PREFACE
An integral part of any serious education, according to Christians, is a good knowledge of the Bible. Many Christian educational institutions create special Bible courses that every incoming student must take.
Reviewing the Bible is the foundation of Bible study. It is impossible to understand any biblical doctrine without knowing what the whole of Scripture is. Each individual book of the Bible is only a part of a single divine revelation, which begins with the book of Genesis and ends with the book of Revelation of John the Theologian.
In approaching the study of the New Testament, it is first necessary to know what the world was like in which this Testament first appeared. We must study the political, social, cultural and religious background against which this great event took place. The words and expressions used by the apostles and their assistants were well known to any passerby on the streets of Alexandria, Antioch or Rome. The clearer these words are to the modern reader, the clearer the content of the New Testament will become for him.
However, a correct understanding of the New Testament requires more than just knowledge of the ancient world. It is necessary to understand that his instructions are binding on us, because... Man's relation to God is always the same, and the eternal God is unchangeable in His relation to man. The vitality of God's Word does not depend on how similar the different eras are. Its eternal significance is not limited by geographical or historical factors. Scripture cannot be like the outdated books of any lost civilization. Once correctly understood, the words of Holy Scripture remain true forever. They always convey to sinners who thirst for salvation the Good News that comes from God.
The author of this book did not intend to substitute his own views for the point of view that will be formed in the student as he studies the New Testament. He wanted only to present the most important facts with the help of which the reader himself could understand the Bible. Like the Ethiopian eunuch who needed an explanation of the words of Scripture, the modern student needs an assistant to help him understand the difficulties that arise in his reading.
This book cannot be considered as a detailed commentary on the New Testament. There is no detailed discussion of theological issues here. To study problems of this kind, the student must turn to special works. Our goal is to provide a general approach to help us understand and love the New Testament. By looking at how the Word of God worked in the 1st century, any sincere believer will be able to apply the knowledge gained in his real life.
When using this book in the classroom, the teacher should supplement it with his own lectures, developing in detail the topics proposed in it. Notes are provided only as samples from which the student or teacher can make their own notes. The links will help you with your own study of the text of Scripture.
The author gives special thanks to his wife, Helen D. Tenney, who has constantly inspired and helped the author with her keen criticism; Dr. A. Berkeley Michelsen and Wheaton College Professor Stephanie Evans for reading the manuscript and providing valuable advice; Miss Edna E. Smallwood for her professional assistance in preparing the manuscript for publication, as well as many of my past students, whose wishes I took into account in writing this book.
PREFACE
TO THE REVISED EDITION
Since the first edition of this book, many changes have occurred in the field of New Testament studies. The processing of numerous data obtained through the discovery of scrolls on the shores of the Dead Sea has given us new knowledge about the religious situation in Palestine during the era of Christ's earthly ministry and the writing of the books of the New Testament.
This edition includes additional material on the Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The bibliography has been brought into line with the current state of the art. The book includes numerous illustrations. Some inaccuracies have also been corrected.
PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION
The deserved popularity of Merrill S. Tenney's Survey of the New Testament, which forms the basis of this second revised edition, speaks volumes of the knowledge, experience, and skill of its author. The reader's response to this book has led to further changes in the content, taking into account the latest evidence from biblical scholarship in the field of New Testament studies. This second revision was carried out at the request of Merrill S. Tenney and William B. Eerdmans, Jr. I appreciate their invitation to participate in this work and thank them for it. Working on this book gave me true pleasure.
The second revised edition of 1985 added a new chapter (Chapter 5 - Jewish Background to the New Testament). This edition contains much new additional material, especially in the chapters on the Gospels and the New Testament canon.
Charles Van Hoof of Eerdmans Publishing Company provided great assistance in the process of reading and preparing the manuscript for publication.
Much has been written on the introduction to the New Testament, but almost all of it is in English, German and French. Therefore, the need for such literature in Russian has been felt for a long time.
The book by the English scholar, teacher of the language and literature of the New Testament at the London Bible College, Donald Guthrie, is a serious academic work.
On the other hand, the author objectively and impartially covers almost all current research in the field of the New Testament. He took into account the existence of various theories and comments about the books and contents of the New Testament, and therefore touched on them in his work. The author does not try to resolve controversial issues, but simply examines modern critical opinions, presenting them to the readers.
From book
One of the most difficult problems in evangelical criticism is determining the place of tradition. Some critical schools of thought reject external evidence on the grounds that the eyewitnesses' approach was not scientific and therefore they could not preserve reliable traditions. At the other extreme is the movement that views ancient testimony as almost sacred and therefore undeniably true. But none of these approaches are satisfactory. The former is guilty of over-modernization, since he believes that only evidence that conforms to modern scientific formulas can be correct. But even though the early Christians were men of their time, a largely uncritical and unscientific age, this does not mean that they were credulous in matters that affected their faith, since they knew that at any time they could be called upon to defend your position. As for the other point of view, which considers tradition to be as important as internal evidence, it is unjustified, since some traditions are clearly not accurate. No one will seriously argue, for example, that Andrei took part in the compilation of the Gospel of John, as follows from the Muratorian canon. Each legend must undoubtedly be carefully weighed.
Where there is a firmly attested ancient tradition, it will be correct to believe that this tradition is possible and true until the contrary is proven. In other words, where tradition and internal evidence contradict each other, the interpretation of the latter should not be questioned unless there is a firm belief that the traditional view is incorrect. Where internal evidence clearly and indisputably contradicts tradition, the latter must of course be rejected. An example of this is the connection between the Apostle Peter and the Gospel of Mark.
Although one can argue about the connection between them, as some proponents of the “history of forms” method do, there is much that speaks in support of this connection, since there is indisputable evidence for this. In other words, all existing early traditions allow the possibility that this connection is based on fact, and only the possibility of the opposite should be completely rejected. Suggestions that something might have happened are very far from what actually happened. Where tradition clearly and clearly states the latter, criticism must prove that it could not have happened before it can provide evidence to support the contrary. In other words, possibility should not crowd out probability.
