By introduction to New Testament a lot has been written, but almost everything is in English, German and French. Therefore, the need for such literature in Russian has been felt for a long time.
The book of 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.
And on the other hand, the author objectively and unbiasedly covers almost all current research in the field of the New Testament. He took into account the existence of various theories and remarks about the books and the content of the New Testament, and therefore touched on them in his work. The author does not try to resolve controversial issues, but simply analyzes modern critical opinions, presenting them to the readers.
From book
One of the most difficult problems in evangelical criticism is the determination of the place of tradition. Some critical scientific schools 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, there is a trend that regards the ancient testimony as almost sacred and therefore indisputably true. But none of these approaches is satisfactory. The former is guilty of overmodernization, because he believes that only evidence that corresponds to modern scientific formulas can be correct. But despite the fact that the early Christians were people of their time, a largely uncritical and unscientific age, this does not mean that they were gullible in matters that affected their faith, for they knew that at any time they could be called to protect your position. As for the other point of view, which considers tradition as important as internal evidence, is unjustified, since some traditions are clearly not accurate. No one will seriously, for example, assert that Andrew took part in the compilation of the Gospel of John, as follows from the Muratorian canon. Each tradition must undoubtedly be carefully weighed.
Where there is a firmly attested ancient tradition, it will be right to assume that this tradition is possible and true, until the opposite is proved. In other words, where tradition and internal evidence contradict each other, there the interpretation of the latter should not be questioned if there is no firm conviction that the traditional view is wrong. Where inner evidence clearly and indisputably contradicts tradition, the latter must of course be rejected. An example of this is the relationship between the apostle Peter and the Gospel of Mark.
Although it is possible to argue about the connection between them, as some supporters of the "history of forms" method do, there is much to support this connection, since there is indisputable evidence for this. In other words, all existing early traditions allow us to assert the possibility that this connection is based on fact, and only the possibility of the opposite must be completely rejected. Speculation that something could happen is very far from what actually happened. Where tradition clearly states the latter, criticism must show that it could not have happened before bringing evidence to the contrary. In other words, possibility should not crowd out probabilities.
1867. For example, compare 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 accents in the criticism of the Pastoral Epistles changed cyclically. Early critics before Baur, in their attacks on the authenticity of the Epistles, gave great importance stylistic differences were distinguished, and the Tübingen school resorted to objections of a historical nature. Brief historical overview developments in criticism during this period, see E. Reuss, History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament (nep. 1884). Later, Holtzman again turned to linguistic arguments in his criticism. Increasing interest in counting the number and ratio of words may turn criticism in a completely different direction. Compare: 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 established using statistical methods . Morton explores various examples of ancient prose based on criteria such as word frequency and sentence length in his comparisons. 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 the use of the word και /саі/ and the use of articles. He argues that each author statistically has a certain frequency of using the same word within minor variations, and then concludes that if the deviations are more significant, then they point to 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 not included among the authentic Epistles on the basis of statistical considerations). Without a doubt, the conclusion is drawn too dogmatically. Morton's statistical methodology has not escaped criticism. Cp.: C. Dinwoodie, SJT 18 (1965), pp. 204-218; G. B. Caird, ET 76 (1965), p. 176; N. C. McArthur, ET 76 (1965), pp. 367-370; J. J. O "Rourke, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 110-112; H. K. McArthur, NTS 15 (1969), pp. 339-349. All critics agree that Morton bases his conclusions on inadequate data. Dinwoody rightly remarks that this study looks as if the author had come to certain conclusions before examining the data.MacArthur argues that Morton's plots show an exaggerated consistency in the frequency of use of και /cai/ for each author, while others' own sample studies The ancient Greek writers MacArthur found a much greater variation 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 do not have sufficient length to serve as a benign subject for comparison with ancient Greek prose writers, for whom Morton himself determined the desired sample size for study (100 sentences). It should also be noted that the method is focused only on the denial of common 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 ap. Paul. By means of mathematical calculations of typical features, these writers have come to the conclusion that the Pastoral Epistles are strikingly different from the Pauline Epistles, and on the basis of the "style is the man" opinion, they consider it unlikely that Paul could have changed his style so much as changed circumstances required.
