Donald Guthrie. New Testament Introduction: Fourth Edition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) had a Ph.D. from the University of London, and he taught New Testament at London Bible College.
In New Testament Introduction, Guthrie goes through each
book of the New Testament, discussing its authorship, date, purpose, and
contents. Guthrie also has chapters that address the genre of the
Gospels, the Synoptic Problem (i.e., ideas about sources that were used
in the composition of the Gospels), and Form Criticism. The book also
contains appendices: “The Collection of Paul’s Letters”; “The Chronology
of the Life of Paul”; “Epistolary Pseudepigraphy”; and “Further
Reflections on the Synoptic Problem.” In the last appendix, Guthrie
offers a scenario for how the synoptic Gospels came to be: how oral and
written traditions came to be organized into Gospels, as well as the
possibility that Matthew used sources while offering his own eyewitness
testimony.
The book is from a conservative perspective, which means that Guthrie
takes certain stances. He believes that the New Testament books were
written by those to whom they are traditionally ascribed: Matthew the
tax-collector wrote the Gospel of Matthew; Luke the physician wrote
Luke-Acts; the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, 1-3 John, and the
Book of Revelation; Paul wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and the pastorals;
and the apostle Peter wrote 1-2 Peter. Guthrie’s approach is to accept
what Papias and the church fathers say about the books, unless there is
reason to do otherwise. Guthrie tends to date the New Testament books
rather early, as in prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in
70 C.E. Often, he approaches the books synchronically rather than
seeing all sorts of editorial hands in each book. While the vast
majority of what Guthrie says can stand on its own within the realm of
naturalistic, secular New Testament scholarship, there are occasions
when he appeals to the supernatural: the divinity of Jesus, or the role
of the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
The book is over a thousand pages. It is practically a compendium of
New Testament scholarship. Going through the footnotes was a treat in
itself, as I got to see the various (sometimes peculiar) ideas that New
Testament scholars have had. Guthrie also engages perspectives that are
different from his own, and he addresses questions that have been asked
within New Testament scholarship: Could fishermen such as John and
Peter have written the books in the New Testament that bear their
names? Why do Colossians, Ephesians, and the pastorals appear to have a
different style from epistles that many scholars regard as genuinely
Pauline? Why does the Gospel of John differ in style from the Book of
Revelation?
Guthrie passed on in 1992, so, obviously, his book does not contain
the twenty-plus years of New Testament scholarship that occurred after
his death. This would include such things as social memory, and Richard
Bauckham’s interpretation of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony in
light of other ancient sources. Still, Guthrie’s book can be useful to
current students of the New Testament. Guthrie’s engagement of source
criticism is probably still relevant today, since Markan Priority and a
belief in Q have not totally fallen by the wayside. Plus, it can be
helpful to see where New Testament scholarship has been and the pitfalls
it encountered in the past.
To give you an idea of what the book is not, it did not really
discuss the meaning of things in New Testament books, or the diverse
ideologies or peculiarities of the New Testament writers. Guthrie does
believe that, say, Matthew and John have their own points-of-views and
theological perspectives, even though (unlike some New Testament
scholars) he does not see the perspectives in the New Testament as
discordant with one another; Guthrie tends to see consistency or
complementarity, as each New Testament writer was inspired by the same
Spirit. But Guthrie’s focus was not so much on ideologies within the
New Testament or the meaning of New Testament passages; rather, his
focus was more on arguing against liberal biblical scholarship on such
issues as authorship, date, and whether the New Testament has genuine
contradictions. One could perhaps argue that his sections on the
purpose of each New Testament book touched on meaning and ideology, and
they did; still, meaning and ideology were not exactly the focus of this
book. I am not necessarily saying that Guthrie should have added to
his 1000-plus pages, but I am giving you an idea of what the book had,
and what it did not have (at least not so much).
Did I find Guthrie convincing? He did make interesting arguments.