1867. For example, cf. A. M. Hunter, Interpreting the New Testament (1951), p. 64. However, many pay more attention to ecclesiological issues (eg Scott: E. F. Scott, Literature of the New Testament, p. 193). The main emphasis in the criticism of the Pastoral Epistles changed cyclically. Early critics before Baur, in their attacks on the authenticity of the Epistles, attached great importance to stylistic distinctions, and the Tübingen school resorted to objections of a historical nature. For a brief historical overview of the development of criticism in this period, see: E. Reuss, History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament (English nep. 1884). Later, Holtzman again turned to linguistic arguments in his criticism. Increasing interest in word counts and word ratios may take criticism in a completely different direction. Cf. A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Christianity and the Computer (1964); idem, Paul, the Man and the Myth (1966). These works assume that authorship can be objectively determined using statistical methods. Morton examines various examples of ancient prose, basing his comparisons on such criteria as word frequency and sentence length. At the same time, the author argues that style can be established more reliably on the basis of frequently occurring words than on the basis of characteristic stylistic expressions, since the former do not depend on mood or purpose. As a criterion, Morton chose the frequency of use of the word και /саі/ and the use of articles. He argues that each author, from a statistical point of view, has a certain frequency of use of the same word within minor variations, and then concludes that if the deviations are more significant, then they indicate a different author. As a result of his research, Morton concludes that only Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians are authentic (also Philemon, which is included among the authentic epistles not on the basis of statistical considerations). Without a doubt, the conclusion was drawn too dogmatically. Morton's statistical methodology has not escaped criticism. Cp.: S. Dinwoodie, SJT 18 (1965), pp. 204-218; G. W. Caird, ET 76 (1965), p. 176; N. K. McArthur, ET 76 (1965), pp. 367-370; J. J. O'Rourke, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 110-112; N. K. McArthur, NTS 15 (1969), pp. 339 -349. All critics agree that Morton bases his conclusions on inadequate data. Dinwoodie rightly notes that this study appears as if the author came to certain conclusions before examining the data. MacArthur argues that Morton's plots show exaggerated consistency in the frequency of και /cai/ for each author, whereas MacArthur's own sampling of other ancient Greek authors found much greater variability in the frequency of και for each of them. It is clear that extensive research in statistics and linguistics is needed before such methods can be applied. Moreover, it should be noted that most of Paul's Epistles are too short and not of sufficient length to serve as a good basis for comparison with the ancient Greek prose writers, for which Morton himself specified a desirable sample size for the study (100 sentences). It should also be noted that the method is focused only on the denial of shared authorship, and not vice versa. All this led to the negative results of the study achieved by Morton. However cf. article: K. Grayston and G. Herdan, "The Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical Linguistics", NTS 6 (October 1959), pp. 1-15, which also attempts to use statistics to refute the authorship of the author. Pavel. By mathematical calculations of typical features, these writers came to the conclusion that the Pastoral Epistles were strikingly different from Paul's Epistles, and on the basis of the opinion "the style is the man," they considered it unlikely that Paul could change his style so much as changing circumstances required.
D. Guthrie
Introduction to the New Testament
Donald Guthrie NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION
Apollos, Leicester, England Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA
D. Guthrie. Introduction to the New Testament: trans. from English; preface N. A. Alexandrenko. - Odessa: "Bogomysle", 1996. - 800 p. ISBN 5-7707-5702-7
Donald Guthrie's book is an attempt to give a strictly academic and unbiased survey of introductory issues relating to the biblical texts of the New Testament: authorship, time, place of writing, style, language, historical circumstances, etc. It contains a lot of reference and bibliographic information. The author accepts the New Testament as inspired truth, but at the same time sets out all the critical research that exists in this area.
The book is intended for students studying theology in depth, for specialists, and for all readers seriously interested in the text of the New Testament.
Per. from English N. F. Poltoratskaya, V. Ya. Dykhanov. Editor V. Ya. Dykhanov. Technical editor A. A. Zotova. Corrector L. G. Babiy.
ISBN 5-7454-0112-5 ISBN 5-7707-5701-9
© 1996 Odessa Theological Seminary
PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION
Many books have been written on introduction to the New Testament, but almost all are in English, German and French. Therefore, the need for such literature in Russian has been felt for a long time, and the book of the English scholar, teacher of the language and literature of the New Testament at London Bible College Donald Guthrie is an excellent answer to this need. The choice of this book did not fall by chance. On the one hand, this is a serious academic work. On the other hand, the author objectively and impartially covers almost all current research in the field of the New Testament.
People look at the Bible, and therefore the New Testament, in two ways. Some accept it as the Word of God, given by God for the edification and teaching of believers, others - as one of the types of ancient literature. But both of them necessarily ask introductory questions about authorship, time and place of writing, style and language, historical circumstances, since the answers to these questions explain the content. Believing scholars consider these questions with the conviction of the full inspiration and divine guidance of the human co-authors of the books of Holy Scripture. But not all experts adhere to this point of view. Many give greater importance to the human part of authorship, sometimes even to the exclusion of the divine, and therefore fall into skeptical and negative criticism. Many theological books are based on such criticism. Their conclusions can be drawn from either “source criticism,” which looks for the written sources underlying the books of the New Testament, or “form history,” which looks for specific forms of oral tradition that existed before the books were written, or “redaction history.” ", which seeks the addition of author-editors, or "textual criticism", which tries to clarify the original text. In some ways, these conclusions are acceptable, since they are subjective, but the reader must be critical of everything that is written about the Bible. The history of biblical criticism during the Soviet period demonstrates how incorrectly theological analysis can be used, capitalizing on the reader’s ignorance. Donald Guthrie tried to give an introduction to the books of the New Testament from a fairly conservative point of view of a believing scientist, but given the existence of various theories and comments about the books and contents of the New Testament, he included them in his work and presented them to the readers. He does not try to resolve controversial issues, but simply examines contemporary critical opinions found in other books. He does not omit any opinions once expressed by scholars, so that the reader of the New Testament will know what issues have already been raised, although he does not support these opinions.
