What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Four Gospels? 2nd Revised edition by David Alan Black (2010) Paperback
Why do we have four gospels in the New Testament? How were they written, preserved, and chosen? In Why Four Gospels? noted Greek and New Testament scholar David Alan Black concisely and clearly presents the case for the early development of the gospels, beginning with Matthew, rather than Mark. This is much more than a discussion of the order in which the gospels were written. Using both internal data from the gospels themselves and an exhaustive and careful examination of the statements of the early church fathers, Dr. Black places each gospel in the context of the early development of Christianity. Though Markan priority is the dominant position still in Biblical scholarship, Dr. Black argues that this position is not based on the best evidence available, that the internal evidence is often given more weight than it deserves and alternative explanations are dismissed or ignored. If you would like an outline of the basis for accepting both early authorship of the gospels and the priority of Matthew, this book is for you.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
41 people are currently reading
121 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
May 15, 2012
Very good. This is a concise, well-organized explanation of the historical and textual arguments for David Black’s Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis and an early writing of the Gospels. It’s a conservative treatment; David’s purpose in writing is to “renew, restore, and strengthen faith in the truth of the Gospels by providing scientific support for the church’s continuous teaching on their apostolicity and historicity.
I have been looking for a simple guide to the argument for apostolic authority and the traditional ordering of the Gospels, and this one does the trick. Relying heavily on the testimony of the early church fathers, David presents a reasonable scenario for the development of the Gospels. It is not David’s claim that the fathers of the church solve the synoptic problem; it is that any approach that rejects their testimony is lacking. A hypothesis is needed that does justice both to critical scholarship and to the integrity of the church fathers.
Matthew’s Gospel came first, written in Greek. It was a response to a need within the early church (years 33-44) to preserve the story of Jesus. But Matthew’s version, while highly respected in Jerusalem circles, didn’t fit the bill for Gentile readers, and Paul commissioned Luke to rework the Gospel message for the benefit of his own Greek churches. Luke was able to “change the whole emphasis of the Gospel into a demonstration of the good fortune of the Gentiles in being given equality by Jesus with the original chosen people.”
Peter happened to be in Rome at the time of Paul’s captivity, so Paul met with Peter and asked his advice about Luke’s new gospel. Peter was happy to compare the two (Luke and Matthew), and since it was his plan to give a series of speeches in Rome, he took both together and, with Mark in attendance, fitted them into five lectures which Mark preserved in writing. These lectures are recorded in Mark 1:2-3:19, 3:20-6:13, 6:14-10:1, 10:2-13:37, and 14:1-16:8. Peter’s intent was to refer only to those portions of Jesus’ life of which he had been an eyewitness and could personally vouch for. Thus, there exists no birth stories or resurrection narratives in Mark.
Those who listened to Peter were delighted with what they heard, and requested from Mark copies of what Peter said. Peter allowed this, and Mark’s Gospel was birthed. The final twelve verses of the gospel (which are not in the earliest manuscripts) were surely added by Mark at a later date, when he decided to publish the gospel as an act of piety to the memory of Peter.
That’s the way David fits the puzzle pieces together, relying heavily upon the patristic evidence, and it explains the internal data “at least as well as the Markan priority hypothesis, and often much better.” It also explains the need for three Synoptic Gospels. David then goes pericope-by-pericope through the Gospels explaining how Mark was pieced together from Matthew and Luke, and while I didn’t take time to study his analysis, it’s nice to know he did his homework.
While I’m not a conservative believer and have no issue with Markan priority (as proposed by the popular solution to the synoptic problem), and while a number of issues remain unresolved (such as Matthew’s apparent familiarity with the events of 70 CE), I found this a very helpful review of the patristic evidence for traditional beliefs.
I have been looking for a simple guide to the argument for apostolic authority and the traditional ordering of the Gospels, and this one does the trick. Relying heavily on the testimony of the early church fathers, David presents a reasonable scenario for the development of the Gospels. It is not David’s claim that the fathers of the church solve the synoptic problem; it is that any approach that rejects their testimony is lacking. A hypothesis is needed that does justice both to critical scholarship and to the integrity of the church fathers.
Matthew’s Gospel came first, written in Greek. It was a response to a need within the early church (years 33-44) to preserve the story of Jesus. But Matthew’s version, while highly respected in Jerusalem circles, didn’t fit the bill for Gentile readers, and Paul commissioned Luke to rework the Gospel message for the benefit of his own Greek churches. Luke was able to “change the whole emphasis of the Gospel into a demonstration of the good fortune of the Gentiles in being given equality by Jesus with the original chosen people.”
