Guthrie/Weima, “2 Corinthians/1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)” (reviewed by Bryan Buchanan)

Review
======

Title: 2 Corinthians/1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)
Author: George H. Guthrie/Jeffrey A. D. Weima
Publisher: Baker Academic
Genre: Biblical commentary
Year Published: 2015/2014
Number of Pages: 710/711
Binding: Hardback
ISBN10: 0801026733/0801026857
ISBN13: 978-0801026737/978-0801026850
Price: $49.99/$54.99

Reviewed by Bryan Buchanan for the Association for Mormon Letters

I have an addiction. I don’t try to hide it. In fact, it’s displayed quite obviously to anyone who comes to my house. I love biblical commentaries. I have a full set of a prominent series and a sampling of various other commentaries. In addition to simply having multiple voices for any particular book in the Bible (always a good idea), I also enjoy seeing the different voice that a particular series demonstrates. While one can’t precisely categorize the “feel” of any series (since there are so many contributors), one can sense an overall tenor. For example, the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament displays a conservative but scholarly approach. A relative newcomer to the field of biblical commentaries (the series began with the first of two volumes on Luke in 1994), the series now stands at 17 volumes with the recent publication of “2 Corinthians” (George H. Guthrie) and “1-2 Thessalonians” (Jeffrey A. D. Weima).

First, a few thoughts on the series itself. The series editors, Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein, note in the series preface (which appears in both volumes) that the “chief concern…is to provide, within the framework of informed evangelical thought, commentaries that blend scholarly depth with readability, exegetical detail with sensitivity to the whole, and attention to critical problems with theological awareness.” While, to a Mormon audience, the last clause might be a little scary, the editors go on to note that a related goal “is to address the needs of pastors and others involved in the preaching and exposition of the Scriptures as the uniquely inspired Word of God” and the series aims to be a middle ground between superficial and encyclopedic. If one were to put any reasonable Mormon in the “hot seat” and require them to state their honest diagnosis of Sunday School, the respondent would likely admit that scripture-based teaching among Mormons could use a shot in the arm. That being said, the same reasonable Mormon (even if familiar with biblical studies generally) would not foresee using the conclusions of, say, the Jesus Seminar as a starting point. Any progress toward engaging the expansive field of biblical criticism would have to begin from a “safe” place. This series, with its conservative (albeit clearly evangelical) approach, would be an excellent springboard.

Two more points from the introduction that I feel are worth mentioning—first, a stated goal is to “avoid treating exegetical questions for their own sake, that is, in relative isolation from the thrust of the argument as a whole.” Mormons are (inordinately?) gifted at proof-texting [1]; adopting a treatment of scripture that takes the approach outlined by this series’ editors would be a wonderful development. Similarly, the editors note that “we believe, moreover, that a responsible exegetical commentary must take fully into account the latest scholarly research, regardless of its source.” (“2 Corinthians,” ix) While the former goal seems attainable, even in the short term future, the latter point might prove to be a bit stickier. Whether a Mormon Sunday School attendee draws on Talmage’s “Jesus the Christ” or McConkie’s New Testament writings in their personal study, the underlying scholarship is the same antiquated, *fin de siècle* material. Mormons have historically been very leery of “the [biblical studies] world.” [2] These concerns notwithstanding, I feel that this series would be a great place for Mormons to overcome and engage.

2 Corinthians (Guthrie)

The author of this commentary, George H. Guthrie, is a longtime professor and has authored several books on the New Testament. Oddly though, for the author of a commentary volume, he has previously published almost nothing on 2 Corinthians specifically (a point he obliquely addresses in the preface). However, he does a fine job incorporating the wealth of published material on this book throughout the commentary. An example of the goal to take into account the latest scholarly research comes in Guthrie’s discussion of the unity of 2 Corinthians. He reviews the varying opinions and reasoning and ultimately concludes that 2 Corinthians consists of a single, integral letter. Conservative findings such as this pepper the commentary and thus should not prove overly disconcerting to a Mormon reader.

Following a 50-page introduction, Guthrie moves to the commentary proper. To give a sense for how the commentary reads, I will discuss several examples of key passages:

1:22 (p. 114-16)

Guthrie begins his discussion of the verse by covering the various purposes of a seal in the ancient world: “a mark of authority”, “security” and “authenticity.” He then relates these various ideas to this verse, noting that “the image…speaks most particularly of God’s ownership of his people, and therefore his authenticity and security as his inviolable possession.” The next image in this verse is the Spirit as a “down payment.” Guthrie briefly treats the legal context for this idea and engages earlier commentators who chose to translate the term alternatively as “pledge,” opining that this choice in translation “does not do Paul’s language justice!”

6:14 (p. 349-52)

The first part of this verse—translated “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers” in the KJV—appears from time to time in Mormon discourse. Guthrie notes that the particular form of the word is used only here in the New Testament. He looks to a related form in the Septuagint of Lev. 19:19 and postulates that the verb has a similar meaning here of mixing two different types of livestock. He notes that many translations focus on the “concept of partnership…but this leaves aside the sense of incompatibility.” To analyze the rest of the verse, a helpful chart is used which lays out the parallelism employed here (which extends to v. 15). The discussion is clear and helpful in understanding the obvious care which Paul employs in making his case to believers.

7:10

A verse famous enough (it used to be a scripture mastery verse in LDS seminary) to receive its own video with pre-Batman Aaron Eckhart! From the translation itself, it is clear that understanding this verse based on Guthrie’s analysis will lead down a slightly different road. The “godly sorrow” (KJV—the author chose to translate this phrase as “grief according to God’s will”) described here is generally understood by a Mormon reader to be something like “sorrow that God would feel.” Rather, Guthrie notes, this is better understood as ‘being in accordance with God’s will”—in other words, not a prescribed state of mind but simply “grief [that would be] redeemed and thus productive.”

11:5 (p. 515-16)

This section provides an excellent example of why being unaware of biblical scholarship can be hazardous to comprehension. There are numerous references throughout Paul’s epistles to “chief apostles” (as in the KJV) that have historically been understood by Mormons to refer to the 12. However, the term in Greek (commonly translated, as is the case here, as “superapostles”) instead likely indicates opponents (of admittedly unclear background) that are constantly proving an irritant to Paul’s mission. Guthrie, calling them “interloping ministers,” points up the obvious irony that Paul is employing and concludes that “it is unlikely that the apostle would use the tone with reference to Peter, James, and John (or the twelve Jerusalem apostles as a whole).”

Hopefully these examples demonstrate that Guthrie’s commentary is at the same time well-informed and useful to the average reader/teacher. I found his reasoning generally compelling if a bit too conservative for my taste at points. I appreciate the use of the Greek alphabet as well as transliteration—I’ve never understood the perspective to present transliteration solely. My feeling is that a reader who doesn’t know the basics like the alphabet will be unlikely to benefit from (if even understand) arguments based on grammar and syntax. One more (simple) point that I enjoy about the Baker series—the verse number in the commentary is placed in the margin, making it easy to quickly find a particular passage.

1-2 Thessalonians (Weima)

While Guthrie is probably slightly better known than Weima, the latter certainly has had more experience specifically with the New Testament material that he writes about. That being said, I think Guthrie acquitted himself well enough that there does not seem to be an obvious disparity in quality between his work and Weima’s. Perhaps the most striking difference is in the overall tone—while Guthrie is more attuned to the needs of practical exegesis, Weima is somewhat more inclined to the details. In saying that, the casual reader should not be scared off—this commentary is still very readable despite a more academic feel. A very lengthy but necessary introduction (nearly sixty pages) again provides excellent overviews of key issues such as Pauline authorship which is a central element in the treatment of 2 Thessalonians (commonly disputed, if not to the level of consensus).

As with the first volume, I will look at key passages from the commentary and assess Weima’s conclusions:

1 Thess. 4:15 (p. 320-24)

Two points of interest arise in this verse. The first half of the verse introduces the bold phrase “the word of the Lord.” Weima notes that “there is increasing agreement among commentators that Paul does *not* immediately cite the ‘word of the Lord’” (my emphasis) but rather summarizes a teaching of Jesus. Since nothing in the canonized gospels seems to fit this particular teaching precisely, several options have been put forth which the author summarizes and assesses, concluding that Paul is likely thinking of something in the gospels but quoting it only “loosely.” The second key point in this verse is what Paul means by saying “we.” Though many scholars: A. conclude from this that Paul expected to live until the coming of Jesus and B. compare this attitude with just the opposite in other Pauline passages and posit that Paul modified his thinking later, Weima pushes back against these conclusions, arguing that “this line of argumentation, however, reads far too much in the ‘we.’”

I found his argument here less than persuasive—less on the grounds of his particular points than on overall assessment of the cohesiveness of Pauline material. Unlike the authors of these two commentaries (and, frankly, most Mormons), I see more post-Pauline influence on the epistles than they do. However, I appreciate that the authors (in keeping with the series goal outlined in the preface) seriously consider counterarguments and never make their conclusions in dogmatic or inflexible ways.

2 Thess. 2:3

One could not have a better rate of success in asking 100 people (a la Family Feud) if they are familiar with the word “apostasy” than by asking 100 Mormons. Though the word is quite rare in the New Testament, even small Mormon children would at least recognize it. However, part of this ubiquity is that it provides one bookend to Mormon identity with the restoration being the other. What is starkly different between a Mormon reading of this verse and how Weima treats it is the fact (which is clear from a dispassionate reading of the epistle—particularly in connection with the rest of Paul’s words) that this event, which Weima insightfully notes is accompanied by the definite article, i.e. *the* apostasy), would be something familiar to the contemporary readers of this letter since it was something close at hand. While the word does have a political sense to it, especially in secular writings of that era, the author highlights that usage of the term in the Septuagint almost always carries a specific religious tone.

I enjoyed more exposure to the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament through this review. I found both volumes to be worthy additions to the series and feel that Mormons would benefit—in personal reading and *greatly* so in teaching—from the conservative (and, thus, more comfortable) approach balanced with healthy engagement with various perspectives and arguments. While Guthrie’s work leans more to practical teaching and Weima’s is more in the vein of traditional academic commentary, they are both well written and—thanks in part to the pleasing structure and formatting of the series generally—very useful as reference tools.

[1] For the most expansive treatment of this to date, see Charles R. Harrell, “‘This Is My Doctrine’: The Development of Mormon Theology” (Greg Kofford Books, 2011).

[2] The best analysis of this (and related topics) is Philip L. Barlow, “Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion” [updated ed.] (Oxford University Press, 2013)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.