D. Guthrie's book contains a lot of information and bibliographic material and is therefore useful for the serious reader. In it he will find extensive information about the environment and historical situation, about the time and place of writing of the Books of the New Testament, about the purpose and purpose of the books, their content and theological significance in Christianity.
Scientific discussion of the Bible is widespread in the West and does not pose a stumbling block to faith, but the Bible has not been studied scientifically in the former Soviet Union. Soviet biblical studies most often indiscriminately rejected the text of Scripture as an unnecessary ancient myth, or used the hypotheses and assumptions of liberal theology to destroy faith, presenting them as scientifically proven facts. On the other hand, believers often believe that in addition to direct reading and quotation, raising questions of authorship defiles the Word
God's. Guthrie's book presents the third position, which accepts the Word of God as inspired truth, holding it so sure and great and so pure that nothing can detract or defile it, but a thorough study of this Word is the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself , who said: “Search the Scriptures, for through them you think that you have eternal life; and they testify of Me” (John 5.39).
N. A. Alexandrenko.
Doctor of New Testament Theology, Doctor of Classical Philology, Professor at Louisiana College (USA).
Zmist
D. Guthrie. 1
Introduction to the New Testament. 1
PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION... 1
CHAPTER 1. GOSPEL... 7
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION... 7
II. LITERARY FORM OF THE GOSPELS... 7
III. MOTIVES FOR WRITING THE GOSPELS... 10
IV. THE PLACE OF THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.. 11
V. THE BEST APPROACH TO THE GOSPEL... 13
CHAPTER 2. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.. 13
I. CHARACTERISTICS.. 13
II. TARGET. 16
III. PURPOSE AND PLACE OF ORIGIN... 19
VI. DATE.. 27
VII. LANGUAGE.. 29
CHAPTER 3. GOSPEL OF MARK... 31
I. CHARACTERISTICS... 32
II. TARGET. 34
III. DESTINATION... 38
VI. DATING.. 46
VII. END OF THE GOSPEL.. 48
VIII. THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL.. 51
IX. LANGUAGE.. 51
X. PLACE OF WRITING... 52
XI. HISTORICITY. 53
CHAPTER 4. GOSPEL OF LUKE... 56
I. CHARACTERISTICS... 56
II. TARGET. 58
III. READERS.. 60
VI. DATING.. 69
VII. LANGUAGE.. 73
CHAPTER 5. SYNOPTIC PROBLEM... 75
I. ESSENCE OF THE PROBLEM... 75
II. BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS... 77
III. THEORY OF WRITTEN SOURCES... 83
IV. SOURCE BRAND.. 84
V. SOURCE "Q". 91
VI. MATERIAL CONTAINED ONLY IN MATTHEW... 101
VII. MATERIAL CONTAINED ONLY IN LUKE... 108
VIII. CONCLUSION.. 119
CHAPTER 6. METHOD "HISTORY OF FORMS" AND ITS DEVELOPMENT... 119
I. REASONS FOR THE ARISE OF THE "HISTORY OF FORMS" DIRECTION. 119
II. DIFFERENT TYPES OF THEORY... 121
III. GENERAL CRITICISM OF THE "HISTORY OF FORMS" METHOD. 127
IV. THE VALUE OF THE "HISTORY OF FORMS" METHOD. 129
V. THEORIES OF THEOLOGICAL EDITING.. 130
VI. HISTORICAL CRITICISM.. 133
CHAPTER 7. GOSPEL OF JOHN... 146
III. TARGET. 161
IV. DATING.. 165
V. CONNECTION WITH THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS... 168
VI. STRUCTURE.. 172
VII. PERMANTUTION THEORIES... 178
VIII. LANGUAGE AND STYLE. 179
IX. GOSPEL BACKGROUND.. 180
X. HISTORICALITY. 182
CHAPTER 8. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES... 215
I. CHARACTERISTICS... 215
II. DATING.. 217
III. TARGET. 221
IV. HISTORICITY. 223
V. SOURCES.. 227
CHAPTER 9. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS... 251
I. THE CHURCH IN ROME... 251
II. REASON FOR WRITING AND DATING... 252
III. TARGET. 253
CHAPTER 10. EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS... 271
I. THE CHURCH IN CORINTH.. 271
II. PAUL'S OPPONENTS IN CORINTH... 272
III. RELATIONS OF PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIANS... 273
IV. COMPILATION METHODS.. 279
V. DATING OF THE MESSAGES.. 280
CHAPTER 11. EPISTLE TO GALATIANS... 292
I. DESTINATION OF THE MESSAGE.. 292
II. DATING.. 295
III. REASON AND PURPOSE. 299
IV. THE SOURCE OF OPPOSITION IN THE GALATIAN CHURCHES... 300
V. AUTHENTICITY. 301
CHAPTER 12. PRISON MESSAGES... 308
CHAPTER 13. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS... 312
I. AUTHENTICITY. 312
II. DESTINATION.. 325
III. TARGET. 328
IV. DATING.. 329
CHAPTER 14. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS... 342
I. PHILIPPIAN CHURCH. 342
II. REASON FOR WRITING... 343
III. AUTHENTICITY. 344
IV. PLACE AND DATE OF SHIPPING.. 344
V. INTEGRITY OF THE MESSAGE.. 348
VI. BORROWING IN THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPINES (2.6-11) 350
CHAPTER 15. EPISTLE TO COLOSSIANS... 357
I. ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH... 357
II. REASON FOR WRITING... 357
III. HERESY. 358
IV. TARGET. 359
V. AUTHENTICITY. 360
VI. PLACE AND DATE OF DEPARTURE.. 361
VII. LETTER FROM LAODICEA... 363
CHAPTER 16. EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS... 371
PAUL'S MISSION TO THESSALONICA.. 371
FIRST MESSAGE.. 372
I. PURPOSE. 372
II. DATING.. 373
III. AUTHENTICITY. 373
SECOND MESSAGE.. 375
I. AUTHENTICITY. 375
II. SEQUENCE OF MESSAGES.. 377
III. REASON FOR WRITING AND PURPOSE. 378
IV. DATING.. 379
CHAPTER 17. PASTORAL EPISTLES... 387
I. AUTHENTICITY OF MESSAGES.. 387
II. PURPOSE OF MESSAGES.. 402
III. DATING OF MESSAGES.. 403
CHAPTER 18. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON... 423
I. REASON FOR WRITING... 423
II. AUTHENTICITY. 424
III. DATING.. 425
IV. ONISIM... 425
CHAPTER 19. EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS... 428
II. READERS.. 433
III. TARGET. 435
IV. DESTINATION.. 438
V. DATING.. 441
VI. BACKGROUND.. 442
VII. LITERARY FORM.. 445
VIII. LITERARY SIMILARITY.. 446
IX. MODERN RELEVANCE OF THE MESSAGE.. 446
CHAPTER 20. EPISTLE OF JACOB.. 465
II. DESTINATION. 475
III. DATING.. 476
IV. TARGET. 478
V. LITERARY FORM AND STYLE. 479
CHAPTER 21. FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER... 491
I. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER IN THE EARLY CHURCH... 491
III. TARGET. 499
IV. DESTINATION.. 500
V. DATING.. 501
VI. INTEGRITY. 502
VII. PLACE OF WRITING.. 504
VIII. LITERARY SIMILARITY.. 504
IX. SOURCES.. 506
CHAPTER 22. SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER... 522
I. EPISTLE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH... 522
III. READERS.. 537
IV. REASON FOR WRITING AND DATING... 538
V. INTEGRITY OF THE MESSAGE... 538
VI. FALSE TEACHERS.. 539
VII. CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER... 541
VIII. OTHER LITERARY CONNECTIONS.. 541
IX. MODERNITY OF THE MESSAGE.. 542
CHAPTER 23. EPISTLES OF JOHN... 557
II. REASON FOR WRITING AND BACKGROUND.. 560
III. TARGET. 561
IV. FORM AND PLACE OF DESTINATION... 561
V. CONNECTION WITH THE FOURTH GOSPEL... 562
VI. CONNECTION WITH PAUL'S TEACHINGS... 565
VII. DATING.. 566
II. PURPOSE.. 568
III. REASON FOR WRITING AND PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE.. 570
IV. DATING.. 570
II. PURPOSE.. 571
III. REASON FOR WRITING AND PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE.. 571
IV. DATING.. 572
CHAPTER 24. THE EPISTLE OF JUDA... 585
III. DATING.. 587
IV. FALSE TEACHERS.. 588
V. PURPOSE. 590
VI. DESTINATION... 590
VII. USE OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 591
VIII. CONNECTION WITH THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER... 592
IX. LITERARY FEATURES.. 596
X. THE VALUE OF THE MESSAGE.. 596
CHAPTER 25. BOOK OF REVELATION... 604
I. THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH... 604
III. DATING.. 612
IV. TARGET. 617
V. DESTINATION.. 618
VI. SOURCES.. 619
VII. INTEGRITY. 620
VIII. STRUCTURE.. 621
IX. ETERNAL GOSPEL.. 624
APPENDIX I. 642
COLLECTED EPISTLES OF PAUL.. 642
I. ANCIENT CERTIFICATE OF THE COLLECTION OF PAUL'S EPISTLES... 642
II. THE PROBLEM OF THE ORIGINAL COLLECTION OF PAUL'S EPISTLES... 643
APPENDIX II. 652
CHRONOLOGY OF PAUL'S LIFE... 652
I. BASIC CHRONOLOGICAL DATA.. 652
II. ADDITIONAL DATA.. 653
III. VARIOUS OFFERS.. 654
APPENDIX III. 658
EPISTOLAR PSEUDOEPIGRAPHY.. 658
I. PROBLEM.. 658
II. EXAMPLES IN JUDICA LITERATURE 659
III. CHRISTIAN NON-CANONICAL EXAMPLES... 660
IV. CONTROVERSIAL NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES... 661
V. IMITATION AND ITS DETECTION.. 663
VI. MODERN PSEUDO-EPIGRAPHIC RESEARCH.. 664
APPENDIX IV.. 669
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM... 669
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES... 669
II. IMPORTANT FACTORS IN THE SEARCH OF A SOLUTION... 673
III. A TEST THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS... 676
NAME INDEX. 678
GLOSSARY.. 698
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS... 706
CHAPTER 1. GOSPEL
Preface to Russian edition 3
Chapter 1. Gospels 5
Chapter 2. Gospel of Matthew 13
Chapter 3. Gospel of Mark 37
Chapter 4. Gospel of Luke 69
Chapter 5. Synoptic problem 95
Chapter 6. The “History of Forms” method and its development 152
Chapter 7. Gospel of John 183
Chapter 8. Acts of the Apostles 260
Chapter 9 Romans 300
Chapter 10. Corinthians 323
Chapter 11 Galatians 347
Chapter 12. Prison messages 365
Chapter 13. Ephesians 370
Chapter 14. Philippians 404
Chapter 15. Colossians 421
Chapter 16. Thessalonians 437
Chapter 17. Pastoral Epistles 454
Chapter 18. Philemon 495
Chapter 19 Hebrews 501
Chapter 20. The Epistle of James 542
Chapter 21. First Epistle of Peter 571
Chapter 22. Second Epistle of Peter 605
Chapter 23. Epistles of John 644
Chapter 24. Jude 676
Chapter 25. Book of Revelation 696
Appendix I. The Collected Epistles of Paul 739
Appendix II. Chronology of Paul's life 750
Appendix III. Epistolary pseudepigraphy 758
Appendix IV. Further consideration of the synoptic problem 771
Name index 782
Glossary 801
List of abbreviations 810
Preface to the Russian edition
Many books have been written on introduction to the New Testament, but almost all are in English, German and French. Therefore, the need for such literature in Russian has been felt for a long time, and the book of the English scholar, teacher of the language and literature of the New Testament at London Bible College Donald Guthrie is an excellent answer to this need. The choice of this book did not fall by chance. On the one hand, this is a serious academic work. On the other hand, the author objectively and impartially covers almost all current research in the field of the New Testament.People look at the Bible, and therefore the New Testament, in two ways. Some accept it as the Word of God, given by God for the edification and teaching of believers, others - as one of the types of ancient literature. But both of them necessarily ask introductory questions about authorship, time and place of writing, style and language, historical circumstances, since the answers to these questions explain the content. Believing scholars consider these questions with the conviction of the full inspiration and divine guidance of the human co-authors of the books of Holy Scripture. But not all experts adhere to this point of view. Many give greater importance to the human part of authorship, sometimes even to the exclusion of the divine, and therefore fall into skeptical and negative criticism. Many theological books are based on such criticism. Their conclusions can be drawn from either "source criticism," which searches for the written sources underlying the books of the New Testament, or the "history of forms" method, which looks for specific forms of oral tradition that existed before the writing of the books, or the method of "redaction history." ", which seeks the addition of author-editors, or "textual criticism", which tries to clarify the original text. In some ways, these conclusions are acceptable, since they are subjective, but the reader must be critical of everything that is written about the Bible. The history of biblical criticism during the Soviet period demonstrates how incorrectly theological analysis can be used, capitalizing on the reader’s ignorance. Donald Guthrie tried to give an introduction to the books of the New Testament from a fairly conservative point of view of a believing scientist, but given the existence of various theories and comments about the books and contents of the New Testament, he included them in his work and presented them to the readers. He does not try to resolve controversial issues, but simply examines contemporary critical opinions found in other books. He does not omit any opinions once expressed by scholars, so that the reader of the New Testament will know what issues have already been raised, although he does not support these opinions.