Peter happened to be in Rome at the time of Paul’s captivity, so Paul met with Peter and asked his advice about Luke’s new gospel. Peter was happy to compare the two (Luke and Matthew), and since it was his plan to give a series of speeches in Rome, he took both together and, with Mark in attendance, fitted them into five lectures which Mark preserved in writing. These lectures are recorded in Mark 1:2-3:19, 3:20-6:13, 6:14-10:1, 10:2-13:37, and 14:1-16:8. Peter’s intent was to refer only to those portions of Jesus’ life of which he had been an eyewitness and could personally vouch for. Thus, there exists no birth stories or resurrection narratives in Mark.
Those who listened to Peter were delighted with what they heard, and requested from Mark copies of what Peter said. Peter allowed this, and Mark’s Gospel was birthed. The final twelve verses of the gospel (which are not in the earliest manuscripts) were surely added by Mark at a later date, when he decided to publish the gospel as an act of piety to the memory of Peter.
That’s the way David fits the puzzle pieces together, relying heavily upon the patristic evidence, and it explains the internal data “at least as well as the Markan priority hypothesis, and often much better.” It also explains the need for three Synoptic Gospels. David then goes pericope-by-pericope through the Gospels explaining how Mark was pieced together from Matthew and Luke, and while I didn’t take time to study his analysis, it’s nice to know he did his homework.
While I’m not a conservative believer and have no issue with Markan priority (as proposed by the popular solution to the synoptic problem), and while a number of issues remain unresolved (such as Matthew’s apparent familiarity with the events of 70 CE), I found this a very helpful review of the patristic evidence for traditional beliefs.
March 19, 2025
A fascinating read on a topic that typically induces slumber. Black gives weight and credibility to the unanimous testimony of the patristic fathers in their assignment of gospel order and gospel origin over and against that of modern academic scholars.
Spurning academia’s Markan priority and its need for a since-lost document “Q” as the source material for Mark’s gospel, Black puts forth Matthean priority. Black does so by (1) relaying how all of the church fathers agreed on Matthew being the first gospel, (2) how the gospel of Mark came about, and (3) the internal evidence within the Synoptic gospels that aligns with this story/tradition from the church fathers.
According to the church fathers, Matthew wrote his gospel first. Need then arose from Paul in his evangelization of the Gentiles for a companion gospel that assumed less knowledge of Jewish customs in its readers and better oriented to applications to Gentile contexts.
Thus Paul commissioned his aid Luke to compose such a gospel. However, Paul did not want to cause controversy with a second gospel as if it was a rival to Matthew, so he waited to publish it until one of the Twelve could authenticate and bless it.
As Paul is imprisoned in Rome, Peter and his aid Mark come and it is at this point that Paul shares the gospel of Luke with Peter seeking his authentication of the gospel.
Peter is invited by the Roman Praetorium (Rome’s Pentagon) to give lectures on Jesus and Peter gives a series of lectures by teaching from the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke side by side, zig-zagging between the two, while offering his own eyewitness details here and there.
The Roman Praetorium was so enthused by these lectures that they immediately requested to Peter’s aid, Mark, to have these lectures put to paper and published for their keeping. Mark obliged and when Peter found out he made no case against the matter.
Thus, Black argues that the Synoptic problem is remedied by the external evidence of church history and the internal mechanics of the gospels that Matthew arose as the first gospel, Luke as a second “Gentile gospel”, and Mark as an authenticating bridge between the two. For instance, Mark is so fast-paced and lacks formal grammatical furnishings because it is in fact a recorded series of sermons, not a traditional book.
As such, there is no need for a mystical document “Q” nor “M” or “L” that have since been lost to the sands of time.
Black offers a fork in the road: will you take the road that relies on the patristics which 1800 years of church history tread, or will you take the road that emerged 200 years ago by liberal critical studies which relies on a speculative document “Q” that further necessitates and unknown document “L” and “M”?
Spurning academia’s Markan priority and its need for a since-lost document “Q” as the source material for Mark’s gospel, Black puts forth Matthean priority. Black does so by (1) relaying how all of the church fathers agreed on Matthew being the first gospel, (2) how the gospel of Mark came about, and (3) the internal evidence within the Synoptic gospels that aligns with this story/tradition from the church fathers.
According to the church fathers, Matthew wrote his gospel first. Need then arose from Paul in his evangelization of the Gentiles for a companion gospel that assumed less knowledge of Jewish customs in its readers and better oriented to applications to Gentile contexts.
Thus Paul commissioned his aid Luke to compose such a gospel. However, Paul did not want to cause controversy with a second gospel as if it was a rival to Matthew, so he waited to publish it until one of the Twelve could authenticate and bless it.
As Paul is imprisoned in Rome, Peter and his aid Mark come and it is at this point that Paul shares the gospel of Luke with Peter seeking his authentication of the gospel.
Peter is invited by the Roman Praetorium (Rome’s Pentagon) to give lectures on Jesus and Peter gives a series of lectures by teaching from the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke side by side, zig-zagging between the two, while offering his own eyewitness details here and there.
