Irenaeus Not the Inventor of the Fourfold Gospel Canon

4:42 PM Michael Kruger has posted an interesting essay in which he argues that the Fourfold Gospel canon was not invented by Irenaeus.

Not only did his contemporaries have this same view, but this view was even shared by those before him. Thus, we must consider the possibility that Irenaeus was actually telling the truth when he says that the fourfold gospel was something that was “handed down” to him.

Wonderful. And a good reminder why Bernard Orchard called his view of synoptic origins the “Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis.” (For details, see my book on the subject.)

(From Dave Black Online. Used by Permission)

8:10 AM Saw this today:

One of the many curiosities in the study of the NT and earliest Christianity is the early history and fortunes of the Gospel of Mark (hereafter, GMark). On the one hand (assuming the dominant view of Mark’s priority), the GMark appears to have been very influential. It is widely thought that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were likely prompted to write the kind of Jesus-books that they did by GMark.

“Assuming the dominant view of Mark’s priority.” This is precisely, I argue, what we cannot and must not do today.

(From Dave Black Online. Used by Permission)

Jesus of Faith or Jesus of Histroy

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

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

Robert Stump reWhy Four Gospels?views 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!