D. Guthrie's book contains a lot of information and bibliographic material and is therefore useful for the serious reader. In it he will find extensive information about the environment and historical situation, about the time and place of writing of the Books of the New Testament, about the purpose and purpose of the books, their content and theological significance in Christianity.
Scientific discussion of the Bible is widespread in the West and does not pose a stumbling block to faith, but the Bible has not been studied scientifically in the former Soviet Union. Soviet biblical studies most often indiscriminately rejected the text of Scripture as an unnecessary ancient myth, or used the hypotheses and assumptions of liberal theology to destroy faith, presenting them as scientifically proven facts. On the other hand, believers often believe that, in addition to direct reading and quotation, raising questions of authorship desecrates the Word of God. Guthrie's book presents the third position, which accepts the Word of God as inspired truth, holding it so sure and great and so pure that nothing can detract or defile it, but a thorough study of this Word is the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself , who said: “Search the Scriptures, for through them you think that you have eternal life; and they testify of Me” (John 5.39).
N. A. Alexandrenko.
Doctor of New Testament Theology, Doctor of Classical Philology, Professor at Louisiana College (USA).
Chapter 1. Gospels
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The Four Gospels have always been of particular interest to Christians. They are the main source of knowledge about the life of our Lord, because without them this knowledge would be reduced to the level of fragmentary information. And therefore it is not surprising that scientists have focused special attention on them. It is evident, however, that no other book of the New Testament is as difficult to critically examine as these. Most of the questions raised by biblical criticism are still the subject of debate, although the most radical theories have now been almost completely rejected. Before turning to consideration of these questions, we will try to give a general assessment of the Gospels in their modern form, since they undoubtedly had a profound influence on the development of Christian thought, independent of any critical assessment. This approach differs from some modern schools of criticism, which begin with assumptions that distort the value of the existing Gospels. The principles of such schools will be discussed in full below. This study is based on the conviction that it is the Gospels, and not their sources and their origins, that have shaped Christian history, and that the latter must be seen in the light of the Gospels.II. LITERARY FORM OF THE GOSPELS
Our first task is to determine the literary character of the Gospels. We must answer the question of what they are. It is much more difficult to answer than it might seem at first glance. The Gospels are undoubtedly narratives that describe the deeds and words of Jesus. But these are not biographies in the accepted sense of the word. They cover only a short period of Jesus' life. They tell us very little about His childhood and youth. The information contained in them does not at all reflect the psychological picture of His development. Apart from fragmentary information about the first years of His life, the main attention is paid to the brief period of His public ministry and especially His death and resurrection. And it is no coincidence that they are called Gospels, i.e. evangelism 1.A. Genre of the Gospels
There has been much discussion about the genre of the Gospels. Is the form of these books unique, or are there parallels that could provide a model for their genre? The view that they have no connection with other ancient biographical narratives has recently been heavily criticized. From a literary point of view, it cannot be said that this is a completely new genre, since each new form is connected with the previous ones. On the other hand, comparison from a literary point of view with other ancient works that do not have a common purpose for writing leads to a misunderstanding of the Gospels. And so it is important to consider the various points of view that have been offered to explain our approach to the Gospels as a whole.
1. Biographies
Comparisons have been made with ancient Greco-Roman biographies. Tolbert believes that this comparison is the key to understanding the Gospels 2 . He tries to show that the mythological point of view of these ancient biographies is relevant to the Gospels. He refers to the categories of gods and men and to the intermediate categories of eternity and immortality. The myth of the God-man in Greek and other cults is, in his opinion, the key to understanding the idea of the first Christians about Christ. Tolbert's arguments were studied in depth by D. E. On, 3 who rejected many of Tolbert's basic assumptions. He finds the idea that the genre of the Gospels is the same as that of Greco-Roman biographies unconvincing.
2. Aretologies
Another category has been proposed and considered as a possible explanation for the literary form of the Gospels. These are aretologies, i.e. stories of miraculous deeds performed by God or a hero. They focused on the Greek god-man and are therefore offered as examples of the Jesus narrative. But this point of view is very speculative, since it can hardly be said that there was no literary analogy whose comparison with Jesus would be completely unfounded 4 .
