Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy

by C.E. Hill

The Bible contains four Gospels which tell the story of Jesus of Nazareth. And yet, many more Gospels once existed. Who, then, determined which Gospels would, for the next two thousand years, serve as the main gateways to Jesus and his teaching?
Recent books and films have traced the decision to a series of fourth-century councils and powerful bishops. After achieving victory over their rivals for the Christian name, these key players, we are now told, conspired to 'rewrite history' to make it look like their version of Christianity was the original one preached by Jesus and his apostles: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John became the prime tools for their re-sculpting of the Christian story, leading to the destruction of previously treasured writings like the Gospels of Judas, Mary, and Thomas. Are the four canonical Gospels, then, in the Bible as the result of a great, ecclesiastical conspiracy? Or does this explanation itself represent another 'rewriting of history', this time by a group of modern academics?
Who Chose the Gospels? takes us to the scholarship behind the headlines, examining the great (and ongoing) controversy about how to look at ancient books about Jesus. How the four Biblical Gospels emerged into prominence among their competitors is a crucial question for everyone interested in understanding the historical Jesus and the development of the Christian church.

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, History, Religion, Christianity, New Testament, Christian

308 pages, Paperback

First published September 30, 2010

Reviews

[Samuel Kassing · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a display of excellent and careful scholarship. If you want to see what's wrong with Bauer's and Ehrman's scholarship start here.

[Jose Ovalle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone interested in why Christians have & continue to stake their entire lives on words written 2,000 years ago needs to read this book. If you’re doubting the authenticity of scripture, read this book.

If you’ve ever heard history channel historians (which should be a paradox at this point) ever make the case that the Bible became the Bible through political maneuverings or the CoUnCiL of NiCaEa- read this book.

It is hilarious in it’s satirizing of these armchair historians, methodical in how it tears apart janky scholarship, detailed in its defense of the Gospels, and loving towards those curious or struggling with unbelief. Seriously, this book is a must read.

[Mitchell Dixon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was simply fantastic. D.A. Carson’s comment that “Not many books that are so informed are such a pleasure to read.” Holds very true. Hill is a vey engaging author and speaks against critics is a very winsome and charitable way while masterfully showing the weakness of their claims.

I was both impressed and saddened while reading this. Impressed by how much evidence is there to show a very early, possibly as early as 100 AD, date for a recognized canon of the 4 gospels. I was saddened because misinformation abounds in regards to this. I remember watching the Da Vinci Code as a boy and thinking Constantine has chosen the gospels.

This book has given me so much confidence in the text we have. No secret conspiracy was concocted to squash other Christian groups in the 2nd century, it was a self authenticating canon which was handed from the apostles.

I think this is a must read for anyone doubting the reliability of the Bible.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

How do we know there are only 4 Gospels? After all, aren't there other Gospels written around the same time, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas? Why not slap them into the New Testament with Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John?

Hill tackles this question, and he does a heck of a job. Liberal textual critics believe that those "other" gospels should be on equal footing with the big four. They also teach that the big four weren't decided upon until the 4th century. Hill points out that the early church fathers were unanimous that the 4 canonical gospels were the exclusive set. Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome and Origen all wrote of "the four". Hill says, "‘By the time Irenaeus wrote in about 180 AD, the fourfold Gospel was very well established". (I've read many of these quotes myself.)

The most exciting part of the book comes toward the end. Hill cites two early church traditions, one from Papias, and one from Origen. Both say the apostle John himself certified the fourfold Gospel within the first century. Taking all this into account, the conclusion that the orthodox four-fold Gospel is correct is hard to deny.

[Lance Crandall · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5!
Excellent book. Academic while remaining captivating, thorough and well-reasoned scholarship, witty and clever at points. I got slightly bogged down closer to the end, but came away with more confidence in why we have four, and only these four, Gospels as canon

[Zach Forehand]

Extremely helpful in understanding how the Gospels formed and how soon they began to circulate after the time of Jesus. Readable and not overly academic.

[Hobart · Rating 5 out of 5]

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---

All this presents a rather sticky problem. Recall that in Professor Ehrman’s political interpretation of church history it isn’t until the fourth century that the ‘orthodox’ party finally ‘sealed its victory over all of its opponents’, At that time ‘it rewrote the history of the engagement’, claiming that its views were passed down from Jesus’ apostles. And yet here is Irenaeus, nearly two centuries earlier, already ‘rewriting history’ long before the victory was sealed. At a time when, many prominent scholars insist, the issue was still very much in doubt, Irenaeus writes as if the church had been nurtured by these four Gospels from the time of the apostles.

The problem with Irenaeus is that he simply wrecks the popular paradigm. His views about the emerging New Testament canon, and about the four Gospels in particular, are simply too well-developed, too mature, to fit the scheme that many have invested themselves in today. As a second-century Christian author who argued that there are, and can only be, four legitimate Gospels—because they alone teach the truth about Jesus and because they alone had been handed down in the church from the time of the apostles—Irenaeus lies like a fallen Redwood in the path of those who would see the choice of the four Gospels as a late and politically motivated manoeuvre of the fourth century.

How do you solve a problem like Irenaeus?

WHAT'S WHO CHOSE THE GOSPELS? ABOUT?
That last question in the quotation would work pretty well as an alternate title for the book—how do you solve a problem like Iraneaus? Or, more to the point, how do you ignore his (early date) recognition of only 4 gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—despite what we're told about the state of gospel availability and canonization by so many today.

Hill examines some of the time frames, uses, content, and provenance of some of the so-called competitor gospels (i.e., those that never were considered canonical) to compare them to both the canonical gospels and those early figures of the Church we see discussing the gospels. But primarily, Hill is concerned with the use of and testimony regarding the canonical gospels—and the evidence regarding their use by the Church and when it started. The overwhelming bulk of the book is focused there.

