What do you think?
Rate this book
New Testament Introduction
Paperback
Published January 1, 1968
About the author
Donald Guthrie
74 books9 followersDonald Guthrie was a British New Testament scholar. Guthrie was a graduate of the University of London (B.D., Th.M., Ph. D.). From 1949 until his retirement in 1982 Guthrie was lecturer in New Testament studies at London Bible College (now London School of Theology), and from 1978 until 1982 he served as vice-principal of the college.
Guthrie wrote New Testament Introduction (1962) and New Testament Theology (1981) which are recognized as significant books related to the New Testament.
Guthrie wrote New Testament Introduction (1962) and New Testament Theology (1981) which are recognized as significant books related to the New Testament.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 1, 2024
A MASTERFUL WORK OF EVANGELICAL SCHOLARSHIP
Donald Guthrie (1916- 1992) was a British New Testament scholar, who was lecturer in New Testament studies at the London School of Theology, and from 1978 until 1982 he as vice-principal. He has written other books such as 'New Testament Theology,' 'A Shorter Life of Christ,' 'The Apostles,' etc.
He says about the textual basis of Mark 16:9-20, “internal evidence combines with textual evidence to raise suspicions regarding this ending. There is a difference in Greek style … [with] the rest of the Gospel… Moreover, 16:9 does not well follow on from 16. 1-8 since Mary Magdalene is described as one ‘from whom he had cast out seven demons’ in spite of the fact that she had already been mentioned in the first part. Again verses 9-20 seem to be composed from material drawn from the other three Gospels. In short this ending wears the appearance of compilation distinct from the rest of the Gospel.”
He states that the author of Luke and Acts “was clearly not an eyewitness, for he states that he had received information from others who were ‘eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.’ Moreover, he implies that he had access to earlier narratives which others had compiled, but which he seems to regard as unsatisfactory for his purpose.” (Pg. 99)
He supports the gospel of Mark having been a source for Matthew and Luke, since “Almost the whole f Mark is paralleled in Matthew (about 90 per cent). There are, in fact, only seven short passages which do not appear. Almost half of Mark also appears in Luke… In just over half the common material which Matthew and Luke respectively share with Mark… there is more or less verbal agreement...
"There are a number of ways in which Mark’s language and style appear to give a more primitive account. First, Mark’s amplification of details and even of whole sections are made more concise in Matthew and Luke… Mark’s style is polished by Matthew and Luke… e.g., redundant negatives, unusual words and difficult constructions are removed… some weight has also been placed on Mark’s inclusion of eight Aramaic words of Jesus as compared to one in Matthew and none in Luke. It is contended that Aramaic words would be more readily omitted from, rather than added to, an existing source.” (Pg. 133-134)
Of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, he observes, “It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the beloved disciple was an associate of Peter and that there was a particular reason for his being introduced in this oblique way in the passion narratives and not in the earlier part of the Gospel. The obvious choice in fulfillment … is John, son of Zebedee… It cannot be denied that the absence of specific reference to him creates a definite predisposition towards Johannine authorship…
"[Y]et some consideration must be given to the delayed appearance of the ‘beloved disciple’ in the Gospel narrative. Why does he not appear until the events in the upper room?... a problem arises at this juncture. Is it conceivable that any man would have described himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’?... those who deny the identity of the beloved disciple with the apostle John claim to avoid this difficulty by suggesting a different identity…
"A more widely held theory is that the disciple was Lazarus and there is rather more to be said for this. He first appears after Lazarus is introduced into the narrative in chapters xi and xii. Moreover in xi.3 Lazarus is described by his sisters as ‘he whom you love’… if the possibility be admitted it would still be necessary to explain why Lazarus is mentioned by name in xi and xii and then by a descriptive phrase in xiii ff., a difficulty which is obviated if the beloved disciple remains anonymous throughout.” (Pg. 246-248)
Of the book of Acts, he notes, “The author appears to go out of his way to show the close connection between Christianity and its antecedents in Judaism… It is an attractive idea that the author wished to show that Christianity was politically harmless in order that the authorities might be prepared to extend to it the same toleration as they gave to Judaism. Yet it must not be supposed that Luke takes up a position of compromise in order to persuade the authorities to regard Christianity under the umbrella of Judaism. Had such been his purpose he would surely have omitted to mention the constant hostility of the Jews towards Christian mission preaching.” (Pg. 351-352)
Of the epistle of Jude, he notes, “This brief Epistle is along among the New Testament books in citing a Jewish apocryphal work, the book of Enoch. It also appears to make references to another pseudepigraphon, the 'Assumption of Moses,' although no text her been preserved which contains the account of the dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil over the body of Moses (verse 9). When in verse 14 Jude refers to Enoch… almost verbatim, there can be very little doubt that he was making a direct citation from the apocryphal book, which he assumes his readers will be not only familiar with, but will also highly respect… if it cannot be demonstrated that Jude regards Enoch as Scripture, he clearly holds it in high esteem and considers it legitimate to cite it in support of his argument.
"How can a writer who cites an apocryphal book be inspired?... The difficulties are no insuperable if Jude is not citing Enoch as Scripture, and there is no conclusive evidence he is. He seems rather to be recognizing that what Enoch had said has turned out to be a true prophesy in view of the ungodly conduct of these false teachers.” (Pg. 917-918)
Of Jude’s relation to 2 Peter, he says, “That the relationship is very close is clear from the most casual comparison of the Epistles. Most of 2 Peter ii is paralleled in Jude. There are also parallels in the other two chapters…. the natural conclusion is that one has used the other… Since Jude is briefer than 2 Peter, it is considered more probable that this was the source rather than the borrower…. There seems to be no adequate reason for the publication of the shorter Epistle at all if 2 Peter already exists… This argument is undoubtedly a strong one for the priority of Jude… The problem, like so many other purely literary problems of New Testament criticism, must be left unresolved. It does not affect the authenticity problem of either letter.” (Pg. 919-925)
This is a solid, comprehensive, and thoroughly useful volume of evangelical scholarship, that will be of much help to students of the New Testament.