3. Lectionaries
Another theory of the origin of the Gospels has been put forward, according to which they were compiled on the model of Jewish lectionaries (liturgical books that were divided into certain calendar cycles). According to P. Carrington 5, the Gospels were compiled for use during public worship. He pays special attention to the Gospel of Mark, considering that in many manuscripts the text is divided into sections corresponding to the four Sabbaths of the month, with an additional fourteen sections reserved for special occasions.
A similar theory is put forward by Gilding 6 regarding the fourth Gospel. He believes that the Gospel of John corresponds to the three-year Jewish cycle of readings. This means that John chose one passage from the Jewish cycle of readings for each week, regardless of the year in which it was read. This hypothesis has some basis, since John places greater emphasis on the Jewish holidays than all other gospel writers. But although it has many supporters, many of the supposed parallels between the Jewish readings and the Gospel text are not convincing enough.
A third and more recent attempt to support this hypothesis was made by M.D. Goulder. In his opinion, the Gospel of Matthew also corresponds to the Jewish cycle of readings. He divided the Gospel into sections corresponding, as he believed, to the readings of the Old Testament for each week. Although he agrees with Carringon's divisions of the text, he nevertheless acknowledges the difficulty of drawing parallels. But in general these theories face the impossibility of proving that these readings took place in the first century. The data given most likely refers to a later period of recording the readings. L. Morris 8 points out that the evidence supports an early dating of the Gospels, which has nothing to do with the hypothetical readings.
Another theory regarding the genre of the Gospels is based on their origin from Jewish midrash. Goulder compares Jewish midrash with the Gospel of Matthew, as discussed above. R. Gundry 9 attaches particular importance to this comparison. But first of all, it is necessary to find out what each individual scholar understands by midrash, since this word is used in different meanings. Gundry sometimes applies it to the entire Gospel as a whole, sometimes to its individual parts. He appears to view midrashic elements as ahistorical embellishments of the text. But then the question arises whether such a literary practice existed in the Jewish approach to history. And the fact that the Gospel of Matthew was a similar example can hardly be considered justified 10.
B. Structure of the Gospels
If we agree with the opinion that there are no adequate parallels to the gospel genre, then it is necessary to find out to what extent the principles of literary criticism are applicable in this case. New Testament scholars did not pay much attention to the principles of literary criticism applied to the study of other literary works. Is it then possible to consider the Gospels as literary works along with other works? Since there is still no general consensus regarding the genre to which they can be classified, we have every reason to consider the Gospels unique.
Many literary critics believe that any literary work can be considered as a source of historical information only after it has not been subjected to literary criticism. A literary critic approaches material from a variety of perspectives. For example, N. R. Petersen 11 has written a book on literary criticism in which he believes that in Mark it is necessary to distinguish between narrative time and event time in his Gospel and between the narrative world and the real world in Acts. In the latter case, he believes that when comparing Paul and Luke, Paul provides more information for literary study. But it must be admitted that the Gospels and Acts are not novels, but narratives of a completely different kind, and they can hardly be examined using such critical methods.
Literary criticism can provide assistance in questions concerning the text. How can a document be divided into parts? What meaning does the whole text have and what meaning can be attributed to the parts? How can you explain the order of presentation? 12
A slightly different approach to literary criticism is structuralism, which distinguishes between the external and internal structure of a text. The result of this approach is the statement that a text can contain different semantic levels at the same time. The text becomes a kind of sign language 13 . This kind of research is not our task, but it must be taken into account in the process of interpretation.
B. The Gospels as Evangelism
Traditionally these books are called Gospels. The word itself means "good news." With this word begins Mark's account of the works and teachings of Jesus. The essence of the Good News lies in the content of the stories. All the evangelists devote a significant portion of their books to the last week of Jesus' life. Mark actually devotes a third of his Gospel to this series of events. Other evangelists, although to a somewhat lesser extent, do the same. Their main purpose, undoubtedly, was to describe His death. The description of good works, miracles and teaching must be viewed from a perspective that looks towards the death and Resurrection of Jesus. It was the death and Resurrection of Christ that was the main theme of the preaching of the first Christians.
This constitutes the main difference between the Gospels and all other biographical works and is fundamental in assessing the uniqueness of these Scriptures. We must take into account all possible parallels, but we must never forget about the specific nature of the Gospels. The uniqueness of the central figure of the Gospels makes them unique. Recognition of this fact does not exclude the possibility of their critical study, but hasty and unconditional placement of them on a par with secular literature is unacceptable here 14 .
III. MOTIVES FOR WRITING THE GOSELIES
We will consider the various purposes that led to the writing of different Gospels below when we talk about each Gospel separately. Now we will dwell on the general motives that led to the description of the Gospel events, since there were no examples that preceded the writing of the Gospels.At first, the oral apostolic witness carried such enormous weight that reliable and consistent gospel messages in written form could not be accepted. There is no doubt that for the Eastern mentality, the word has greater authority than a written document, and therefore the need for written evidence appears only after the death of a direct eyewitness. In this case, it could have been a long time before the first Gospels appeared. We will consider the problem of dating the Gospels below, but here it should be noted that in order to understand the origin of the Gospels there is no need to assume a long period of oral tradition. The rapid spread of Christianity hastened the writing of the Gospels because the apostles were not ubiquitous. From Luke's preface it is quite clear that before Luke himself wrote the Gospel, other Gospels had already existed for some time. We have no evidence as to which of them was written first, and this uncertainty must underlie our assessment of the opinion that there was no motive for the writing of the Gospels at first.
It is often stated that the later writing of the Gospels was prompted by the widespread belief at the time that the parousia, or return of Christ, was at hand and there was no need to record the gospel. What is the point if the Lord can return at any moment? And therefore, the need for a written certificate of the birth of the Church could only arise when it became obvious that the Church would have a long history. This is a fairly reasonable assumption and can be accepted, but there is no complete certainty that it is correct. The New Testament epistles anticipate the canonical Gospels. Moreover, our Lord clearly said that before the parousia all nations must hear the Gospel. It is then quite reasonable to assume that some early preachers saw the need for the use of written evidence. In this case, it can also be assumed that writing books for the purpose of evangelization was considered fundamental in preparing the Church for the parousia.