So, we may now ask, how did the Christian church, apparent drowning in a sea of Gospels, finally end up with only four? The educated reader of today may already have come to the conch. sion that the story was attended with a good bit of bullying intrigue, and skullduggery. Many perhaps picture councils of bad-tempered bishops voting on which books to include in the Bible one minute, and voting to execute heretics the next. As now widely believed, in any case, that the four canonical Gospels emerged into prominence only fairly late from a long and drawnout battle within early Christianity, a battle finally won in the fourth century after the establishment of the church by Constantine the Great. While academics might not, as Teabing does Dan Brown’s novel, attribute the collation of the Bible to 'pagan emperor Constantine’, many even in the academic community insist that the question of which Gospels the church ought to endorse was still up for grabs in the fourth century.

He also looks a little bit at contemporary theories (both academic and popular) about the development of the canon—insofar as it focuses on the Gospels. He finds it wanting, and somewhat self-contradictory—and talks about that, too. But even as he does so, it's not the main focus of the book—which is, as said earlier, the four gospels and how the second (and possibly first) century church regarded them, and how that changed (and mostly didn't change) in the two centuries following.

THE TONE OF THE BOOK
You probably can't read it in the image above, but that top blurb is from D.A. Carson and it says, "Not many books that are so informed are such a pleasure to read." I really didn't pay much attention to it—and just figured he meant something about how nice it is to have such an informative read or something like that. If for no other reason, it was from Oxford University Press, who are not known for fun reads. I was super duper wrong.

This was a blast to read. Seriously, I had a lot of fun.

Not—and I want to stress, not—because he's making jokes, being silly, or outrageous or anything like that. There's just something about Hill's style. He's charming (seemingly effortlessly), not in a way that calls attention to itself, but it's there—a little mild sarcasm, some wordplay, some other bits of humor along the way—but it's nothing I can point to, and say "there it is!" But time after time while reading this, I found myself grinning for no apparent reason.

That's just his style—the subject is serious, and frankly, pretty dry. But Hill keeps it from being dry without tuning down the seriousness of both the positive case he's trying to build and the criticisms he makes toward the other side(s).

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT WHO CHOSE THE GOSPELS??

In short, we have no evidence that the church ever sat down collectively or as individual churches and composed criteria for jdging which Gospels (or other literature) it thought best suited its needs. On the contrary, the key realization which best explains our inability to find an ultimate ‘chooser’, which best explains why the church didn’t take the easy way out with some kind of singular Gospel and why it never cobbled together a set of criteria to apply to all the Gospel candidates, is that the church essentially did not believe it had a choice in the matter! The question ‘why did you choose these Gospels?’ would not have made sense to many Christians in the second century, for the question assumes that the church, or someone in it, had the authority to make the choice. To many, it would be like the question, ‘why did you choose your parents?

A few other books/chapters that I've read on the subject talk about the conclusions Hill draws, and refer to some of the evidence, but Hill's the first one I've read who's actually "shown the work," as my math teachers/professors would say. His answers match other scholars, but I can actually see how he got them. For that alone, I enjoyed reading this book and profited from it.

Add in his style? Oh, buddy—now we're cooking with fire.

Hill is careful and thorough, acknowledging challenges to his position about the emergence of the fourfold Gospel to the place it holds today. But he's consistent in showing how those challenges don't have the weight and merit that so many in our culture assume they do. Not to keep picking on it—but the authors/editors of Church History in Plain Language should spend time with this book and others like it before they finish the Sixth Edition—it would really help out with its particularly weak chapter on the Canon.

I think the concluding chapter could've been beefed up a little bit. Maybe after a few more readings, I can figure out what it was missing—I just felt it was weak here and there. Or another reading or two will show me that I could've paid better attention this time (entirely likely).

Regardless, Who Wrote the Gospels? is a book well worth time and attention—and it'll repay both.

[Derek Woodall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is extremely helpful in understanding the development of the canon; specifically, the four fold Gospel corpus. Questions like "how can we be confident the four Gospels we have are authoritative? How can we know they are the intended accounts of the Gospel God has given in the canon?", "how can we know there are only these four?", and more are answered in detail. After reading Hill's work, my understanding and confidence in the canonicity of the four Gospels in the New Testament has grown much stronger.

[Todd Stone · Rating 4 out of 5]

first book of Seminary. its short, only about 250 pages, but dense. I'd recommend it for anyone who wants to seriously deal with the historical origins of scripture, specifically the Gospels.

for an academic book it is an easier read, actually enjoyable at times.

[Robert Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an excellent, enjoyable destruction of the stupid Da Vinci Code arguments. Thoroughly enjoyable read, fact-filled and winsome. Highly recommend to all.

[Cleveland Thornton · Rating 1 out of 5]

The introductory course on the New Testament at the Southern Baptist Seminary has Who Chose the Gospels (WCTG) as required reading. Since SBCS is unapologetically evangelical, I wanted to know whether their theology affects the outcome of their research or whether they follow the evidence wherever it might lead concerning the Bible. I read Who Chose the Gospels to see. I concluded that the theology skewed the evidence and the conclusions and that Hill’s book is flawed.

What Hill is Refuting:

Hill references other writers for the proposition that there were dozens if not hundreds of gospels, including the four Gospels. Hill asserts that it is widely assumed by the public that the four gospels emerged into prominence only in the late fourth century after a drawn-out battle finally won by the church under Constantine and that it was not certain which Gospels turned out to be in the canon until the fourth century.