The Roman Praetorium was so enthused by these lectures that they immediately requested to Peter’s aid, Mark, to have these lectures put to paper and published for their keeping. Mark obliged and when Peter found out he made no case against the matter.
Thus, Black argues that the Synoptic problem is remedied by the external evidence of church history and the internal mechanics of the gospels that Matthew arose as the first gospel, Luke as a second “Gentile gospel”, and Mark as an authenticating bridge between the two. For instance, Mark is so fast-paced and lacks formal grammatical furnishings because it is in fact a recorded series of sermons, not a traditional book.
As such, there is no need for a mystical document “Q” nor “M” or “L” that have since been lost to the sands of time.
Black offers a fork in the road: will you take the road that relies on the patristics which 1800 years of church history tread, or will you take the road that emerged 200 years ago by liberal critical studies which relies on a speculative document “Q” that further necessitates and unknown document “L” and “M”?
Read
November 14, 2012Black proposes an expansion of the Griesbach or Two-Gospel hypothesis. In framing his position, Black takes patristic testimony about the Gospels seriously. He uses the patristic evidence to develop a plausible back-story that explains how the external and internal evidence favors a Matthew, Luke, Mark order to Gospel composition.
According to Black, the following can be concluded from the Fathers:
1. Matthew wrote his Gospel first in a Hebrew style.
2. John wrote his Gospel last.
3. Differences exist about the placement of Luke and Mark. Both are given the second and third places by different authors.
4. Peter stands behind the creation of Mark. He orally delivered in Rome testimonies of what he saw Jesus do and say and Mark faithfully recorded Peter's words.
From this evidence Black proposes the following backstory. Matthew wrote his Gospel first for the Jews. Luke then wrote his Gospel as part of Paul's Gentile mission. Because Luke was not an eyewitness, his Gospel needed validation. Peter validated Luke's gospel by speaking in Rome about his eyewitness remembrances regarding the material in Matthew and Luke. Mark records Peter's memoirs. Once Peter validates Luke's Gospel, it may be released. John later writes his gospel. This account is, of course, speculativen—but no more so than Q is speculative.
Black also proposes the following internal evidence:
1. "The pericope order and the zigzag phenomenon"
This can be accounted for by Peter speaking with both Gospels open before him and moving back and forth between the two as he recounts his memoirs. Black accounts for omissions in Mark by saying that Peter is only recounting what he personally witnessed (thus the birth narratives are dropped).
2. "The extra detail of Mark"
The extra detail fits with the scenario of an eyewitness who knows the other Gospels but who adds in vivid details that he recalls.
3. "The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark"
These agreements "are prima facie evidence for literary contact between Matthew and Luke" (42).
4. Markan conflation of Matthew and Luke
Black says literary signs of conflation have been documented, though he does not detail them.
The strength of Why Four Gospels? is its attempt to account for both patristic and internal evidence is its approach to the Synoptic problem. Its weakness is the dependence Black seems to place on his hypothetical reconstruction.
According to Black, the following can be concluded from the Fathers:
1. Matthew wrote his Gospel first in a Hebrew style.
2. John wrote his Gospel last.
3. Differences exist about the placement of Luke and Mark. Both are given the second and third places by different authors.
4. Peter stands behind the creation of Mark. He orally delivered in Rome testimonies of what he saw Jesus do and say and Mark faithfully recorded Peter's words.
From this evidence Black proposes the following backstory. Matthew wrote his Gospel first for the Jews. Luke then wrote his Gospel as part of Paul's Gentile mission. Because Luke was not an eyewitness, his Gospel needed validation. Peter validated Luke's gospel by speaking in Rome about his eyewitness remembrances regarding the material in Matthew and Luke. Mark records Peter's memoirs. Once Peter validates Luke's Gospel, it may be released. John later writes his gospel. This account is, of course, speculativen—but no more so than Q is speculative.
Black also proposes the following internal evidence:
1. "The pericope order and the zigzag phenomenon"
This can be accounted for by Peter speaking with both Gospels open before him and moving back and forth between the two as he recounts his memoirs. Black accounts for omissions in Mark by saying that Peter is only recounting what he personally witnessed (thus the birth narratives are dropped).
2. "The extra detail of Mark"
The extra detail fits with the scenario of an eyewitness who knows the other Gospels but who adds in vivid details that he recalls.
3. "The minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark"
These agreements "are prima facie evidence for literary contact between Matthew and Luke" (42).
4. Markan conflation of Matthew and Luke
Black says literary signs of conflation have been documented, though he does not detail them.
The strength of Why Four Gospels? is its attempt to account for both patristic and internal evidence is its approach to the Synoptic problem. Its weakness is the dependence Black seems to place on his hypothetical reconstruction.