Donald Guthrie (1916- 1992) was a British New Testament scholar, who was lecturer in New Testament studies at the London School of Theology, and from 1978 until 1982 he as vice-principal. He has written other books such as 'New Testament Theology,' 'A Shorter Life of Christ,' 'The Apostles,' etc.
He says about the textual basis of Mark 16:9-20, “internal evidence combines with textual evidence to raise suspicions regarding this ending. There is a difference in Greek style … [with] the rest of the Gospel… Moreover, 16:9 does not well follow on from 16. 1-8 since Mary Magdalene is described as one ‘from whom he had cast out seven demons’ in spite of the fact that she had already been mentioned in the first part. Again verses 9-20 seem to be composed from material drawn from the other three Gospels. In short this ending wears the appearance of compilation distinct from the rest of the Gospel.”
He states that the author of Luke and Acts “was clearly not an eyewitness, for he states that he had received information from others who were ‘eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.’ Moreover, he implies that he had access to earlier narratives which others had compiled, but which he seems to regard as unsatisfactory for his purpose.” (Pg. 99)
He supports the gospel of Mark having been a source for Matthew and Luke, since “Almost the whole f Mark is paralleled in Matthew (about 90 per cent). There are, in fact, only seven short passages which do not appear. Almost half of Mark also appears in Luke… In just over half the common material which Matthew and Luke respectively share with Mark… there is more or less verbal agreement...
"There are a number of ways in which Mark’s language and style appear to give a more primitive account. First, Mark’s amplification of details and even of whole sections are made more concise in Matthew and Luke… Mark’s style is polished by Matthew and Luke… e.g., redundant negatives, unusual words and difficult constructions are removed… some weight has also been placed on Mark’s inclusion of eight Aramaic words of Jesus as compared to one in Matthew and none in Luke. It is contended that Aramaic words would be more readily omitted from, rather than added to, an existing source.” (Pg. 133-134)
Of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, he observes, “It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that the beloved disciple was an associate of Peter and that there was a particular reason for his being introduced in this oblique way in the passion narratives and not in the earlier part of the Gospel. The obvious choice in fulfillment … is John, son of Zebedee… It cannot be denied that the absence of specific reference to him creates a definite predisposition towards Johannine authorship…
"[Y]et some consideration must be given to the delayed appearance of the ‘beloved disciple’ in the Gospel narrative. Why does he not appear until the events in the upper room?... a problem arises at this juncture. Is it conceivable that any man would have described himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’?... those who deny the identity of the beloved disciple with the apostle John claim to avoid this difficulty by suggesting a different identity…
"A more widely held theory is that the disciple was Lazarus and there is rather more to be said for this. He first appears after Lazarus is introduced into the narrative in chapters xi and xii. Moreover in xi.3 Lazarus is described by his sisters as ‘he whom you love’… if the possibility be admitted it would still be necessary to explain why Lazarus is mentioned by name in xi and xii and then by a descriptive phrase in xiii ff., a difficulty which is obviated if the beloved disciple remains anonymous throughout.” (Pg. 246-248)
Of the book of Acts, he notes, “The author appears to go out of his way to show the close connection between Christianity and its antecedents in Judaism… It is an attractive idea that the author wished to show that Christianity was politically harmless in order that the authorities might be prepared to extend to it the same toleration as they gave to Judaism. Yet it must not be supposed that Luke takes up a position of compromise in order to persuade the authorities to regard Christianity under the umbrella of Judaism. Had such been his purpose he would surely have omitted to mention the constant hostility of the Jews towards Christian mission preaching.” (Pg. 351-352)
Of the epistle of Jude, he notes, “This brief Epistle is along among the New Testament books in citing a Jewish apocryphal work, the book of Enoch. It also appears to make references to another pseudepigraphon, the 'Assumption of Moses,' although no text her been preserved which contains the account of the dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil over the body of Moses (verse 9). When in verse 14 Jude refers to Enoch… almost verbatim, there can be very little doubt that he was making a direct citation from the apocryphal book, which he assumes his readers will be not only familiar with, but will also highly respect… if it cannot be demonstrated that Jude regards Enoch as Scripture, he clearly holds it in high esteem and considers it legitimate to cite it in support of his argument.
"How can a writer who cites an apocryphal book be inspired?... The difficulties are no insuperable if Jude is not citing Enoch as Scripture, and there is no conclusive evidence he is. He seems rather to be recognizing that what Enoch had said has turned out to be a true prophesy in view of the ungodly conduct of these false teachers.” (Pg. 917-918)
Of Jude’s relation to 2 Peter, he says, “That the relationship is very close is clear from the most casual comparison of the Epistles. Most of 2 Peter ii is paralleled in Jude. There are also parallels in the other two chapters…. the natural conclusion is that one has used the other… Since Jude is briefer than 2 Peter, it is considered more probable that this was the source rather than the borrower…. There seems to be no adequate reason for the publication of the shorter Epistle at all if 2 Peter already exists… This argument is undoubtedly a strong one for the priority of Jude… The problem, like so many other purely literary problems of New Testament criticism, must be left unresolved. It does not affect the authenticity problem of either letter.” (Pg. 919-925)
This is a solid, comprehensive, and thoroughly useful volume of evangelical scholarship, that will be of much help to students of the New Testament.
Displaying 1 of 1 review