Hill says he will examine critically some of the foundation scholarship used to support and promote this “popular narrative” concerning how the church ended up with four gospels and examine how Ehrman, Pagels, and others make their case.

In addition to his book, Hill says in an article in the Huffington Post that his book WCTG is refuting conspiracy theories:

“Here is where the conspiracy theory comes in. This imbalance in the surviving data is explained by the winners' successful campaign to destroy as much of the counter evidence as they could. (Never mind that time and the elements would have destroyed most of them anyway, as they have destroyed most of what the winners tried to preserve.)”

Much of Hill’s critique are refutations of straw man arguments. Second, he gives “the Church” a lot of credit and authority. This is Hill’s main goal - to promote the authority of the gospels as being true because of the authority of the church.

It is important to remember that Hill is a theologian. Pagels and Ehrman are historians of Biblical literature. They are not theologians.

Your Mother Wears Combat Boots:

Hill belittle the accomplishments of Pagels and Ehrman. In the introduction, Hill notes that Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code is the cause of much confusion in the public’s mind about early Christianly. Hill disparages the National Geographic publication of the discovery of the Gospel of Judas.

Hill is conflating Pagels and Ehrman, scholars at least as accomplished as he if not more so, with a writer of fiction who is not a scholar. Another example of his belittling is in a footnote where Hill argues the Nag Hammadi discovery of other gospels is not important because it merely totals “about 1,000 papyrus pages tumbling out of an urn about two feet high” Hill calls this the “so-called” Nag Hammadi text.

What Hill can’t refute he belittles. It is not the “so-called Nag Hammadi text.” That is the actual name every scholar gives these texts. What the size of the urn has to do with anything is anyone's guess, but Hill again wants to belittle what he can’t refute.

The Papyri Argument:

Quoting Ehrman to the effect that most of the manuscript fragments found in various places are copies of other Gospels, Hill then asks, “Does [Ehrman]. . . really mean to claim that most of the earliest Gospel fragments discovered to date do not represent any of the familiar four?” Well, no. That is not at all what the quote by Ehrman says or means. Finding that Papyri include the famous four Gospels (famous four) does not mean they were popular or not popular or that they were well settled as the four Gospels in the canon in the second century. No one is arguing the Papyri don’t show the famous four, only that that they show a significant number of other gospels existing in the second century.

Hill conflates his argument about the famous four with the complete canon of the New Testament. Professor Dale B. Martin teaches the online course at Yale on Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature. (https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie...). The book that accompanies this course is New Testament History and Literature. The book notes:

“The first document that contains a canonical list of the New Testament that matches ours, that has the twenty-seven books of our Bible, dates from the year 367. It is an Easter letter by the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius.” Page 26.

This is the fourth century. Martin points out that inclusion of books into the canon, including the famous four, was based on the following criteria:

“Antiquity and proximity to Jesus. Those texts came to be canonical that were believed to be the most ancient and to have had the closest proximity to Jesus.

Popularity in general use and geography. Apparently, the texts that were the most popular over a larger geographic area tended to be those that were accepted eventually as canonical. If many Christians in many places revered a document and used it in their churches, it would be difficult to deny their use of it as scripture in the liturgy. There were different gospels that seem to have been popular in different geographical regions. Literature about Thomas, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas, seems to have been especially popular in Syria and other regions of the East. But as time went on, it seems that Christian leaders attempted to honor as canonical those Gospels and documents that were more generally accepted.

Doctrine and theology. Perhaps the most important criterion was theological acceptability. The development of the canon was part of the development of Christian doctrine and theology, including what was being accepted as “orthodox” and what was being rejected as “heretical.” We therefore find Christians rejecting documents by pointing out what they consider its theological errors. They reject books that are the favorites of their theological opponents, whom they label “heretics.” …

Those Christians in the second and third centuries whose beliefs resembled what later would become orthodox Christianity—the Christian doctrines and theology expressed in the great councils that created the major creeds such as those of Nicea and Chalcedon—were the ones who had the greatest impact on what became a book of the Bible and what did not. In the end, the canon is a list of the winners in the historical debate to define orthodox Christianity.”

Page 31-32

Thus, the famous four as well as the other books of the New Testament had to be popular and conform to a theological criterion. Martin here is talking about the entire New Testament. But no exception is made for the famous four.

Martin goes on to say:

“It may appear cynical to suggest that Christians included those documents they considered theologically appropriate. Once we make that point, we have to ask, “Appropriate to whom?” And that, of course, raises the historical hypothesis that the establishing of the Christian canon was a matter of “who won the theological-political battle for the title ‘orthodoxy.’ ” In the second century, there was no clear line between established orthodoxy and rejected heresy. The diversity of early Christianity predates any later consensus about orthodoxy and thus predates any stability of “canon.”

Page 32

Number of Papyrus fragments:

Hill's arguments on papyrus fragments are convoluted. Scholars have disagreements as to the dates of papyrus fragments. He also conflates arguments about the entire canon of the New Testament with the famous four. Since no scholar argues that the famous four Gospels are not in the early papyrus record, Hills argument about which gospel has the most fragments when scholars disagree seems irreverent and more likely to confuse than edify.

Christian Authorities of the Period:

Hill admits that the manuscript discoveries give an incomplete picture of the state of the Gospel literature of the period. He, therefore, says that writings of Christian authors of the period of every theological strip must be included.

When Hill says “Christian authors”, he means the ones that were the proto-orthodox thinkers of their day. He does not consider the authors of the newly discovered Gospels and other writings to be Christian. But of course, in the second and third century, they were as much Christian as the proto-orthodox thinkers.

Here Hill proves the point he is trying to refute. Using Irenaeus and other thinkers as somehow being more authoritative than the other writers of the Gospels or other Christian writers because they were part of the church as it existed in the second and third centuries is simply to prove the arguments made by Martin, Ehrman, and Pagles – that there were other Christians and other Gospels other than the famous four and that there was a great debate about them among people who considered themselves Christian. The church Hill is talking about had Bishops and others figures of authority and was based in Rome. They decided what was read at their services and what was not. They were the proto-orthodox who became the orthodox church. But they were not the only Christians.

For this reason, the famous four were popular in the proto-orthodox church. But that does not refute the idea that other Gospels were famous, popular, and considered Christian. It is, however, why other gospel writings were not chosen to be in the canon or part of the famous four. These other Gospels were not allowed to be read or likely kept around in the proto-orthodox church. That is the working assumption of why the Nag Hamadi texts were buried in a cave. The cave is near the Pachomian monastery near Nag Hammadi. Some speculate that since Athanasius and others insisted that “heretical” books not be read that the monks of Pachomian hid the books instead of burning them.

The Great Conspiracy:

Hill mischaracterizes the arguments of Pagels, Ehrman, and most other Biblical scholars as saying that there were war-like arguments that included the burning of books and the like. There was a very strong and heated debate among the proto-orthodox Christians and the Gnostic and other Christians during the second and third century.

Ehrman says in his book The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press, a widely used college textbook:

“Thus by the beginning of the second century, some Christians were ascribing authority to the words of Jesus and the writings of his apostles. There were nonetheless heated debates concerning which apostles were true to Jesus’ own teachings (cf. Marcion and the Jewish Christians on Paul), and a number of writings that claimed to be written by apostles were thought by some Christians to be forgeries.”

What conspiracy? That early Christians argued with each other? But Christians argued even in the New Testament itself. See Paul’s letter to the Galatians where there was an argument in Paul’s own church that he founded as to whether Gentiles (non-jews) had to become Jews to be “Christian.”

Ehrman notes in his book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, that:

“When we move the calendar forward twenty years to Jesus’ outspoken apostle, Paul, we find a comparable situation, only now the “internal” conflicts involve battles within the Christian community, founded after Jesus’ death. Every church that Paul established appears to have become embroiled in turmoil. His letters were meant to solve the problems. Throughout these letters we find harsh and forthright opposition to false teachers.” Page 160

Irenaeus:

Hill’s own arguments here refutes his premise. The treatise by Irenaeus called Against Heresies is full of robust arguments against the so-called heresies of the Gnostic and other Christians with whom he disagrees. Hill argues, citing Graham Stanton, that the four Gospels were well established by the year 189 CE. But what he means is that they were established within the proto-orthodox community. That is not the same as saying that there were no other Gospels, such as the Gnostic Gospels, that were not also well established but outside the proto-orthodox community. No scholar argues that the famous four were not well known in the first and second century. They only argue that there were other Gospels that were widely circulated during that same period and that the issue was not settled.

On Page 57 Hill argues that Pagels and others assert that Irenaeus ordered the destruction and perhaps the burning of books. Hill notes that nowhere in Against Heresies or any other surviving book does Irenaeus order or advise destroying books. The problem is that Pagels and others don’t say he did, and Hill cites nothing to support his argument. As Ehrman explains in his textbook The New Testament, A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings:

“The “proto-orthodox” Christians represent the forerunners … of the group that became the dominant form of Christianity in later centuries. When this group later acquired more converts than any of the others and stifled its opposition, it claimed that its views had always been the majority position and that its rivals were, and always had been, “heretics,” who willfully “chose” … to reject the “true belief” ….

We ourselves can use the term “proto-orthodox” only in retrospect, since the adherents of this position did not actually know that their views would become dominant, nor did they think of themselves as forerunners of believers to come later; like all the other groups of their day, they simply saw themselves as the true Christians. The story of their victory over their opponents is fascinating, but aspects of it are hotly debated among modern-day scholars.

Some historians think that the proto-orthodox beliefs were original to Christianity, others maintain that they developed over time. Some scholars claim that the protoorthodox had always been in the majority throughout Christendom, others think that other forms of Christianity were predominant in many parts of the Mediterranean (e.g., Jewish Christians in parts of Palestine, Gnostics in parts of Egypt and Syria, Marcionites in Asia Minor). Fortunately, we do not need to resolve these thorny problems here.

The proto-orthodox position, then, attempted to counteract the claims of the groups that they opposed. In part, this meant that the proto-orthodox group had to reject some documents that claimed to be written by apostles but that advanced beliefs contrary to their own, for example, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Philip, or the Gospel of Thomas, all of which appeared to support Gnostic perspectives. Some of the writings used by the opposing groups, though, were quite popular among the proto-orthodox Christians as well.” Ehrman at 11

One might also ask Hill if the famous four were so well established, why did Irenaeus feel the need to write Against Heresies?

As an aside, although Hill wants to believe that Irenaeus and the other church fathers were just making vigorous arguments and not burning books, one must in fairness note that five years after Christianity became a state religion with the decree of Theodosiusa a man named Priscillian was executed as a heretic in about 389 CE. If you will execute a person because they have the wrong beliefs, throwing out or burning a few heretical books does not seem far-fetched, despite what Hill says.

Hill is letting his faith affect his analysis. He wants to argue that the famous four are the correct Gospels and the word of God because they somehow have some authority that the other Gospels do not. But in the final analysis, that is faith and not evidence.