January 18, 2019
In the world of New Testament scholarship, Markan priority is usually an assumption for the composition of the Gospels. David Alan Black challenges this assumption with powerful evidence from the early church fathers for Matthean priority. Evidence which, as Black observes, is usually ignored in Gospels scholarship. Using this evidence, he proposes a theory for the origin of the Gospels that fits this historical evidence hand in glove. Black's evidence is compelling and his reconstruction is quite plausible. My only disappointment is that he did not address issues that would seem to pose serious problems for his thesis. He posits that Luke was a reworking of Matthew for a Gentile audience, and that Mark was composed using both gospels. The difference in Matthew and Luke's genealogy, with no explanation in the latter, is difficult to understand if Luke had access to Matthew's gospel. We would expect Luke to have some anticipation that readers would perceive a contradiction. A further problem is that Luke's primary audience seems to have been a certain individual named Theophilus. He would have certainly known that his monograph would reach a broader audience than this one man, but it is difficult to understand why it is addressed to Theophilus if Luke's Gospel was commissioned by Paul for the Gentile churches generally. The final difficulty is the synoptic problem in general. Chronological differences can be explained easily, apparent contradictions cannot. Certainly there are no true contradictions, but if Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel, and Peter had access to both while preparing the lectures that would ultimately become Mark's Gospel, one wonders why the authors did not make a greater effort to avoid confusion. I'm sure Black could provide a tenable answer to these objections. His conclusion hints acknowledges the need for further research, but the difficulties here are significant enough that Black should have at least given them a brief treatment. I have been a proponent of Matthean priority for many years, and Black's book has strengthened me in this view, but I wish his book had been about fifty pages longer. I wish he had addressed more of the problems with his thesis.
June 9, 2020
Among modern theologians, it is rarely questioned that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke came later, drawing on Mark and a hypothetical source known as "Q".
However, the consensus among the Church Fathers was that the Gospel of Matthew was written first. Could they possibly be right about this?
The late British Catholic theologian Bernard Orchard believed this, and in this book David Alan Black presents Orchard's points of view: Mark was not the first but the last of the synoptic gospels, and his work is a summary of Matthew and Luke.
So far so good. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge the viability of this theory, but I find it appealing to get rid of the elusive "Q".
However, the way Black presents the theory is much too rigid: He presents a very fixed set of circumstances for the writing of each of the three synoptic gospels: Matthew was written first, then Paul commissioned Luke to write a gospel for the gentiles, drawing in part on what Matthew had written. Finally, Paul asked Peter to acknowledge the authority of Luke's gospel, and that acknowledgement came in the form of a set of lectures given by Peter in Rome and recorded in what became Mark's gospel.
I don't know if this story of the provenance of the gospels is Orchard's, or if it's merely Black's version of the story. I would like to think that Orchard could provide a more flexible and less rigid and speculative approach to the matter; but I don't know.
In short, this book opened my eyes to the fact that Mark might not be the oldest gospel, but the way the theory is presented leaves much to be desired. Hence only two stars.
However, the consensus among the Church Fathers was that the Gospel of Matthew was written first. Could they possibly be right about this?
The late British Catholic theologian Bernard Orchard believed this, and in this book David Alan Black presents Orchard's points of view: Mark was not the first but the last of the synoptic gospels, and his work is a summary of Matthew and Luke.
So far so good. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge the viability of this theory, but I find it appealing to get rid of the elusive "Q".
However, the way Black presents the theory is much too rigid: He presents a very fixed set of circumstances for the writing of each of the three synoptic gospels: Matthew was written first, then Paul commissioned Luke to write a gospel for the gentiles, drawing in part on what Matthew had written. Finally, Paul asked Peter to acknowledge the authority of Luke's gospel, and that acknowledgement came in the form of a set of lectures given by Peter in Rome and recorded in what became Mark's gospel.
I don't know if this story of the provenance of the gospels is Orchard's, or if it's merely Black's version of the story. I would like to think that Orchard could provide a more flexible and less rigid and speculative approach to the matter; but I don't know.
In short, this book opened my eyes to the fact that Mark might not be the oldest gospel, but the way the theory is presented leaves much to be desired. Hence only two stars.
September 29, 2019
(Read and reviewed for my NT501 class at Southern Evangelical Seminary.)
While a short work of scholarship, Why Four Gospels? proved to be an interesting and educational foray into the discussion of the Gospels’ history. It provides an accessible look into the creation of the beginning of the New Testament as we know it today, giving insight to the needs of the early church during the subsequent years following Christ’s ascension. Black acknowledges that the Gospels were indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it was interesting to gain insight into how they came to be. Gospels did spend a significant portion of the text discussing “Markan priority”, making a case against those in academia who do not agree that the book of Mark was written after Matthew and Luke, to be used as a “bridge” to support them. Dr. Black seemed to be very concerned about the view of Markan priorists, which may be in response to his experiences as a professor of New Testament studies. He also references the term “synoptic problem” in the work, yet does not fully explain what the problem actually is. This could be a point of ambiguity for the lay reader, if they have not already been exposed to this concept through other biblical studies. These minor criticisms aside, Why Four Gospels? is an informative work, illuminating the history and development of God’s inspired Word.
