Why Four Gospels?

The Church Fathers and Study of the Gospels

hneufeld — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:29:08 +0000

5:50 AM I’m glad to see that the Gospel of Mark is being discussed on several blogs these days. The latest hubbub seems to have to do with something called Mark’s “community.” However, the elephant in the room, it seems to me, is the absence of any discussion of the church fathers. Of course, a full account of the patristic testimony would fill several volumes. I have made a partial case for Mark’s Sitz im Leben in my book Why Four Gospels? Sadly, the patristic evidence is today hardly known in New Testament scholarship, although everyone claims to regard it with a certain respect. The average person doesn’t have a clue because he or she hasn’t done the reading. Such investigation would raise questions too complex — and perhaps too uncomfortable — for the sort of subjective and superficial overview one finds in the typical New Testament Introduction. I myself was ill-taught in this respect while in seminary. Not once were we asked to crack open a patristic tome, and thus I was ill prepared for vigorous debate on the subject. I don’t mean to imply that students of the Gospels know absolutely nothing about the fathers. Certain New Testament scholars were famous for their knowledge (e.g., William Farmer). To become familiar with the field would ask a lot of your average student of the Gospels. In the eyes of some, I suppose, any interaction with the fathers is a subversive menace to the status quo. Those who (like myself) hold to somewhat traditional views of authorship and provenance are sometimes subjected to ad hominem innuendo (“Why Dave, you must be a Catholic!”). Merely questioning the consensus opinio can get you into hot water from the establishment. None of this is challenged front and center by the mainstream academy. Thus protected from all the evidence, many of our students have bought into what I consider to be a highly defective product. To call this merely a “bias” against the fathers is to understate the belligerent emotionality one sometimes encounters. The grain of truth which is the Markan Priority Hypothesis should not mean that we accept the theory without questioning it (the existence of “Q” alone should cause one to pause).

So let the discussion continue and expand. It certainly will in my New Testament classes, where students are exposed to the Mark-Q Hypothesis, Mark Without Q, the Two Gospel Hypothesis, and even the position espoused by their professor (the Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis) — testing and thinking and pondering before coming to a conclusion, their own conclusion. Enough of this, however. I’ve got to get to campus for grading and for two commencement services. Heartiest congratulations to all of our graduates and especially to my doctoral student Alex Stewart as well as my pastor Jason Evans who also will be receiving his doctoral hood today. Well done, one and all.

(From Dave Black Online. Used by Permission)

The Dubious Disciple Reviews Why Four Gospels?

hneufeld — Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:52 +0000

… here!

Jesus of Faith or Jesus of Histroy

admin — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:42:31 +0000

6) Who is Jesus? The “Jesus of history” or the “Jesus of the church”? Yesterday I listened to an interesting discussion of this topic called Der Mann aus Nazareth. It’s not surprising that this is a hot topic in Germany. And it was good to hear scholars calling us back to the biblical, core revelation about Jesus that is found in the Gospels. All too often German scholarship has concluded that the Gospels enshrine merely the kerygma of the early church. They are neither historical nor literary, but dogmatic and cultic – legends in which the Hellenistic mythological interpretation of Christ has been superimposed on the historical Jesus. I plan on returning to this subject in my book Godworld. In any event, I am convinced that it is unnecessary to separate the theological from the historical. The circumstances of the origin of the fourfold gospel will always be a matter of speculation, but historical evidence is not lacking (see my Why Four Gospels?).

(From Dave Black Online. Used by Permission)

External Evidence and the Synoptic Problem

admin — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 02:22:55 +0000

2:36 PM I continue to be fascinated by the synoptic problem. My book Why Four Gospels? examines different elements that play an essential role in resolving this question.

My position is based on two foundational pillars: the external evidence provided by the earliest fathers that Matthew was the first of the canonical Gospels, and the internal evidence that suggests Mark is a conflation of Matthew and Luke (Orchard called this the “zigzagging effect”). I have yet to see a refutation of the external evidence. Most scholars reject the patristic testimony as being of little or no value for source-critical research. Since the internal evidence can never be probative (it can never prove anything about the sequence or interrelationships of the Gospels), it would seem that Gospel scholars would be all the more willing to take the external evidence into account. Whatever option is ultimately preferred, the internal evidence ought to be supplemented by considerations about the empirical circumstances under which the traditions about Jesus were developed in the earliest church. It may be that future generations of New Testament students will perform this task. If they don’t, I predict very little progress in this great area of research. I would dare to hope that my re-examination of the leading church fathers will offer some helpful suggestions for the next generation of scholars.

(From Dave Black Online. Used by Permission)

New Review at Homo Homini Lupus

admin — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:47:56 +0000

Robert Stump reviews David Alan Black’s book Why Four Gospels? on his Homo Homini Lupus blog.

Two portions stand out:

The greatness of Black’s little book is its common sense. That it has taken so many years for someone of Black’s prestige to stand up and point out the silliness is too bad; that it has finally happened is a great relief.

And …

Most writers in this field are neither as lucid nor as aesthetically pleasant and quaint as Black; many are hardly readable. So be warned. You will be disappointed if you read Black as an introduction to the field. He set the bar for clarity and the rest of ‘em miss it.

I almost feel led to remind readers (and potential reviewers) that we don’t require positive reviews.

Thanks to Robert for an interesting and positive review!

Review at Near Emmaus

hneufeld — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:50:23 +0000

Mark Stevens at the Near Emmaus blog has begun a review series on Why Four Gospels?. Be sure to go check it out.