For example, Hill does not emphasize that Irenaeus and the other proto-orthodox Christians thought Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were written by two of the apostles and the other two by someone close to them. Ehrman shows, and almost all scholars agree, that:

“The first four books are “Gospels,” …The four Gospels of the New Testament proclaim the good news by telling stories about the life and death of Jesus—his birth, ministry, miracles, teaching, last days, crucifixion, and resurrection. These books are traditionally ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Proto-orthodox Christians of the second century claimed that two of these authors were disciples of Jesus: Matthew, the tax collector mentioned in the First Gospel (Matt 9:9), and John, the beloved disciple who appears in the Fourth (e.g., John 19:26). The other two were reportedly written by associates of famous apostles: Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. This second-century tradition does not go back to the Gospels themselves; the titles in our Bibles (e.g., “The Gospel according to Matthew”) were not found in the original texts of these books. Instead, their authors chose to remain anonymous.”

All Biblical scholars agree that the famous four Gospels were anonymous, don’t themselves claim to be written by anyone, are not eye-witness accounts, were written long after Jesus’s death, are both inconsistent and contradictory in several important theological respects, were written in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic, and were written outside of Palestine. We also know that what is in these and other Gospels are based on oral tradition and other writings now lost. It may be that Hill thinks these ideas are irrelevant and that faith, handed down, is the criteria. On page 230 of WCTG Hill says:

“Christian writers often spoke of their Gospels (and other books) as handed down to them. Christian writers of the second century do not speak of choosing the Gospels, or of the criteria they might have created for making such choices. This is not the way they thought. When speaking of the church’s part in the process they instead use words like ‘receive’, ‘recognize’, ‘confess’, ‘acknowledge’, and their opposites. Just like the faith itself, which had been ‘received from the apostles and transmitted to its children’…, so the Gospels themselves were ‘handed down to the church by the same apostles…. Irenaeus contrasts the Gospel of Truth to ‘those [Gospels] which have been handed down to us from the apostles’.”

Hill notes that the others claim their Gospels are titled Christian and are claimed to be transmitted from the same apostles. He argues, however, that the famous four are really the right and correct Gospels because they promote a monotheistic god and that the famous four are “embedded” in the Palestine of Jesus’s time. One might ask what the Trinity was all about if it was not to refute the claims that Christians worshiped three gods. Certainly, most non-Christians thought Christians worshiped three gods and the New Testament says nothing about the Trinity but does mention the Holy Ghost, the Jewish god, and Jesus, but as wholly separate beings.

The point here is that Hill is making a faith argument and not one based on an analysis of historical evidence. It is a proto-orthodox argument and is based on the assumed authority of “the church” and its founding fathers.

It would be better if the students at the Southern Baptist Seminary read Bart Ehrman’s textbook on Biblical History rather than Hill’s book WCTG. WCTG is a book essentially about faith and tries to inoculate its students against what scholars who do not have a faith-based analysis would conclude. One would think Hill’s students would lose their faith if they actually looked at the evidence. Most scholars of Biblical history are Christian and agree with Ehrman, not Hill.

For the general reader, I would check out the Yale online course Introduction to the New Testament https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie.... The accompanying book mentioned above is very useful, as well and can be obtained from Amazon.

I would also check out the PBS series From Jesus to the Christ, which can be viewed on YouTube at https://youtu.be/JN8FM1NCOSk and https://youtu.be/GXqFvfCaFwY

[Brian Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fictional claims of Dan Brown, the sensationalized claims of Bart Ehrman, and the more scholarly arguments of Lee Martin McDonald, Ehrman, and others have promoted the idea of an early Christian movement notable for theological diversity. According to this storyline, the imposition of orthodoxy and a church-dictated canon of Scriptures stifled the creative diversity of the early church. Hill challenges this view by demonstrating that it is based on faulty methodology, overstatements, and sloppy handling of the evidence.

For instance, one scholar claims that "gospels were breeding like rabbits" (2). Yet that scholar finally lists only nine non-canonical gospels that have been discovered. This scholar calls his listing "partial." Hill notes, "It is not unlikley that more Gospels might have circulated before 175. But if they once existed, they have left no record, even in later lists of books to be avoided" (8).

Since Irenaeus provides an early testimony to the four-gospel canon, scholars promoting a late canon must marginalize him as an aberration (and not very nice, to boot). But Hill documents at least eight theologians (some of note) close to the time of Irenaeus who share his four gospel canon (Hill also argues that Irenaeus wasn't as mean as some people make him out to be).

Having established that Irenaeus and the church of his era did have a four-gospel canon, Hill then works his way back by looking the citations of the four gospels and non-canonical works in the church fathers, gospel harmonies, and even the writings of the non-orthodox to demonstrate that evidence for the four gospel canon extends back to the early second century. Hill is fair in his interpretations of the evidence, noting when some of it is not as clear or a certain as other evidence.

So, to restate the title question, Who chose the Gospels? Hill's answer to that question toward the end of the book is worth quoting at length:

"Who, then, first chose the Gospels, if it wasn't anybody in the fourth century? It wasn't Origen, Tertullian, or Hippolytus in the first half of the third century, or Clement of Alexandria or Serapion at the end of the second. It wasn't even Irenaeus or anyone writing in the last quarter of the second century. All these had inherited the same four Gospels from previous generations.

"It wasn't Tatian in Rome or Syria or Theophilus in Antioch. . . . It wasn't Justin Martyr, who by the early 150s in Rome was using the same four Gospels, and treating evidently only these four as 'Memoirs of the Apostles,' composed by the apostles and their followers . . .

"The evidence brings us, then, to an earlier time. But how much earlier? While the date prior to 150 are not quite so clear, the four Gospels are known as authoritative sources in the Epistle of the Apostles and the Apocryphon of James in the 140s. Papias, probably in the 120s, knows all four; Aristides, at about the same time, knows 'the Gospel' in multiple individual written expression, including Luke and John, and a decade earlier Ignatius knows at least Matthew and John. And sometime around the year 100 Papias' elder discusses the origins of Matthew and Mark, and, if the argument summarized in chapter 10 is near the mark, Luke and John as well.