While a short work of scholarship, Why Four Gospels? proved to be an interesting and educational foray into the discussion of the Gospels’ history. It provides an accessible look into the creation of the beginning of the New Testament as we know it today, giving insight to the needs of the early church during the subsequent years following Christ’s ascension. Black acknowledges that the Gospels were indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it was interesting to gain insight into how they came to be. Gospels did spend a significant portion of the text discussing “Markan priority”, making a case against those in academia who do not agree that the book of Mark was written after Matthew and Luke, to be used as a “bridge” to support them. Dr. Black seemed to be very concerned about the view of Markan priorists, which may be in response to his experiences as a professor of New Testament studies. He also references the term “synoptic problem” in the work, yet does not fully explain what the problem actually is. This could be a point of ambiguity for the lay reader, if they have not already been exposed to this concept through other biblical studies. These minor criticisms aside, Why Four Gospels? is an informative work, illuminating the history and development of God’s inspired Word.
October 3, 2022
A Refreshing Read
After trudging through great tomes on this topic, Black's "Why Four Gospels" was refreshingly brief and engaging. He makes his case in an enjoyable but rigorous way, and paints a very tenable picture. Whether he's right in all respects will need to be assessed with a lot more work; and, as much as I enjoyed the brevity and energy of this book, I do wish Black had gone into a little more detail about certain matters (such as the alleged grammatical indications of Matthew's dependence on Mark, rather than the other way around).
In any case, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in things like the Synoptic Problem or Gospel origins in general.
After trudging through great tomes on this topic, Black's "Why Four Gospels" was refreshingly brief and engaging. He makes his case in an enjoyable but rigorous way, and paints a very tenable picture. Whether he's right in all respects will need to be assessed with a lot more work; and, as much as I enjoyed the brevity and energy of this book, I do wish Black had gone into a little more detail about certain matters (such as the alleged grammatical indications of Matthew's dependence on Mark, rather than the other way around).
In any case, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in things like the Synoptic Problem or Gospel origins in general.
October 11, 2020
Thank you David Alan Black for writing this book. I have become tired of modern Biblical scholarship with each clown attempting to make themselves look important instead of thinking the hard questions. David Alan Black shows why Matthew was written first by the St Matthew and Luke was requested by St Paul for the Gentiles. Mark transcribed his Gospel from lectures St Peter gave in Rome to give support for Luke's Gospel. Highly recommend this book.
February 8, 2023
An answer to an age old question of mine, I learned much from this book. I found myself in awe often as I was reading. It’s just amazing how God created and preserved his word through human hands, intentions, and traditions. This made me more convinced of God’s inspiration of his Scripture, not less.
Though repetitive at times, I appreciated that considering I really wanted to remember the information being presented. Admittedly, some may not appreciate the repetitiveness like I did.
Though repetitive at times, I appreciated that considering I really wanted to remember the information being presented. Admittedly, some may not appreciate the repetitiveness like I did.
August 29, 2023
I have always been told that Mark was the earliest gospel and I understand why many scholars have said this. But I have also wondered why if Mark was first, why our bibles have it second. David Black allows us to take tradition and contemporary scholarship together, and presents one of the best presentations of why scripture includes four different accounts that I have read. Great Book!
August 20, 2025
A concise argument for 'Matthean priority' to the synoptic problem through what he terms the 'Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis'. The lynchpin for Black's case is the reliability of the patristic testimony, which, with a bit of sanctified imagination for background reconstruction, does not circumvent the internal evidence of dependence among the gospels.
August 7, 2017
I found this book's principal thesis equally interesting and persuasive. I remain unpersuaded by the author's belief that the ending of Mark is not original. However, the rest of the book is excellent.
October 12, 2020
Non scholarly review
I'm not a scholar but rings true to me as a Spirit filled believer. I certainly distrust the so called enlightenment's reasons for disputing the early fathers.
I'm not a scholar but rings true to me as a Spirit filled believer. I certainly distrust the so called enlightenment's reasons for disputing the early fathers.
January 21, 2021
Relatively short and to the point. Makes great use of external evidence (tradition) and internal evidence (textual criticism) to build a convincing case for Matthean priority.
December 1, 2021
A clear, easy to understand case for Matthean priority.
June 17, 2024
Very compelling argument for the history, order, and purpose of the 4 Gospels. Highly recommended.
July 23, 2012
With thanks to Dave Black and Energion Publications for this review copy. Part one and part two of my review are also available.