In addition, one cannot ignore the high cost of writing instruments and the difficulty in obtaining reliable data. The first cannot be easily dismissed, since writing instruments were indeed very expensive, but it is also difficult to understand why this problem became more solvable at a later time. As for the extraction of material, it is determined by the origin of the Gospels. If all the evangelists were to search for the material, then this would take some time, but this explanation is not the only one, nor the most important one for elucidating the origin of the Gospels, as we will see when we consider the synoptic problem.
There is no doubt that there were many motives for writing the Gospels. The need for historical written evidence and for catechetical (educational) purposes is beyond any doubt. If oral instructions were held in high esteem among the Jews, it is unlikely that they could have the same meaning for Gentile converts. For the pagan evangelistic mission, written documents could be of great help. And although this need was not immediately recognized, it was undoubtedly felt in the missionary Church in the very early stages of its development. Closely related to evangelistic goals were apologetic needs. The non-Christian world undoubtedly wanted to know who Jesus was, and one can easily understand the urgent need for an authoritative answer. While at first the apostolic oral witness was sufficient, as the work of evangelization expanded, the need for written testimony became necessary.
It is believed that liturgical purposes also played a role in the writing of at least some of the Gospels, and these theories will be explored below. But regardless of these purposes, it is almost certain that some accounts of the life, teaching, death and Resurrection of Jesus were introduced into Christian worship from an early date. And although there were enough actual eyewitnesses, in pagan areas where there were no direct witnesses from Palestine, the Gospels could have been written quite early.
Quite a lot has been said about the variety of reasons that led to the writing of the Gospels. Thus, according to Luke's own testimony, many attempts were made, but only four Gospels have reached us as reliable documents. Below we will briefly discuss the early Church's acceptance of these Gospels and the rejection of all others. The huge number of later apocryphal Gospels testifies both to the constant attempts to record details omitted by the Christian Church and to its firm decision to recognize them as unreliable. Some scholars believe that among the mass of unreliable material, the authentic sayings of the Lord could have been preserved 15.
IV. THE PLACE OF THE GOSPELS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
It is not our task to study the development of the canon, 16 but we must briefly consider the attitude of the early Church towards the Gospels in order to put the problems of their recognition in proper perspective.All available evidence clearly shows that by the end of the second century the four Gospels were accepted not only as reliable, but also as scripture on the level of the Old Testament. Irenaeus believes that the four Gospels reflect the four cardinal directions, the four winds, and the need for four pillars in the building 17 . Although one may not agree with his manner of reasoning, his opinion regarding the exclusive use of the four Gospels cannot be questioned. In addition, he names each Gospel by the name of its traditional author. He speaks in general terms of the doctrine of the inspiration of the Gospels. Irenaeus may not be entirely critical in his approach, but this does not mean that his testimony was not based on sound tradition. At the very least, it cannot be avoided when considering issues related to canonization.
Although Clement of Alexandria quotes other Gospels, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, he makes a clear distinction between them and the four canonical Gospels. Tertullian, however, quotes exclusively the four Gospels and asserts their authority on the basis that they were written by the apostles or their immediate collaborators. None of these writers question the apostolic origins of these Gospels, although their approaches have been harshly criticized by modern scholars. It is likely that the church fathers were closer to the truth than critics think.
Data before 180 A.D. are less definite, but they nevertheless indicate great veneration of the four Gospels from the earliest times. Tatian's "Diatessaron" represents excerpts from the four Gospels and is interesting in that it shows the difficulties that the four Gospels then caused 18. Despite the rather great influence of this book on the Eastern Church, it was soon supplanted by the individual Gospels, which indicates the attention that was paid to the synoptic Gospels, despite the large amount of general material that they contained. Reliable evidence interested Christians more than information about the life of Christ, extracted from the scriptures and arranged in chronological order. Even Justin Martyr, apparently, knew and used all the Gospels, although this cannot be said with certainty due to the inaccuracy of his quotations. Important for our consideration are his references to the "memoirs of the apostles" which were used in public worship. These memoirs were called "gospels" ( /evangelia/), which implies that they were considered authoritative due to their direct connection with the apostolic memoirs.
Both Clement of Rome and Ignatius used gospel material, although more in the form of references than quotations. All this material, however, has parallels in the canonical Gospels with the exception of one passage in Ignatius, which contains a saying of our Lord from some unknown source 19 . However, it is not entirely certain that these writers were actually familiar with the written Gospels. Kester 20, for example, believes that these were rather pre-synoptic legends. However, the Gospel of Polycarp contains parallels with our Gospels, which testifies to his indisputable knowledge of them 21. But it is doubtful that all these authors knew the Gospel of John.
For the pre-apostolic period, the testimony of Palius is very important, although it raises many questions. Since we will dwell on it in detail when considering problems relating to canonization, it should only be noted here that Palius’ testimony does not contradict patriotic data. First, he mentions Matthew and Mark, which is the earliest evidence for the authorship of the Gospels. Second, he believed that Mark was Peter's translator and Matthew wrote in Hebrew. Although these statements have been heavily criticized, they remain very important because they date back very early.
V. THE BEST APPROACH TO THE GOSELES
Before proceeding to study each Gospel individually, it is necessary to point out some advantages of the approach taken in this introduction. First, he poses problems, considering them auxiliary to the understanding and evaluation of the existing Gospels, and that it makes no sense to attach special importance to them. However, our method is by no means so simple, since some discussions about individual Gospels involve inferences regarding the sources or formation of traditions. In some cases these conclusions are anticipated, although the ways in which they are reached will be discussed in appropriate sections.A second advantage of this approach is that it allows each Gospel to be considered individually, regardless of the supposed order in which they were written. The canonical order is preserved here. Many important aspects of each Gospel can be considered independently of the solution to the problem of their relationship.