For example, he showed similarities between the Gospel of John and the
Book of Revelation, and he even argued that the two books contain
similar peculiarities, indicating (to him) that they came from the same
author. In many cases, however, it seemed to me that he was trying to
arrive at his conservative conclusions, come hell or high water. It did
not matter what the challenge was: Guthrie would find some way to
arrive at his conservative conclusions. Paul’s epistles contradict
Ephesians and Colossians? Not necessarily. The styles differ? Well,
that could indicate that Ephesians and Colossians are actually by Paul,
for would not a forger try to make his style sound more like Paul to
accomplish a successful forgery? Concerns were raised about II Peter?
Well, at least it finally made it into the canon, in a time when
orthodox Christians were largely skeptical about things attributed to
Peter! That shows it was probably authentic! Certain New Testament
books were not in the Muratorian Canon? The Muratorian Canon could be
corrupt (and Guthrie is not the only scholar who thinks this). The
Epistle of James was rather controversial, or not widely-used? That
could be because a number of Christians thought it was too Jewish. And
one can appeal to an apostle using a secretary to account for the
different styles in the writings attributed to him! Guthrie does not
appeal to that too often, but he does seem to fall back on that as a
last resort.
Guthrie does raise important points. There are times when I read
liberal arguments and wonder, “Is this necessarily the case?” Still, I
wondered if perhaps Guthrie would have done well to have laid out a
consistent methodology. Guthrie believes that there are ways to
distinguish one author from another: for example, he argues that the
person who wrote the Epistle of Barnabas did not write Hebrews because
they are, well, different. The same goes for his arguments about why
Paul may not have been the one who wrote Hebrews. Guthrie also argues
that there are Christian beliefs and structures that are primitive, and
Christian beliefs and structures that came with evolution. But my
impression was that these criteria went out the door when Guthrie was
trying to argue that Paul wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and the
pastorals. Guthrie argued that what Paul said in Ephesians, Colossians,
and the pastorals does not necessarily contradict what Paul wrote in
the epistles that scholars think are genuine, and that Paul could have
had legitimate reasons to use a different writing style or to talk about
different topics. Guthrie said that the pastorals do not necessarily
reflect an advanced system of church government, for there could have
been bishops, deacons, and elders in the time of Paul, meaning that Paul
could have written the pastorals and they did not come later. Fair
enough, but, in that case, how will we determine if two things were
written by the same author, or by different authors? How will we
determine what reflects a primitive stage of Christianity, and what
reflects a later stage? How about laying out some criteria, rather than
reaching for whatever one can to support one’s predetermined
conclusions (which, it seemed to me, Guthrie was doing)?
While Guthrie does raise important considerations, I do not think
that he overthrows liberal New Testament scholarship, which is not to
say that liberal New Testament scholarship is perfect or insulated from
challenges of its own. The picture of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels and
the picture of Jesus in the Gospel of John are different, and I have my
doubts that both can be historically-accurate. Either Jesus kept a
Messianic Secret, or Jesus was open about who he was and made lofty,
exalted claims in public. (I am not convinced by Guthrie’s argument
that John depicts what Jesus said in smaller settings.) The Gospel of
Matthew presents the Sermon on the Mount, and the Gospel of Luke
presents the Sermon on the Plain, and both are similar, yet different. I
do not think that Jesus spoke both in different settings; rather, I
believe that Matthew and Luke are drawing from common material and are
conforming that to their own ideologies and emphases. And I still
wonder why Matthew, an eyewitness to Jesus, would use Mark’s Gospel,
even though Guthrie does try to address this question.
I did learn a lot from this book. It is informative about what
church fathers said about the New Testament books. The different ideas
about the audience and context of the Epistle to the Hebrews were
interesting to me. Guthrie’s discussion of the synoptic problem was
also informative: How, for example, can one say that Luke used Mark’s
Gospel, when there is a huge part of Mark’s story that Luke’s Gospel
does not have? According to Guthrie, some suggest that Luke was using
an earlier version of Mark’s Gospel.
Notwithstanding my areas of disagreement, I still give this book five
stars, for it is a comprehensive survey of scholarship about the
composition of the New Testament.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from IVP Academic, in exchange for an honest review.