years of being interested in the Bible. He was so prolific that he usually had something to say on just about any topic and a commentary on just about every book of the New Testament. Since he quickly became one of my favorite scholars, I jumped at the opportunity to read his autobiography and it didn’t let me down. This book not only helped me decide to pursue a career in biblical studies, but it is why I decided to complete my undergraduate degree in classics rather than religion or theology. I don’t think I even knew what a degree in classics was before reading Bruce. Though I hardly interact with his scholarship today, I am deeply indebted to Bruce and his strangely glamorous(?) career which is described in this book.

Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (3d ed; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). The second edition of How to Read the Bible was one of the first books I read dealing the topic of interpretation. The book’s approach is quite simple. One should first understand that the Bible contains different genres of literature and before one can interpret the bible, they need to recognize the genre and know how to approach it knowledgeably. I think almost everyone early in their studies needs to read a book like this in order to point them in the right direction. I’m sure there are others that do the job well, but I know that this has been the most popular and successful book of its type. The second chapter is one of the best short introductions to choosing a Bible version I have seen, and I have often recommended the book to others for that chapter alone. I’m glad to see that the second chapter was expanded into a short book by Fee and Mark Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, which also is a good book in its own right.

D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2d ed; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). I read this around the same time that I read Fee and Stuart’s book, so they both worked together to make me a sharper interpreter. Whereas Fee and Stuart focused on the broad issues of how to do biblical interpretation, Carson presented a case of what not to do. He looked at specific examples of how people would misuse or circumvent exegesis to make a pretty point. Carson does well to show how these exegetically unsound arguments could be corrected. I think part of the reason it was such a profound book at the time was that he addressed specific problems that I would hear from the pulpit. As a result I think Carson’s greatest impact on me was that he made me a more careful interpreter—no longer making grandiose claims about this Greek word or that, but only arguing for points that could clearly be supported. At least I try my best to do that now.

Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3d ed; New York: Oxford, 1992). Out of the five books listed here, this is the only one that was assigned to me in a class. I was sitting in on a second-year Greek course at Talbot School of Theology and one of the objectives was to learn something about textual criticism. At the time, I wasn’t sure what I would think of textual criticism, but after reading Metzger’s The Text, I was hooked. Not only did this clear up some gross misunderstandings about the MS tradition that I acquired from my conservative church experience, but it also presented a very fascinating picture of how the NT text was transmitted through history. That book led me to Aland’s book, but also books by Comfort, Finegan, Greenlee, and (of course) Ehrman. Even if one isn’t prone to liking the mundane(?) work of a textual critic, they should still read Metzger’s The Text because basic knowledge of TC is imperative for NT work. Besides, how else is one going to understand the apparatus criticus in their New Testament and the utilize Metzger’s Textual Commentary? By the way, I haven’t read the New edition of The Text updated by Ehrman, so if anyone wants to get me a copy, they will receive a great reward in heaven.

E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). This was the first serious monograph I read on biblical studies because it came to me highly recommended. These were the days before N.T. Wright’s popularity exploded and when a person wanted to know more about the “New Perspective on Paul” they consulted Dunn and Sanders, so I originally read Dunn’s short essay on the topic in his Romans Commentary. I know that much of Sanders’s book was above me at the time, but I have since consulted it here or there and I would really like to reread it when I get a chance. The reason it was such a profound experience for me was that the concept of covenantal nomism was so foreign to the types of theologies I was interacting with. It also brought to my attention the richness of Judaism during the second temple period, something that I had been under-emphasizing because of my focus on the Greco-Roman world.

These would be my top five, but here are a couple others. Carson’s New Testament Commentary Survey, was consulted daily, not only for knowing which commentaries to purchase, but also for understanding more about what scholars were doing the best work. Two books on Paul I liked early on were Ramsay’s St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen and Witherington’s The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (neither of which I would recommend today). Also, I was a big fan of Bishop J. B. Lightfoot and have amassed a number of his commentaries, books, sermons, and even a couple original letters. Though I don’t actively collect his work anymore, I still have much respect for his trailblazing exegesis and contributions to NT studies.

Next time I’ll post on five influential books I read during seminary. So as part of Ken’s “challenge” I need to enlist five others in this task. Bryan Bibb, Kevin Scull, Michael Halcomb, Michael Whitenton, and Mike Bird consider thyselves duly summoned to participate.