Preface to the Russian edition 3
Chapter 1. Gospels 5
Chapter 2. Matthew 13
Chapter 3. Gospel of Mark 37
Chapter 4. Gospel of Luke 69
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8. Acts of the Apostles 260
Chapter 9
Chapter 10 Corinthians 323
Chapter 11 Galatians 347
Chapter 12
Chapter 13 Ephesians 370
Chapter 14 Philippians 404
Chapter 15 Colossians 421
Chapter 16
Chapter 17 Pastoral Epistles 454
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
Chapter 22
Chapter 23
Chapter 24
Chapter 25
Appendix I. Collection of Pauline Epistles 739
Annex II. Chronology of the life of Paul 750
Annex III. Epistolary pseudepigraphy 758
Annex 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 the introduction to the New Testament, but almost all of them 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 the London Bible College Donald Guthrie is an excellent answer to this need. This book was not chosen by chance. On the one hand, this is a serious academic work. And on the other hand, the author objectively and unbiasedly covers almost all current research in the field of the New Testament.People look at the Bible, and therefore at 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 necessarily ask introductory questions about authorship, time and place of writing, style and language, and historical circumstances, since the answers to these questions clarify the content. Believing scholars address these issues with the conviction of the full inspiration and divine guidance of the human collaborators of books. Holy Scripture. But not all experts adhere to this point of view. Many attach more 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 the 'history of forms' method, which looks for particular forms of oral tradition that existed before the writing of the books, or the 'revision history' method. ", which looks for the addition of authors-editors, or "textual criticism", which tries to clarify the text of the original. To some extent, these conclusions are admissible, since they are subjective, but the reader must be critical of everything that is written about the Bible. The history of biblical criticism in the Soviet period shows how incorrectly one can use theological analysis, speculating on the reader's ignorance. Donald Guthrie tried to give an introduction to the books of the New Testament from a rather conservative point of view of a believing scholar, but, given the existence of various theories and remarks about the books and the content of the New Testament, he included them in his work and presented them to the readers. He does not seek to resolve controversial issues, but simply analyzes contemporary critical opinions found in other books. He does not omit any of the 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 setting, about the time and place of the writing of the New Testament Books, about the purpose and purpose of the books, their content and theological significance in Christianity.
Scholarly discussion about the Bible is widespread in the West and is not a stumbling block to faith, however, the Bible was not studied scientifically in the former Soviet Union. Soviet biblical studies most often indiscriminately rejected the text of Scripture as 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 feel that apart from directly reading and quoting, raising questions of authorship defiles the Word of God. Guthrie's book presents the third proposition, which accepts the Word of God as inspired truth, holding it so firm and great, and so pure that nothing can detract from it or defile it, but at the same time a comprehensive study of this Word is the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. who said: "Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and they testify of Me" (John 5:39).
N. A. Aleksandrenko.
Doctor of New Testament Theology, Doctor of Classical Philology, Professor at Louisiana College (USA).
Chapter 1. The 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 books of the New Testament are as difficult to critically examine as these. Most of the issues raised by biblical criticism are still subject to debate, although the most radical theories have now been almost completely rejected. Before turning to these questions, we will try to overall score the gospels in their modern form, for they undoubtedly had a profound influence on the development of Christian thought, regardless of any critical assessment. This approach differs from some modern schools critics who start with assumptions that distort the value of the existing gospels. The principles of such schools will be fully discussed below. This study is based on the conviction that it was the Gospels, and not their sources and their origins, that shaped Christian history, and the latter must be considered in the light of the Gospels.II. THE LITERARY FORM OF THE GOSPELs
Our first task is to determine the literary character of the Gospels. We must answer the question what they are. The answer is much more difficult 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 they contain does not reflect psychological picture His development. In addition to fragmentary information about the first years of His life, the main attention is paid to the brief period of His public ministry and especially death and resurrection. And it is no coincidence that they are called the Gospels, i.e. evangelism 1 .A. Genre of the Gospels
There have been many discussions about the genre of the Gospels. Is the form of these books unique, or are there parallels that could model 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 argued that this is a completely new genre, since each new form related to the previous ones. On the other hand, a comparison from a literary point of view with other ancient works that do not have common purpose writings lead 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
A comparison was made with ancient Greco-Roman biographies. Tolbert believes that such a comparison is the key to understanding the Gospels 2 . He tries to show that the mythological point of view of these ancient biographies is related 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 subjected to deep scrutiny by D. E. On, 3 who rejected many of Tolbert's basic assumptions. He considers unconvincing the opinion that the genre of the Gospels is the same as that of the Greco-Roman biographies.