"How is it that these four Gospels came to be known so widely from such an early time? There was certainly no great council of Christian churches before 150 which laid down the law on which Gospels to use. No single bishop, not even the bishop of Rome, should he ever have made such a proclamation (and there is no reason to think he did), had the clout to make it stick. If there was any authoritative figure who endorsed the four Gospels, the most viable option would have to be, as a tradition known to Origen and possibly Papias' elder said, the aged apostle John. Such a story is a long, long way from historical verification, though that fact in itself does not make it impossible.

"But if we set aside that story as likely to be legendary, our search appears to have reached a dead-end. We cannot find who chose the Gospels. It looks like nobody did. They almost seem to have chosen themselves through some sort of 'natural selection.' And this at least concurs with the conclusion of Bruce Metzger, one of the last generation's premier scholars of the New Testament canon, who wrote, 'neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to recognize and acknowledge the self0authenticating quality of these writings which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church" (227-29).

The idea of self-authenticating Scriptures may not sit well with some, but Hill notes that this best with the way the early Christians spoke about the gospels: "Christian writers of the second century do not speak of choosing the Gospels or of the criteria they might have created for making such choices. This is not the way they thought. When speaking of the church's part in the process they instead use works like 'receive,' recognize,' 'confess,' 'acknowledge,' and their opposites" (231).

In sum, Hill's believing stance, tight argumentation, and engaging writing style made this one of the best books I've read this year. As an added benefit, I think it makes a marvelous case study in presuppositional apologetics that makes good use of evidences (though I must admit that I do not know how Hill would self-identify in terms of apologetic method).

[Rex Blackburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great treatment of the title question: "Who chose the Gospels?"
Hill basically tackles the notion that the 4-fold Gospel canon was the product of some sort of mysterious and nefarious cabal, only interested in using the Gospels to gain political power. He backtracks through the early centuries of the Church, demonstrating how Christians into even the early second (and possibly first) centuries understood that they had 'received' these Gospels from authoritative, eyewitness, and apostolic sources.

Great job, I look forward to referencing this in the future as these sorts of questions are raised.

[Eddie Mercado · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book. A worthwhile read for those who question whether the Biblical Canon (in particular the New Testament books) were compiled by a group of people with ulterior motives, or if the books of the Bible were organically adopted by the Church from a very early stage, thus being recognized as canon (to the exclusion of other books).

[Nathanael Jager · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an exceptional dive into the history of the fourfold Gospel Corpus. Hill does an excellent job creating a work that is enjoyable to read and informative. He presents multiple examples for each of his points and is honest when a proof may be flimsy or a stretch. Informative and not too complex, a great introduction for the topic.

[Drew Watkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterpiece. I must echo D. A. Carson’s review on the front cover, that this book is both “so informed” and “such a pleasure to read.”

[Raymond Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent scholarly approach to the Gospels. The book is short and engaging, yet makes very compelling arguments backed up with solid research.

The fundamental premise is that the final selection of the Gospels was not necessarily the result of power politics pushing our more common writings representing alternative views - but was rather a more inevitable selection of dominant teachings.

The author builds the case steadily and offers a good counter-balance to more popular (or conspiratorial) views regarding the ultimate canon of the Gospels.

He saves the answer for the end - but it is interesting that it may have in fact been the author of the Gospel of John that brought the 4 main Gospels together for the ages.

Very interesting read for those seeking the historical view of Christianity.
Ray

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

An accessible book compared to a lot of academic texts, but one that isn't lacking in well-researched information. It is presented as an answer to the conspiracy theories that have abounded over the choosing of the canonical gospels, and as such can be slightly combative in places. However, that said, it both points to holes in the arguments of those who hold to a 4thC choosing of the gospels by 'the winners', and argues very ably for a well-attested use of the four canonical gospels right through the 2ndC, not only in use, but in use in a way that other gospels were not. I feel the book is let down a little by his last chapter, which while a theory that fits his argument throughout the book, is pure conjecture and unlikely to ever be provable. I like it though - but as a 'what if, it could just be...'

Oh, now don't you want to know what he suggests at the end?

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would like to have rated this book higher, as the author has much good information and reasoned scholarship on the origin of the canonical gospels. However, there is a lot of bile expressed toward "some scholars", who seemingly have argued in favor of a supposed "conspiracy" by 4th-5th century politicians and churchmen to have "chosen" the gospels. One cannot help feeling after reading this book--including the footnotes--that the real problem for this author (and a few other conservative schilars I have recently read) is that Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels have been much more successful in reaching the general public with their writings and that they have sold a lot more books!

[Rudolph Boshoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for any Biblical Scholar & Christian. The central theme Dr Hill postulates was to research ancient history and especially the way in which the earliest Church Fathers perceived and viewed the four canonical Gospels. The central axis resolves the whole idea that the Four Gospels were a later collection of biographies and seemingly dictates that it was a know idea that the four distinct from all other "pseudepigraphal Gospels" were seen as uniquely divinely inspired as well as collectively authoritative! A must read!

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hill provides a solid set of arguments for the historicity and canonicity of the four Gospels. He sometimes leans a little too much on conjecture as he brings the book to a conclusion. Nevertheless the book, as a whole, if full of useful information for those wanting a more solid foundation on the canonicity of the Gospels.