“The most ancient tradition of the Christian church is that the fourfold gospel came into existence in response to the needs experienced in some locality for an authoritative written word in addition to the continuous oral and unwritten preaching of the gospels by the earliest apostles.” Black, D. 2010, p.21
I first encountered the academic argument concerning the apostles as the original and authoritative eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus, in both oral and written form, while reading Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’. Until then much of my reading and understanding of the Gospels and their purpose had oscillated between Bultmann’s form criticism and Dunn’s oral tradition. Somewhere along the way I had settled for an inspired redaction theory of the gospels and their portrayal of Jesus; especially when it came to the gospel of Matthew. Upon reflection I am left wondering if both Bauckham and Black might provide a way through the haze, although it must be said there are some big assumptions which must be deconstructed if we are going to except the Patristic evidence as presented by Black!
In the 2nd chapter entitled of ‘Why Four Gospels’ entitled, “The Origins of the Gospels” Black seeks to bridge the gap between critical historical scholarship and the witness of the early church fathers. It is apparent, even to a novice such as myself, the majority of gospel scholarship has determined this witness to be unreliable. This strikes me as peculiar. Can someone explain it to me?
It all goes back to the Enlightenment (as do many of our academic and spiritual ills it seems). It is Black’s claim, and I would agree, the enlightenment sought to install human reason as the “final arbiter in all human affairs in place of Christian faith”. As it relates to Biblical studies, in particular studies of the Gospels, it would appear the overwhelming consensus of critical scholars is the witness of the early church fathers is unreliable. Personally I find this most puzzling. As Black argues, the philosophy of the 18th century determined it was impossible for the Gospels to have been written by the apostles and therefore were the result of “legend and hearsay”. The result for Gospel scholarship was enlightenment thinking was given precedence over Christian antiquity and tradition. Presumably if the Gospels were not reliable, those who supposedly gave witness to them were also unreliable!
I will not repost Black’s short but detailed account of the early church father’s writings on these matters. Needless to say it is Black’s conclusion that integrity of the early church father’s witness is solid. As a result of Black’s belief in the patristic witness he argues for Mathean priori over Markan priori arguing the sources reveal Mark as being written after Matthew. Black goes on to evaluate, and once again I won’t rewrite the argument, the Markan priori hypothesis (and we must remember that is what it is!). Black goes on to argue his belief that Matthew was followed by Luke and Mark was a written version of Peter’s preaching (which Black argues was based on Matthew and Luke) and John came some time later. I’ll leave it to Dave to explain how and why he believes this!
Essentially what Black does in this chapter is ground his working hypothesis regarding the purpose and order of the Gospels within the context of the earliest witnesses the church has. The results being his conclusions fly in the face of much modern critical scholarship. For this I am sure he wins few friends amongst the guild!
Reflection
I like the extremely positive and trusting approach Black has to these earliest witnesses and the authority his hypothesis restores to the Gospels. It says that you and I can trust the historical Jesus of the Gospels. Black does not seek to recreate the Jesus behind the gospels as some Gospel scholars seek to do, or create an anonymous community within the Gospels as many, myself included, are prone to do over and above the Gospel witness of Jesus the Messiah! The result, in my mind at least, is a Jesus we can know and trust as if the Apostles themselves were preaching to us!
“The most ancient tradition of the Christian church is that the fourfold gospel came into existence in response to the needs experienced in some locality for an authoritative written word in addition to the continuous oral and unwritten preaching of the gospels by the earliest apostles.” Black, D. 2010, p.21
I first encountered the academic argument concerning the apostles as the original and authoritative eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus, in both oral and written form, while reading Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’. Until then much of my reading and understanding of the Gospels and their purpose had oscillated between Bultmann’s form criticism and Dunn’s oral tradition. Somewhere along the way I had settled for an inspired redaction theory of the gospels and their portrayal of Jesus; especially when it came to the gospel of Matthew. Upon reflection I am left wondering if both Bauckham and Black might provide a way through the haze, although it must be said there are some big assumptions which must be deconstructed if we are going to except the Patristic evidence as presented by Black!
In the 2nd chapter entitled of ‘Why Four Gospels’ entitled, “The Origins of the Gospels” Black seeks to bridge the gap between critical historical scholarship and the witness of the early church fathers. It is apparent, even to a novice such as myself, the majority of gospel scholarship has determined this witness to be unreliable. This strikes me as peculiar. Can someone explain it to me?