He’s going to do these in a series of posts called “Black Tuesdays.” Here’s an idea, Mark. What if we send you two other books by Dave Black, also published by Energion, so that you an extend those Black Tuesdays?

Go over there and join the discussion!

Embellishing Stories

hneufeld — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:51:28 +0000

4:45 PM If you are a Civil War buff (as I am you) have probably seen the movie Gettysburg starring Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee and Jeff Daniels as Joshua Chamberlain. There’s an unforgettable scene that takes place on the first day of battle. Union cavalry General John Reynolds is in the copula of the Lutheran Theological Seminary when General John Reynolds of the Union I Corps rides up. “Thank God,” says a tearful Buford. “What goes, John?” asks Reynolds. “There’s a devil to pay,” replies Buford. “Can you hold?” inquires Reynolds. “I reckon I can,” says Buford. At this point, Buford descends from the copula and the two generals ride off toward the sound of battle on McPherson’s Ridge.

Actually, nothing like this ever happened. As General Reynolds, at the head of the Union I Corps, rode into Gettysburg that morning along the Emmitsburg Road, he passed through the town and then hurried on to the Chambersburg Pike in search of Buford. He found him on McPherson’s Ridge with his men, attempting to keep the enemy in check for as long as possible. The dramatized account of Reynolds and Buford meeting at the Lutheran Seminary and their verbal exchange is based on a completely discounted account filled with after-the-fact embellishments.

Perhaps there’s an application here to today’s study of the Gospels. Many New Testament scholars question the historical reliability of the four Gospel accounts of the life of Christ. They insist that the records are filled with after-the-fact embellishments — a fact that requires scholars to search for the “historical Jesus” beneath the accretions of tradition, much like peeking an opinion to its core.

For example, on one of the most important points of the Jesus story — the resurrection and the empty tomb — all the Gospels agree. Yet even when confronted with this evidence many people do not find the truth of the resurrection easy to accept. Nevertheless, belief in the resurrection of Christ is essential to our faith. Apostolic preaching confirmed it and even made it a condition of salvation: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9).

I wrote my book Why Four Gospels? not so much to argue for Matthean priority as to affirm the complete historicity and apostolicity of the Gospels. Early in my Christian experience I discovered that the Gospels were — and needed to be — central in my understanding not only of the Good News about Jesus Christ but of life itself. Only the cross of Jesus can supply meaning to life, and that is because the cross and the resurrection are an interwoven reality. Of one thing I am quite certain: Christianity is a historical faith. It is rooted and grounded in historical fact. No “leap of faith” is required to believe in Jesus. As I once heard Francis Schaeffer put it in Switzerland, you don’t have to put your brain in park or neutral to become a Christian. His cross is the center of all history. It is the crossroads of the universe. No one can avoid confrontation with it.

It is my prayer that skeptics may come to the Gospels with an open mind and heart, for there the living Christ is ready to meet Doubting Thomases in their pessimism and the travelers to Emmaus in their intellectualism.

(From Dave Black Online. Used by permission. David Alan Black is author of Energion titles The Jesus Paradigm, Christian Archy, and Why Four Gospels?.)

Dave Black Answers Some Questions

admin — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:16:49 +0000

6:57 PM This morning somebody emailed me a couple of questions about my book Why Four Gospels. Here are his questions, along with my answers.

Question:

I did have a couple of questions on your book, if you would be so kind. In naming your/Dr. Orchard’s hypothesis the “Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis,” you compare it back to the “Two Gospel Hypothesis” advocated by Dr. Farmer, et al., which I take is similar to the original Griesbach. Would you say that review and analysis of the Patristic and historical data is the main differentiation between the two?

Answer:

Yes. The Farmer group appears to have given the external evidence a back seat. Some of them even date the Gospels much later than I would. Then again, the term “Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis” reflects our desire to show that in the earliest church there was only ONE Gospel that was passed on in four different versions. Why there are 4 (and only 4) such accounts is a major question we sought to answer.

Question:

On page 22 you identify the 3 evaluation arguments as: i) the external evidence in the light of modern research; ii) the internal comparison of the gospel texts to discover their sources and their interconnections; and iii) show that no emergent hypothesis is credible unless it is viable in light of the know history of the church and the Roman Empire at the time. The first and third sound similar? The second sounds pretty much like the standard textual critical approach?

Answer:

Indeed we feel that the internal evidence is important, but only to corroborate what has already been established on the basis of the external evidence, which (as you can see) overwhelmingly supports the priority of Matthew’s Gospel. For example, we believe that the zigzagging effect is compatible with our theory – though it doesn’t prove it.

Let the discussion continue!

(From Dave Black Online. Used by permission. David Alan Black is author of Energion titles The Jesus Paradigm, Christian Archy, and Why Four Gospels?.)

Review at A Living Sacrifice

hneufeld — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:40:57 +0000

There’s a nice, and exceptionally readable, review of Why Four Gospels? at A Living Sacrifice. I don’t usually comment on our blog reviewers, because bloggers must be free to review as they see fit, but in this case I make an exception. I’m not talking about the review being positive (which it is), but about it being exceptionally readable. It’s just plain good writing.

(Crossposted from Energion Publications)

Brian Fulthorp Reviews Why Four Gospels

hneufeld — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 00:34:48 +0000

His conclusion:

I heartily recommend this book to any person lay or scholar who is interested in Gospel and or Synoptic studies – if you are for Markan priority I think it is even more important you read this book – why? Because too often Markan priority people make comments like the quote I gave above from Stein and to save yourself from embarrassment read this book – it’ll at the very least make you a more informed Markan priorists.