[Grant Hartley · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Who Chose the Gospels? C. E. Hill tackles the question of the formation of the four-Gospel canon of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. More specifically, he addresses the pushback from scholars of early Christianity who claim the four-Gospel canon was only established in the fourth century, and that before then there existed a multitude of Gospels (representing radically different visions of the Christian faith) all up for consideration as authoritative in the Church. He claims this understanding of early Christianity is not only unsupported by the facts, but also relies on fanciful speculation.

Hill begins with papyri discoveries of early Christian texts: in both the second and third century, “remnants of canonical Gospels outnumber remnants of non-canonical ones at least somewhere between two (plus) to one and three (plus) to one, and perhaps closer to four to one” (p. 18). But in addition to content, the form of these papyrus discoveries sheds light on canon formation. “It is a curious fact that all of our early copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written on codices,” not scrolls (p. 26). The popularity of the codex among early Christians supports a four-Gospel canon. Because codices were able to hold more material than scrolls, Christians were able to keep the four canonical Gospels packaged together, as well as produce gospel harmonies and synopses (additional evidence). While there is strong evidence for four-Gospel codices in the early centuries, there is no evidence of canonical gospels being bound together with non-canonical ones (p. 116-17, 121).

He examines the work of Irenaeus in the second century, considered by many scholars of early Christianity to be a “bold innovator” in his recognition of a four-Gospel canon. What Hill shows, however, is that the “conspiracy” alleged of him, to weed out the proliferance of possible Gospels into the modest modern canon, is one that goes back even further in time. Hill moves backward, examining other sources which support a four-Gospel canon, from Clement of Alexandria, Serapian of Antioch, and the Muratorian Fragment (ch. 4), Tatian’s Diatessaron (ch. 5), Justin Martyr (ch. 6-7), the authors of The Apocryphon of James and the Epistle to the Apostles and Aristides of Athens (ch. 8), the Apostolic Fathers and the Didache (ch. 9), and finally to a couple passages from Eusebius in the early fourth century, quoting Papias from the early century, speaking of a tradition from even earlier, which tantalizingly suggests an “arch-conspirator”: the apostle John himself (ch. 10). Along the way, argues each source (with the exception of the apostle John) minimally knew of a four-Gospel canon, and maximally, possessed a copy, either because these sources mention the four Gospels by name, or seem to quote material from them.

Hill ultimately concludes that the question of who chose the gospels might actually be misguided, because it seems just as likely that the Gospels chose themselves: the teachings of the apostles that they passed on were immediately recognized as authoritative and incorporated into the life of the Church due to their self-attesting qualities (p. 231, 241-46). But his earlier suggestion, that the apostle John himself knew of the three other Gospels, authorized them, and supplemented them with his own account, and that therefore the apostles were understood to have the authority to choose the Gospel canon, is never totally taken off the table. Indeed, Hill mentions the report of Papias found in Eusebius’ Gospel According to the Hebrews and a passage from Origen’s Homilies on the Gospel of Luke, which “assign the ‘canonization’ to John [who] ‘welcomed’ or ‘recognized’” the other three Gospels (p. 224). One is left to wonder which answer to the original question should be emphasized: did the four Gospels choose themselves? Were they chosen by the apostles, or even the apostle John in particular? Or is it somehow both?

Hill’s overall argument is solid: reasonable, drawn from the sources themselves, relying on only minimal and modest guesswork. He shows how the arguments of those who wish to assert the late (fourth century) formation of a four-Gospel canon rely on much less likely hypothetical scenarios, and that a look at the bare facts can lead one rather quickly into supporting a much earlier date. It is an invaluable resource for those who are unsettled by the common assertions that the four canonical gospels were just four among many, that there was an elaborate “Gospel conspiracy” to weed them down, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John represent, not true eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but merely the accounts which those in power wished to platform and authorize. These assertions do not stand up to scrutiny.

But it is perhaps his final step--arguing that the Gospels must in the end be taken as a “primary premise” or “first principle” (p. 242)--that is least likely to work in a secular university religion class. It is an argument that only those who are convinced (or who at the very least wish to be convinced) would be willing to accept. But all the reasoning leading up to this final leap is strong, and adds much support to the early formation of a four-Gospel canon. At the very least, it leads one (even one uncommitted to the Christian faith) to concede that the four-Gospel canon was fairly widely known at the beginning of the second century, and possibly formed toward the end of the first (shortly after the Gospel of John was composed). With this case made, a reader would do well to take Hill’s (and Augustine’s) advice: “tolle lege, take up and read” (p. 246).

[Jeremy Mueller · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars: This book seemed like it had a target audience of exactly 64 people (or however many scholars engage in the work of gospel-critical studies). “Who Chose the Gospels?” was well written, deftly researched, and persuasive, but I’m not sure how helpful of a book it will be for anyone except those who think Irenaeus (and/or another church father) chose the gospels.

[Troy Gibson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This books should (but won't) put to rest all the mythology and conspiracy theories regarding the four-fold gospel standard that Christians embrace.

[Zach Barnhart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conspiracy is entertainment. Netflix continues to find profitability in producing multiple documentaries and shows that pride themselves on suspicion, helping viewers “see through things.” Video clips go viral, tweets begin trending, and memes become social media fodder. Couple our penchant for conspiracy with matters of religion, and we have ourselves something sensational.

However, C.E. Hill’s interest in Who Chose The Gospels? is not to tell a riveting story, but to tell a true story (and remarkably, the truth is quite riveting itself!). Hill does not set out to invite the reader into further speculation and suspicion, but to square the “conspiracy theories” against the evidential truth. His goal is to ask the question, “On what bases do scholars such as Ehrman, Petersen, and Pagels make their cases?” and “test them against the evidence” to determine his answer (4). The central question at hand concerning these Gospels is when they attained their canonical status, to which Hill devotes the rest of his book in search of (6).

Perhaps the most convincing part of Hill’s arguments is how he lets the evidence speak for itself. As the first chapter title indicates, “the proof is in the papyri.” The way he explains the ratios that favor the canonical Gospels compared to the non-canonical Gospels proves convincing (17-18). Perhaps the most lopsided victory for the canonical Gospels are the findings in codex form, which is nearly ten-to-one (28). Hill rightly contends that one cannot play the “conspiracy” card in light of the papyrus discoveries, as “the papyri are, in this sense, ‘conspiracy killers’” (21).

Evidence aside, it is the people behind the evidence that are often subjected to critical suspicion, and every conspiracy needs a good scapegoat. A notable example is Irenaeus, who is lambasted as an “axe-happy frontiersman” who set out to create his own four-pillar Gospel canon (42). Hill demonstrates that is quite a leap and “logically uncompelling” to critique Irenaeus for his attention to the harmony of a four-fold Gospel, and that he is far from the only voice who ascribes authority to a four-fold Gospel. The rise of the four-fold Gospel is not owing to one’s pushing his agenda to “compel…believers to subject themselves to the four-fold Gospel,” based on the witness of other men like Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Euplus, and more (44-51). Interestingly, even someone like Clement, who expresses more toleration of apocraphyl Gospels and might be considered opposed to Irenaeus, clearly shows in his writing that there are only four canonical Gospels (74). I personally found Chapter 7 on Justin Martyr and his “co-conspirators” to be one of the most fascinating in the book. Justin Marytr’s engagement with opponents in his writings actually shows a convincing embrace of the Gospels as four-fold, for both the believer and the unbeliever. In Hill’s words, “These books were so well known that an outside had no problem ascertaining which ones they were and then finding copies of them” (157).

After spending a great deal of time looking the evidence in the face, and then considering the important players in church history, Hill finally circles back to his original question. Who chose the Gospels? Hill’s answer is fitting. “It looks like nobody did” (229). Perhaps the one area that I experienced some confusion was at Hill’s suggestion of John as the “earliest canonizer” of the four Gospels (224), though later he concludes we have nothing but “inability to find an ultimate ‘chooser’” (231).

Regardless, Hill’s prevailing point is important. The self-attestation of the four-fold Gospels is enough and stands on its own. “What set the four Gospels apart for most was…the contents of these Gospels that commended them” (235). The four evangelists, shoulders above any other contemporary, preach and teach a real Jesus Christ who has really come, fully human and fully divine, who has really died and really risen again. Hill recognizes it does not make for a great Hollywood script, or a conspiracy theory to occupy the talking heads. But his parting exhortation to read the works for oneself is the best defense he can provide.

For a book that gets into the weeds with ancient papyrus fragments and stuffy theological treatises, Hill’s writing style is laced with humor, light-heartedness, and refreshing simplicity. Hill is not out to be his own “axe-happy frontiersman” of sorts, nor does he write with a kind of distant, uninvolved criticism that fails to actually enter the current conversation. Hill’s assessment of the issue at hand makes for a balanced, fair, and well-researched contribution to the question of canon.

[Pig Rieke · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title is deceptive and provocative; however, the contents are orthodox and plain. Hills book consists of a strong historical (and partially theological) defense for orthodoxy in regards to the Church receiving the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the Word of God. The issue that this book centrally addresses is the Church’s reception of the Gospels from their origin to the 3rd Century. Hill proves persuasively that the Gospels we have with us today are not the result of conspiracy theory, natural selection, a council, or the like; rather, the Church has always received (and not chosen) them as the very Word of God.

Furthermore, Hill proves that although other gospels existed, the Church has always held these four as the apostolic witness to Christ and that none of these other gospels ever were significantly used or circulated among followers of Christ. Again, Hill explains and persuasively defends that this is not because the Church exercised its right to chose which texts to use; rather, just as children must receive their God given parents, God’s people have always acknowledged the four fold Gospel as God speaking through the Apostles and their close associates.

As far as recommending the book, it’s target audience is very very limited. It is extraordinary well written, but again, the only person I would hardly recommend this book to is those interested in how the Church came to receive the Gospels as Scripture.

[Drew Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’m no fan of organized religion, but I’m a fan of the history behind organized religion. I’m interested in how and why these beliefs came into being and spread. As is, I don’t read religious books so much as I read books about religion. The Easter season, while loaded with documentaries and films, also gives rise to an inspiration to read. Searching through my collection of eBooks, I picked C.E. Hill’s 2010 work, Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. I made it through, barely, as there were many points I came close to putting it down for good. Not because it’s “so bad,” but boring...

To read the rest of this review go to https://drewmartinwrites.wordpress.co...

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Class reading for: Introduction to the New Testament I with Jonathan Pennington (SBTS).

Hill is a very enjoyable writer! Covers a challenging topic but is very enjoyable to read. Hill is a great guide through early church history and how the gospels were ‘received’ as authoritative and the only four gospels that should be in the New Testament canon. Final chapter is very helpful conclusion and a good summary!

[Braley Chambers · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most entertaining read I have read in seminary thus far. Hill does a great job of showing why there are only 4 gospels and why their "selection" wasn't arbitrary. The four Gospels weren't "chosen" by the early church but "received" by the church fathers likely from the apostles themselves. If you love books that crush conspiracy theories, this is for you.

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read especially for the conservative Christian to reinforce their trust in the NT.

He combats the theories of liberal scholarship that elevates the gnostic gospels (Thomas, Judas, Peter, etc) as equally valid as Matthew Mark Luke and John

My confidence in the NT and the choice of the early church in the 4 canonical gospels has been strengthened.

Highly recommend