It all goes back to the Enlightenment (as do many of our academic and spiritual ills it seems). It is Black’s claim, and I would agree, the enlightenment sought to install human reason as the “final arbiter in all human affairs in place of Christian faith”. As it relates to Biblical studies, in particular studies of the Gospels, it would appear the overwhelming consensus of critical scholars is the witness of the early church fathers is unreliable. Personally I find this most puzzling. As Black argues, the philosophy of the 18th century determined it was impossible for the Gospels to have been written by the apostles and therefore were the result of “legend and hearsay”. The result for Gospel scholarship was enlightenment thinking was given precedence over Christian antiquity and tradition. Presumably if the Gospels were not reliable, those who supposedly gave witness to them were also unreliable!
I will not repost Black’s short but detailed account of the early church father’s writings on these matters. Needless to say it is Black’s conclusion that integrity of the early church father’s witness is solid. As a result of Black’s belief in the patristic witness he argues for Mathean priori over Markan priori arguing the sources reveal Mark as being written after Matthew. Black goes on to evaluate, and once again I won’t rewrite the argument, the Markan priori hypothesis (and we must remember that is what it is!). Black goes on to argue his belief that Matthew was followed by Luke and Mark was a written version of Peter’s preaching (which Black argues was based on Matthew and Luke) and John came some time later. I’ll leave it to Dave to explain how and why he believes this!
Essentially what Black does in this chapter is ground his working hypothesis regarding the purpose and order of the Gospels within the context of the earliest witnesses the church has. The results being his conclusions fly in the face of much modern critical scholarship. For this I am sure he wins few friends amongst the guild!
Reflection
I like the extremely positive and trusting approach Black has to these earliest witnesses and the authority his hypothesis restores to the Gospels. It says that you and I can trust the historical Jesus of the Gospels. Black does not seek to recreate the Jesus behind the gospels as some Gospel scholars seek to do, or create an anonymous community within the Gospels as many, myself included, are prone to do over and above the Gospel witness of Jesus the Messiah! The result, in my mind at least, is a Jesus we can know and trust as if the Apostles themselves were preaching to us!
March 15, 2012
Homo Homini Lupus
http://manisawolftomen.blogspot.com/2...
What is it all about
David Alan Black lays out the basics of the Four-Fold Gospel Hypothesis (FFGH) of the origins of the four canonical gospels. Unlike the Markian priority theories that are prevalent in academia, FFGH roots itself in the testimony of the Early Church and the Church Fathers. Many Markian scholars assume that the early Church errs in its knowledge or in its scholarship and therefore lends the Church's testimony little weight. Black on the other hand restores the Fathers to an esteemed position allowing their testimony to stand on its own feet.
Why Four Gospels is laid out in three sections. The first gives an almost narrative account of how Black sees the four Gospels developing both in the whys and the hows of their conception. With this established background Black proceeds to layout the evidence of the Father's testimony, defends its legitimacy and proceeds to demolish the Markian prioritists. In the final portion of the work Black expands his theory to explain the hows and whys in greater detail. Here the full picture of the FFGH emerges: Matthew is composed first, then Luke which heavily relies on Matthew is composed--but its publication is withheld till it can be approved by Peter, Mark is composed from talks given by Peter and in tandem Peter is given opportunity to read/use Luke and approve of it as the third Gospel. John, independent of the others in composed to combat heresy (read: Gnosticism). I've certainly butchered the details but that hits the bigger picture of Black theory well enough.
Praise of un-Folly
Black's work should be required reading for anyone studying the bible, the biblical languages, or biblical history. Black manages--without resort to the sort to biting and cruel criticism it deserves--to dethrone the Markian priorist theory of the Gospel. FFGH requires no Q document or other unfounded black matter; there is no Baron Munchausen here. Rather anyone with a hint of common sense and lacking in modernist scholarly indoctrination can easily understand and internalize the evidence presented and determine the verity of the case based on the knowledge they have so far. One would do well to read The Higher Criticism by Hilaire Belloc to understand the absolute silliness that is the Markian consensus, however I digress.
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.
Caveat
The only warning I can give the reader is this: other work in this field, even the scholarly works referenced by Black, will not be an wonderfully readable as Black's little book. The reader will be tempted to read more about FFGH but he is likely to be disappointed by the confluence of stilted and scholarly jargon. 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.
5/5
Propter Sanguinem Agni,
RS
This book was provided to me free of charge by the publisher. They asked only for my honest opinion. Nothing weird or anything like that. I am only disclosing this information because it is illegal if I don't. I'm pretty sure that I would go to prison, probably for life, seeing how reviewing a product you are given for free under the guise of having purchased it yourself is similar to murder. O laws, like whitewashed tombs!
http://manisawolftomen.blogspot.com/2...
What is it all about
David Alan Black lays out the basics of the Four-Fold Gospel Hypothesis (FFGH) of the origins of the four canonical gospels. Unlike the Markian priority theories that are prevalent in academia, FFGH roots itself in the testimony of the Early Church and the Church Fathers. Many Markian scholars assume that the early Church errs in its knowledge or in its scholarship and therefore lends the Church's testimony little weight. Black on the other hand restores the Fathers to an esteemed position allowing their testimony to stand on its own feet.