We consider it necessary to briefly dwell on the generally accepted theories of the origin of the first three Gospels. Source criticism usually assumes that the Gospel of Mark was written first. Subsequently, Matthew and Luke used it and another written source ("Q"), containing mainly sayings and several special traditions in written or oral form ("M" and "L"). The method of "history of forms" is guided by the principle that the earliest traditions existed as separate stories, which were subsequently collected into written sources and thus included in our Gospels. Both the criticism of sources and the method of "history of forms", together with the direction of "history of editions" will be fully discussed below.
As for the Gospel of John, it requires a completely different approach and will be considered only after discussing the synoptic problem.
Notes
1 Wed. F. F. Bruce's consideration of the truth of the concept of "gospel" (BJRL 45 (1963), pp. 319-339). The use of the word /evangelion/ as a description of the life and work of Jesus is confirmed by Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 66), but it remains unclear how much earlier than Justin this word was used. The basic meaning of this word "good news" was used in both a secular and sacred sense. This word can be found in the Old Testament, although there are also parallels with the designation of worship of the emperor. For an overview of the development of the word's meaning, see A. Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction, pp. 150-155.
2 What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (1977). Wed. also: J. Drury, "What are the gospels?", ET 87 (1976), pp. 324-328. See S. W. Votaw, The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies in the Graeco-Roman World (1970), for a reprint of a collection of articles from 1915 that propose a view of the Gospels as popular biographies comparable to other ancient ones. works.
3 See: GP P, pp. 9-60. See also: G. N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Teaching (1974), pp. 118-126, which contains a thorough analysis of the Greco-Roman bibliography in comparison with the Gospels.
4 See M. Hadas and M. Smith, Heroes and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (1965). Gadas examines the aretology of antiquity, and Smith selectively examines four works, including the Gospel of Luke, which he believes reflects the aretology tradition. See also: M. Smith, "Prolegomena to a discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus", JBL 90 (1971), pp. 74-99. Against this view, cf. H. S. Kee, "Aretalogy and Gospel", JBL 92 (1973), pp. 402-422; D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (1972). Wed. also: P. L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels (1982), pp. 15 ff.
5 The Primitive Christian Calendar (1952). This theory has been sharply criticized: C. F. Evans, JTS n.s. 14 (1963), pp. 140-146. Wed. also: R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (1972), pp. 82-87.
6 The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (1960). For a critique of these views, see L. Morris, The New Testament and Jewish Lectionaries (1964), chapter 3.
7 Midrash and Lecture in Matthew (1974). Compare: idem, The Evangelists" Calendar (1978).
8 "The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries", in GP III, pp. 129-156. Morris points out that no lectionary theory can explain why Christians used these books, which were based entirely on the law. The author concludes that there is no reasonable basis to assume that the evangelists set themselves the goal of writing edifying lectionaries.
9 Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (1982).
10 For a review of modern Jewish historiography, see R. T. France, “Jewish Historiography, Midrash and the Gospels,” G.P. III, pp. 99-127. In the same collection, Paine sharply criticized Gundry's position (pp. 177-215).
11 Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (1978).
12 A Guide to Literary Criticism - C. S. Hill, Interpreting Literature: History, Drama and Fiction, Philosophy, Rhetoric (1966).
13 Cf. J. D. Crossan, “Waking the Bible: Biblical Hermeneutic and Literary Imagination,” Interpretation 32 (1978), pp. 269-285; A. Thistelton, "Keeping up with Recent Studies, Structuralism and Biblical Studies", ET 89 (1977-8), pp. 329-335; D. Patte, What is Structural Exegesis? (1976). For an application of structuralist exegesis, see E V. McKnight, Meaning in Texts: The Historical Shaping of Narrative Hermeneutics (1978), which analyzes the passage of Luke. 5.1-11. See also D. and A. Patte, Structural Exegesis: From Theory to Practice: Exegesis of Mark 15 and 16: Hermeneutical Implications (1978).
14 The greatest similarity is found with the work of Philostratus “The Life of Apollonius of Tyana” and Lucian “The False Prophet”. Cf. S. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (1961), pp. 13-15. In: G. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 128, there is a lack of any information about the Teacher of Righteousness from Qumran as a specific person, which once again confirms the uniqueness of the Gospels. This position is further developed by comparing the canonical Gospels with the Gospel of Thomas (see: Stanton, op. cit., pp. 129-136).
15 Cf. J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (1957).
16 For a review of early Christian approaches to the Gospels, see A. N. McNeile, INT (1953); A. Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (1954); Oxford Society, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905); J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (1942); E. C. Blackman, Marcion and his Influence (1948); J. N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (1943); J.N. Birdsall, "Canon of the New Testament", NBD, pp. 194-199; B. Childs, The New Testament as Canon (1984); H. Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon. Its Making and Meaning (1985); V. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (1987), For a collection of articles by German authors on the canon, see: Kasemann, Das Neue Testament als Kanon (1970).
17 English lane Irenaeus see: A New Eusebius (ed. J. Stevenson, 1957), p. 122.
18 Some scholars believe that in addition to the gospel material, Tatian’s Diatessaron also included other data. Indeed, Victor of Capua calls this work Diapente (Diapente - from Latin, Greek musical fifth, in contrast to Diatessaron - musical fourth, a hint that his work included not only the four Gospels, but also additional material - approx. .transl.); see: G. Quispel, VC 13 (1959), pp.87-117; N. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the Evangelists, 1962, pp. 25-27), from which it becomes obvious that Tatian also used non-canonical Gospels.
19 See A. Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (1954), p. 149.
20 Synoptische Uberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern (1957).
21 Kester admits that Polycarp was familiar with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, although he dates them later than Ignatius. This point of view is due to the fact that Kester shares Harrison’s opinion that chapters 1-12 of Polycarp’s epistle were written much later (P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians, 1936).
Loading...