2. Aretology
Another category has been proposed and seen as a possible explanation for the literary form of the Gospels. These are aretologies, i.e. stories of miraculous deeds done by God or a hero. They focused on the Greek god-man, and therefore they are offered as a model for the story of Jesus. But this point of view is highly speculative, since it can hardly be argued that there was no such literary analogy, the comparison of which with Jesus would be completely unfounded 4 .
3. Lectionaries
Another theory of the origin of the Gospels was 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 Gospels were compiled for use during public worship. He pays special attention to the Gospel of Mark, believing that in many manuscripts the text is divided into sections corresponding to four Saturdays a month, and an additional fourteen sections were intended for special occasions.
A similar theory is advanced 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 reading cycle for each week, regardless of the year in which it was read. This hypothesis has some basis, since John puts more emphasis on Jewish holidays than all other gospel writers. But although it has many adherents, many of the supposed parallels between the Jewish readings and the gospel text are not convincing enough.
A third and later 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 believes, to the readings of the Old Testament for each week. While he agrees with Carrington's division of the text, he nevertheless acknowledges the difficulty in drawing parallels. But in general, these theories face the impossibility of proving that these readings were held in the first century. The given data mean, most likely, a later period of recording readings. L. Morris 8 points out that the evidence favors an early dating of the Gospels, which has nothing to do with hypothetical readings.
Another theory regarding the genre of the Gospels is based on their origin from the Jewish midrash. Goulder compares the 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 various meanings. Gundry sometimes applies it to the entire Gospel as a whole, sometimes to individual parts of it. He seems to regard the elements of the midrash as an ahistorical embellishment 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 such a model 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 consensus on the genre to which they can be attributed, 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. The literary critic approaches the material from different points of view. For example, N. R. Petersen 11 wrote a book on literary criticism, in which he believes that in Mark it is necessary to distinguish between the time of the narrative and the time of events in his Gospel and between the narrative world and the real world in Acts. In the latter case, he believes that by 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 with the help of such critical methods.
Literary criticism can be of help in matters relating to the text. How can a document be divided into parts? What is the meaning of the whole text, and what meaning can be attributed to parts? How can you explain the order of presentation? 12
A slightly different approach to literary criticism is structuralism, which distinguishes between external and internal structure text. The result of this approach is the assertion that a text can contain different semantic levels at the same time. The text becomes a kind of sign language 13 . This kind of study is not part of our task, but this must be taken into account in the process of interpretation.
C. The gospel as evangelism
Traditionally, these books are called the Gospels. The word itself means "good news". This word begins Mark's account of the deeds and teachings of Jesus. The essence of the Good News lies in the content of the stories. All evangelists devote a significant portion of their books to the last week of Jesus' life. Mark actually dedicates a third of his gospel to this series of events. Other evangelists, though to a lesser extent, do the same. Their main purpose was undoubtedly to describe His death. The description of good deeds, miracles, and teachings must be viewed from a perspective that tends toward the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was the death and resurrection of Christ that main theme sermons 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. All possible parallels must be considered, but the specific character of the Gospels must never be forgotten. 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 their hasty and unconditional placement on a par with secular literature is unacceptable here.
III. MOTIVES FOR WRITING THE GOSPELs
Various goals that led to writing different gospels, we will consider below when we talk about each Gospel separately. Now we will focus on common motives, which led to the description of the gospel events, since there were no samples that preceded the writing of the gospels.At first, oral apostolic testimony had such great weight that reliable and consistent evangelism in writing might not be perceived. Undoubtedly, for the Eastern mentality, the word has more 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 take 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, it is not necessary to allow for a long period of oral tradition. The rapid spread of Christianity accelerated the writing of the Gospels because the apostles were not omnipresent. It is quite clear from Luke's preface that before Luke himself wrote the gospel, there had been other gospels for some time. We have no data as to which of them was written first, and this uncertainty must underlie our assessment of the opinion that there was no motive for writing the Gospels at first.
It is often argued that the later writing of the Gospels was due to the widespread belief at the time that the parousil (parousia, from Greek ), or the return of Christ, was already at hand, and there was no need to record the gospel. What is the point if the Lord can return at any moment? And so the need for a written birth certificate for the Church could only arise when it became obvious that the Church would have a long history. This is a reasonably reasonable assumption and can be accepted, but there is no complete certainty that it is correct. The New Testament epistles anticipate the canonical gospels. In addition, our Lord clearly said that before the parousia, all nations should hear the gospel. And then it is quite reasonable to assume that some of the early preachers saw the need for the use of written evidence. In this case, it can also be assumed that the writing of books for the purpose of evangelization was considered the main one in the preparation of the Church for the parousia.
In addition, one cannot ignore the high cost of writing instruments and the difficulty in obtaining reliable data. The former cannot be easily dismissed, since the writing instruments were indeed very expensive, but it is also difficult to understand why this problem has become more solvable in more recent times. As for the extraction of material, it is due to the origin of the Gospels. If all evangelists were to search for material, then some time was needed for this, but such an explanation is not the only one, nor the most important one for clarifying the origin of the Gospels, as we will see when we consider the synoptic problem.
Undoubtedly, there were many motives for writing the Gospels. The need for historical written evidence and for catechetical (educational) purposes is beyond doubt. If among the Jews the oral instructions were held in high esteem, they could hardly have had the same significance for Gentile converts. For a pagan evangelistic mission, writing documents could be of great help. And although this need was not immediately recognized, it was undoubtedly felt in the missionary Church in the earliest stages of its development. Closely related to evangelistic goals were apologetic needs. The non-Christian world certainly wanted to know who Jesus was, and one can easily understand the urgent need for an authoritative answer. While the apostolic oral testimony was sufficient at first, as the work of evangelism expanded, the need for written testimony arose.
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 discussed below. But regardless of these goals, it is almost certain that some of the messages about the life, teachings, death, and Resurrection of Jesus were introduced into Christian worship from an early time. And although there were enough actual eyewitnesses, but in pagan areas where there were no direct witnesses from Palestine, the Gospels could be 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 come down to us as reliable documents. Below we will briefly discuss the acceptance by the early Church of these gospels and the rejection of all others. A huge number of later apocryphal gospels testify both to the constant attempts to capture the details omitted by the Christian Church, and to her firm decision to recognize them as unreliable. Some scholars believe that among the mass of unreliable material, the true sayings of the Lord could be preserved 15 .
IV. THE PLACE OF THE GOSPEL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
It is not our task to study the development of the canon, 16 but we must dwell briefly on the relationship of the early Church to the Gospels in order to put the problems of their acceptance in the right perspective.All available evidence clearly shows that by the end of the 2nd century, the four Gospels were recognized not only as authentic, but also as sacred scriptures at the level of the Old Testament. Irenaeus believes that the four gospels reflect the four cardinal points, the four winds, and the need for four pillars in building 17. Although one may not agree with his manner of reasoning, his opinion on the exclusive use of the four Gospels cannot be subjected to any doubt. In addition, he names each Gospel by the name of its traditional author. He speaks in general terms about the doctrine of the inspiration of the Gospels. Irenaeus may not be entirely critical in his approach, but that does not mean that his testimony was not based on sound tradition. At the very least, it cannot be circumvented when considering issues related to canonization.
Although Clement of Alexandria quotes from other gospels, such as the gospel of the Egyptians, he makes a clear distinction between them and the four canonical gospels. Tertullian, on the other hand, quotes exclusively the four Gospels and asserts their authority on the ground that they were written by the apostles or their direct collaborators. None of these writers question the apostolic origin of these gospels, although their approaches have been heavily criticized by modern scholars. It is likely that the Church Fathers were closer to the truth than critics think.
Data up to 180 A.D. less definite, but they nonetheless speak of great reverence for the four Gospels from the earliest times. Tatian's "Diatessaron" is an excerpt from the four Gospels and is interesting because it shows the difficulties that the four Gospels then caused 18 . Despite the fairly large influence of this book on the Eastern Church, it was soon superseded by the separate Gospels, which speaks of the attention paid to the Synoptic Gospels, despite a large number of the general material they contained. Reliable evidence interested Christians more than information about the life of Christ, isolated from the writings and located 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 the consideration of our task 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. However, it is not entirely certain that these writers were actually familiar with the written gospels. Kester 20, for example, considers that these were rather pre-synoptic traditions. However, the Gospel of Polycarp contains parallels with our Gospels, which testifies to his indisputable knowledge of them 21 . But there is doubt 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 claims have been heavily criticized, they remain very important as they refer to a very early date.
V. THE BEST APPROACH TO THE GOSPELs
Before turning to the study of each gospel in isolation, it is necessary to point out some of the 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 of the discussions about individual gospels involve inferences about sources or the formation of traditions. In some cases, these conclusions are anticipated, although the ways in which they are reached will be discussed in the relevant sections.The second advantage of this approach is that it allows each Gospel to be considered separately, regardless of the intended order in which they were written. Here the canonical order is preserved. Many important aspects of each gospel can be considered independently of the solution to the problem of their relationship.
We consider it necessary to dwell briefly on the generally accepted theories of the origin of the first three Gospels. Source criticism generally assumes that the Gospel of Mark was the very first to be written. Subsequently, Matthew and Luke used it and another written source ("Q"), containing mainly sayings and a few special traditions in written or oral form ("M" and "L"). The "history of forms" method is guided by the principle that the earliest traditions existed as separate stories, which were subsequently collected into written sources and thus entered into our Gospels. Both the criticism of sources and the "history of forms" method, together with the "history of editions" direction, will be fully discussed below.
As for the Gospel of John, it requires a completely different approach and will be considered only after a discussion of 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 Justin used this word. The main meaning of this word "good news" was used both in the secular and in the sacred sense. This word can be found in Old Testament, although there are also parallels with the designation of emperor worship. See A. Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction, pp. for an overview of the development of the word's meaning. 150-155.
2 What is a gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (1977). Wed See also: J. Drury, "What are the gospels?", ET 87 (1976), pp. 324-328. See C. W. Votaw, The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies in the Graeco-Roman World (1970), for a reprint edition of a collection of articles from 1915 offering a view of the Gospels as popular biographies comparable to other ancient biographies. works.
3 See: GP P, pp. 9-60. See also: G. N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Teaching (1974), pp. 118-126 for 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, while Smith selectively reviews four works, including the Gospel of Luke, which he believes reflects the aretological 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. C. Kee, "Aretalogy and Gospel", JBL 92 (1973), pp. 402-422; D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (1972). Wed See also: P. L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels (1982), pp. 15 ff.
5 The Primitive Christian Calendar (1952). This theory has been heavily criticized by C. F. Evans, JTS n.s. 14 (1963), pp. 140-146. Wed See also: R. P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (1972), pp. 82-87.
6 The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (1960). See L. Morris, The New Testament and Jewish Lectionaries (1964), chapter 3 for a critique of these views.
7 Midrash and Lecture in Matthew (1974). Cf. idem, The Evangelists' Calendar (1978).
8 "The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries", in GP III, pp. 129-156. Morris points out that no theory of the Lectionaries is able to explain why Christians use these books, which are based entirely on law. The author concludes that there are no reasonable grounds to assume that the evangelists set themselves the goal of writing instructive lectionaries.
9 Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (1982).
10 For a survey of contemporary Jewish historiography, see R. T. France, "Jewish Historiography, Midrash and the Gospels", GP III, pp. 99-127. In the same collection, Payne made a sharp critique of Gundry's position (pp. 177-215).
11 Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (1978).
12 Guide to Problems in 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 P, Structuralism and Biblical Studies", ET 89 (1977-8), pp. 329-335; D. Patte, What is Structural Exegesis? (1976). For an experience with structuralist exegesis, see E V. McKnight, Meaning in Texts: The Historical Shaping of Narrative Hermeneutics (1978), which analyzes the passage of Lk. 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's "False Prophet". Cf. C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (1961), pp. 13-15. In: G. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 128, the absence of any information about the Teacher of Righteousness from Qumran as a specific person is noted, which once again confirms the uniqueness of the Gospels. This position is developed further by comparing the canonical Gospels with the Gospel of Thomas (see: Stanton, op. cit., pp. 129-136).
15 Compare: J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (1957).
16 For a review of early Christian approaches to the Gospels, see A. H. 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); W. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (1987), For a collection of articles on the canon by German authors, see Kasemann, Das Neue Testament als Kanon (1970).
17 English. per. 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 included other data as well. Indeed, Victor from Capua calls this work Diapente (Diapente - from Latin, Greek musical quint, in contrast to Diatessaron - musical quart, 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; H. Montefiore and H. E. W. Turner, Thomas and the Evangelists, 1962, pp. 25-27), from which it becomes clear 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 Koester shares Harrison's opinion that chapters 1-12 of Polycarp's message were written much later (R. N. Harrison, Polycarp's Two Epistles to the Philippians, 1936).
Description of the New Testament Review Course
The New Testament is the story of Jesus Christ and God's plan for the salvation of people into whose world sin has entered. Training course The New Testament Review consists of ten lectures offering us short review twenty-seven books of the New Testament. The course introduces the main content of each New Testament Book, explains the purpose of its writing, pays attention to theological issues and principles practical application biblical truths in Everyday life and service. The New Testament Review course is the first step for those who wish to devote themselves to a deep study of the Holy Scriptures.
Goals and objectives of the course:
Upon completion of this course, the student should be able to:
Summarize the New Testament story of divine love and explain the role of Christ in this part of the Bible.
To understand what makes each gospel and each author unique, and to show how the common testimonies of all four give us a deep picture of the Man-Christ and His works.
Answer the question: "Who is Jesus Christ?"
Describe His miracles and parables and be able to apply special principles to the correct understanding of the parable.
Explain the main themes of the Book of Acts.
Briefly outline the biography of the Apostle Paul, including his missionary journeys, and also understand the cause of his spiritual burning.
Understand the main themes of the gospel and apply the important spiritual truths contained in each of the epistles.
Draw conclusions from what is written in the Book of Revelation and apply the spiritual truths set forth in it.
Lecture 1. Introduction
Lecture 2. The Gospels
Lecture 3. Who was Jesus Christ?
Lecture 4. Miracles and parables of Jesus Christ
Lecture 5. The Book of the Acts of the Apostles. Part 1
Lecture 6. Book of Acts of the Apostles. Part 2
Lecture 7 Part 1
Lecture 8 Part 2
Lecture 9
Lecture 10
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; foreword N. A. Aleksandrenko. - Odessa: "God-thinking", 1996. - 800 p. ISBN 5-7707-5702-7
Donald Guthrie's book is an attempt to give a strictly academic and unbiased overview of the 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 divinely inspired truth, but at the same time sets out all the critical research that exists in this area.
The book is intended for students who study theology in depth, for specialists and for all readers who are 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
FOREWORD TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION
Many books have been written on the introduction to the New Testament, but almost all of them 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 the London Bible College Donald Guthrie is an excellent answer to this need. This book was not chosen by chance. On the one hand, this is a serious academic work. And on the other hand, the author objectively and unbiasedly covers almost all current research in the field of the New Testament.
People look at the Bible, and therefore at 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 necessarily ask introductory questions about authorship, time and place of writing, style and language, and historical circumstances, since the answers to these questions clarify the content. Believing scholars consider these issues 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 attach more 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 the 'history of forms' method, which looks for particular forms of oral tradition that existed before the books were written, or the 'revision history' method. ", which looks for the addition of authors-editors, or "textual criticism", which tries to clarify the text of the original. To some extent, these conclusions are admissible, since they are subjective, but the reader must be critical of everything that is written about the Bible. The history of biblical criticism in the Soviet period shows how incorrectly one can use theological analysis, speculating on the reader's ignorance. Donald Guthrie tried to give an introduction to the books of the New Testament from a rather conservative point of view of a believing scholar, but, given the existence of various theories and remarks about the books and the content of the New Testament, he included them in his work and presented them to the readers. He does not seek to resolve controversial issues, but simply analyzes contemporary critical opinions found in other books. He does not omit any of the 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 setting, about the time and place of the writing of the New Testament Books, about the purpose and purpose of the books, their content and theological significance in Christianity.
Scholarly discussion about the Bible is widespread in the West and is not a stumbling block to faith, but the Bible was not 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 directly reading and quoting, raising questions of authorship defiles the Word.
God's. Guthrie's book presents the third proposition, which accepts the Word of God as inspired truth, holding it so firm and great, and so pure that nothing can detract from it or defile it, but at the same time a comprehensive study of this Word is the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. who said: "Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and they testify of Me" (John 5:39).
N. A. Aleksandrenko.
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. THE GOSPEL.. 7
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION.. 7
II. THE LITERARY FORM OF THE GOSPEL.. 7
III. MOTIVES FOR WRITING THE GOSPEL.. 10
IV. THE PLACE OF THE GOSPEL 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. DESTINATION AND PLACE OF ORIGIN.. 19
VI. DATING.. 27
VII. LANGUAGE.. 29
CHAPTER 3. THE GOSPEL OF MARK.. 31
I. CHARACTERISTICS.. 32
II. TARGET. 34
III. DESTINATION.. 38
VI. DATING.. 46
VII. THE 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. THE 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 MARK.. 84
V. SOURCE "Q". 91
VI. MATERIAL FOUND ONLY IN MATTHEW.. 101
VII. MATERIAL CONTAINED ONLY BY THE BOW.. 108
VIII. CONCLUSION.. 119
CHAPTER 6. THE "HISTORY OF FORMS" METHOD AND ITS DEVELOPMENT
I. REASONS FOR THE DIRECTION "HISTORY OF FORMS". 119
II. DIFFERENT TYPES OF THEORY.. 121
III. GENERAL CRITIQUE OF THE "HISTORY OF FORMS" METHOD. 127
IV. THE VALUE OF THE "HISTORY OF FORMS" METHOD. 129
V. THEORIES OF THE THEOLOGICAL EDITING.. 130
VI. HISTORICAL CRITIQUE.. 133
CHAPTER 7. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.. 146
III. TARGET. 161
IV. DATING.. 165
V. RELATION WITH THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.. 168
VI. STRUCTURE.. 172
VII. THEORIES OF PERMUTATION.. 178
VIII. LANGUAGE AND STYLE. 179
IX. GOSPEL BACKGROUND.. 180
X. HISTORICITY. 182
CHAPTER 8. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.. 215
I. CHARACTERISTICS .. 215
II. DATING.. 217
III. TARGET. 221
IV. HISTORICITY. 223
V. SOURCES.. 227
CHAPTER 9
I. CHURCH IN ROME.. 251
II. REASON FOR WRITING AND DATING.. 252
III. TARGET. 253
CHAPTER 10
I. CHURCH IN CORINTH.. 271
II. PAUL'S OPPOSITORS IN CORINTH.. 272
III. PAUL'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORINTHIANS.. 273
IV. COMPILATION METHODS.. 279
V. DATING OF THE MESSAGES.. 280
CHAPTER 11
I. DESTINATION OF THE MESSAGE.. 292
II. DATING.. 295
III. REASON AND PURPOSE. 299
IV. THE SOURCE OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE GALATIA CHURCHES.. 300
V. AUTHENTICITY. 301
CHAPTER 12. PRISON MESSAGES.. 308
CHAPTER 13
I. AUTHENTICITY. 312
II. DESTINATION.. 325
III. TARGET. 328
IV. DATING.. 329
CHAPTER 14
I. THE PHILIPPAN 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 PHILIPPINES (2.6-11) 350
CHAPTER 15 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
PAUL'S MISSION TO THESSALONIKI.. 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
I. AUTHENTICITY OF MESSAGES.. 387
II. PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGES.. 402
III. DATING OF MESSAGES.. 403
CHAPTER 18
I. REASON FOR WRITING.. 423
II. AUTHENTICITY. 424
III. DATING.. 425
IV. ONISIM... 425
CHAPTER 19
II. READERS.. 433
III. TARGET. 435
IV. DESTINATION.. 438
V. DATING.. 441
VI. FON.. 442
VII. LITERARY FORM.. 445
VIII. LITERARY SIMILARITY.. 446
IX. CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF THE MESSAGE.. 446
CHAPTER 20
II. DESTINATION. 475
III. DATING.. 476
IV. TARGET. 478
V. LITERARY FORM AND STYLE. 479
CHAPTER 21
I. THE FIRST EPIST 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
I. MESSAGE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH.. 522
III. READERS.. 537
IV. REASON FOR WRITING AND DATING.. 538
V. INTEGRITY OF THE MESSAGE.. 538
VI. FALSE TEACHER.. 539
VII. RELATIONSHIP WITH FIRST PETER 541
VIII. OTHER LITERARY RELATIONS.. 541
IX. THE MODERNITY OF THE MESSAGE.. 542
CHAPTER 23
II. REASON FOR WRITING AND BACKGROUND.. 560
III. TARGET. 561
IV. FORM AND DESTINATION.. 561
V. CONNECTION WITH THE FOURTH GOSPEL ... 562
VI. CONNECTION WITH PAUL'S TEACHING.. 565
VII. DATING.. 566
II. FUNCTION.. 568
III. REASON FOR WRITING AND PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE.. 570
IV. DATING.. 570
II. FUNCTION.. 571
III. REASON FOR WRITING AND PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE.. 571
IV. DATING.. 572
CHAPTER 24
III. DATING.. 587
IV. FALSE TEACHER.. 588
V. PURPOSE. 590
VI. DESTINATION.. 590
VII. USE OF APOCRYPHICAL BOOKS. 591
VIII. CONNECTION WITH 2 PETER.. 592
IX. LITERARY FEATURES.. 596
X. THE VALUE OF THE MESSAGE.. 596
CHAPTER 25
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 PAUL'S EPISTLES.. 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. MAIN CHRONOLOGICAL DATA.. 652
II. ADDITIONAL DATA.. 653
III. VARIOUS OFFERS.. 654
APPENDIX III. 658
EPISTOLAR PSEUDOEPIGRAPHY.. 658
I. PROBLEM.. 658
II. EXAMPLES IN JEWISH LITERATURE.. 659
III. CHRISTIAN NON-CANONICAL EXAMPLES... 660
IV. DISPUTE NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES... 661
V. SIMULATION AND ITS DETECTION.. 663
VI. MODERN PSEUDOEPIGRAPHIC STUDIES.. 664
APPENDIX IV.. 669
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM... 669
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES... 669
II. KEY FACTORS IN THE SEARCH OF A SOLUTION.. 673
III. A TRIAL THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELs.. 676
NAME INDEX. 678
GLOSSARY.. 698
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.. 706
CHAPTER 1. THE GOSPEL