Why Four Gospels is laid out in three sections. The first gives an almost narrative account of how Black sees the four Gospels developing both in the whys and the hows of their conception. With this established background Black proceeds to layout the evidence of the Father's testimony, defends its legitimacy and proceeds to demolish the Markian prioritists. In the final portion of the work Black expands his theory to explain the hows and whys in greater detail. Here the full picture of the FFGH emerges: Matthew is composed first, then Luke which heavily relies on Matthew is composed--but its publication is withheld till it can be approved by Peter, Mark is composed from talks given by Peter and in tandem Peter is given opportunity to read/use Luke and approve of it as the third Gospel. John, independent of the others in composed to combat heresy (read: Gnosticism). I've certainly butchered the details but that hits the bigger picture of Black theory well enough.
Praise of un-Folly
Black's work should be required reading for anyone studying the bible, the biblical languages, or biblical history. Black manages--without resort to the sort to biting and cruel criticism it deserves--to dethrone the Markian priorist theory of the Gospel. FFGH requires no Q document or other unfounded black matter; there is no Baron Munchausen here. Rather anyone with a hint of common sense and lacking in modernist scholarly indoctrination can easily understand and internalize the evidence presented and determine the verity of the case based on the knowledge they have so far. One would do well to read The Higher Criticism by Hilaire Belloc to understand the absolute silliness that is the Markian consensus, however I digress.
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.
Caveat
The only warning I can give the reader is this: other work in this field, even the scholarly works referenced by Black, will not be an wonderfully readable as Black's little book. The reader will be tempted to read more about FFGH but he is likely to be disappointed by the confluence of stilted and scholarly jargon. 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.
5/5
Propter Sanguinem Agni,
RS
This book was provided to me free of charge by the publisher. They asked only for my honest opinion. Nothing weird or anything like that. I am only disclosing this information because it is illegal if I don't. I'm pretty sure that I would go to prison, probably for life, seeing how reviewing a product you are given for free under the guise of having purchased it yourself is similar to murder. O laws, like whitewashed tombs!
December 31, 2016
Black has given us an excellent book explaining the chronology and composition of the four gospels. In doing so, he effectively destroys any argument for Markan priority or the existence of the supposed Q documentary source.
This work breaks down the scholarly presentations of primarily Dr. Bernard Orchard. As such, it points readers to other helpful resources for further reading. The compiled testimony of the Early Church Fathers alone makes it worth the price.
Black has also given the lay Christian accessible information, enough so to remain confident in Scripture with the ever-increasing attacks from skeptics. It's short and an easy read; I got through it in one sitting. Highly recommended for anyone engaging in a survey or introductory study of the Gospels.
This work breaks down the scholarly presentations of primarily Dr. Bernard Orchard. As such, it points readers to other helpful resources for further reading. The compiled testimony of the Early Church Fathers alone makes it worth the price.
Black has also given the lay Christian accessible information, enough so to remain confident in Scripture with the ever-increasing attacks from skeptics. It's short and an easy read; I got through it in one sitting. Highly recommended for anyone engaging in a survey or introductory study of the Gospels.
Read
September 6, 2016Proposes the "Fourfold Gospel Hypothesis," which posits Matthean priority, followed by Luke, Mark, and John. Derives his position by privileging the patristic evidence over literary evidence, although he analyzes the literary evidence to demonstrate how it can favor Matthean priority. An interesting and recommended read for those accustomed to the "assured results" of Markan priority in synoptic studies.
January 2, 2022
Certainly applaud anyone who defends Matthean priority from internal and patristic evidence. However, Black’s only proof that Peter relied on Luke’s Gospel for his lectures—which became the basis of Mark’s gospel—is Clement of Alexandria. This ignores the previous evidence of the Muratorian canon which records that Luke wrote third. Finally, he overturns the testimony of Origen, Irenaeus, and Papias, regarding the Aramaic original of Matthew, without any evidence besides his own assumptions and speculation.
November 30, 2011
This book was pretty much a classic defense of Matthean priority. Black puts nearly all of his eggs in the historical basket, building a defense for Matthean priority based upon the early church. While the testimony of the early church is valuable, I feel Black puts too much value on it. On the whole though this is a good book for someone looking to gain a perspective on Matthean priority.
July 2, 2014
Great study of Gospel origins
an excellent summary of the issues and defense of the priority of Matthew and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke in his composition
an excellent summary of the issues and defense of the priority of Matthew and that Mark used both Matthew and Luke in his composition
October 15, 2016
Chapter 3 == The Making of the Gospels, especially The Markan Synthesis, is most interesting.
January 21, 2017
Informative for a newbie: I never really appreciated why there are four distinct Gospels. Now I understand.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews