With thanks to Dave Black and Energion Publications for this review copy.
Professor Davd Black, of South Eastern Baptist Seminary, would have to one of the nicest scholars I have come across online. He is passionately pastoral in all aspects of his ministry. His blog is littered with stories of people and the country that consumes his heart, Ethiopia. I watched a snippet of his Greek teaching DVDs and the passion with which this man teaches Greek is astounding! With this in mind I received Dave’s book with some trepidation because I knew his view of the Synoptic Gospels differed somewhat to my own. I wondered how I might disagree with someone so nice! 😉
Why Four Gospels is not only readable in style it is also the perfect size for any pastor or student. At only 106 pages it is packed full of good scholarship, a reasonable hypothesis and retainable information. The book is divided into three main chapters:
- “The Development of the Gospels”
- “The Origins of the Gospels”
- “The Making of the Gospels”
At the heart of Black’s thesis lies Matthean priori. His argument is based primarily upon the patristic witnesses. In chapter one Black provides his historical hypothesis of how he believes the church came to accept the four Gospels. In chapter two he shows how he believes the Patristic witness provides, and proves, Matthean proiri while also pointing us in the direction of why the Gospels were written. In chapter three Black explains how the Gospels came into being. In this chapter Black provides a reasonable account of the events and situations which led to each Gospel being written.
Over the coming weeks I will provide a summary of each chapter and my thoughts on Blacks findings, to be known as “Black Tuesday”. I do not feel I am at a level where I can critique Professor Black’s view with any real academic credibility. I can however, respond as a minister and this is the task I will devote myself to. Therefore, I will be providing reflections and thoughts which arose during my reading of the text as opposed to a scholarly critique.
In short, I’m not sure I agree with everything Black says but he certainly provides some rather compelling arguments for the Patristic evidence and against the Markan priori hypothesis. Having said that he is well on his way to convincing me. I found Black’s historical hypothesis a little too neat for my liking (see chapter one). However, I found his evidence for Matthean priori and origins of the Gospels compelling. His critique of the enlightenment is, in my opinion, spot on!
As someone who has for years bungled around the first four books of the New Testament wishing he knew more about how they came into being (having been told early on that they were written as Jesus ministered) I found myself reading this book and wishing someone had put it so simply (as Black does). This little book would be the perfect primer for a first year Ministry/Theology student. If someone in my church wanted to know more about how the Gospels came to be in the New Testament then I would have no hesitation in recommending this book to them.
There will be many, the more historically sceptical types, who will dismiss Black’s scholarship and hypothesis. Nevertheless, I believe Black raises some important questions for Biblical scholars and ministers to consider, as Richard Bauckham has also done. I can highly recommend this book!
More anon!
the archives near Emmaus 
I read this about a month ago, and liked it alot.
As the publisher of this book, I’m delighted to see your review begin. I’ll be reading your reflections and linking to you from our publisher web site. I value discussion of books on the biblioblogs.
I put some of my own thoughts on this book in my post Coloring Outside the Lines. Some of my reactions were the same as yours. Note that I generally post a personal reflection on books my company publishes, in which authors will find out whether I agree or not. The value of a book does not reside in my agreement with its thesis!
I look forward to reading your review. I know Matthean priority is the oldest, traditional view, but Markan priority has such good arguments!
Brian, once you read Black, you have trouble going back. You start to see a lot of holes in the Markan prioity arguments… after reading Black – the burden of proof now lies on the Markan priori folk…
This fall I will have a class on the Synoptics. I will give attention to it then. Thanks for recommending this book!
Thanks, Mark! I’ll definitely be checking out this book. I have always leaned Matthean priority. Just because there are probably more arguments for Markan priority, does not make it so 😉 ! “Q” has always bothered me, like evidence in search of a theory 😉 .
@ Henri, thank you!
@ Brian L – One of the things Black does is critique the enlightenment and show how he beleives Markan priori is not as strong an argument as one might think. Its as if we have been trained to think that way not evualute the evidence. i don’t know, jury is still out for me. Having said that, our oldest sources seem to point to Matthean priori. What I don’t understand is why they are not supposedly trustworthy when there are so many of them!
@ Bobby – I have always thought of Q as the other sources not one source in particular. I am with you, seems to neat!
Thanks guys!
@Mark: Well, if the idea began somewhere and our sources can be traced back to one misguided assertion that this gospel was first it would explain why it was the common belief. I am not saying this happened, but I just can’t get my mind around why Mark would do a redaction rather than Matthew an expansion.
@Brian,
Why do they have to be seen as an organic whole like this; I mean where does the assumption come from that the Synoptics (besides the name of Synoptics that they’ve been given) must be so reliant upon each other (as far as their disparate composition)? Obviously they share the same stories, and themes, etc.; but does this then necessitate that they are then related in the causal ways usually suggested (and argued)? I think that sewing the synoptics together in the way that they usually are is more of a modernist project of shucking the husk to get to the kernel that has supposedly shaped all 3 Synoptics. It’s a way to give us “critics” a position wherein we can sit over the Text with scientific precision (I may be overstating a bit, I don’t know 😉 ).
Anyway, just some reflection (it’s been awhile since I’ve done any textual critical stuff).
@Bobby: I don’t assume an organic whole, per se. I do have a hard time ignoring the similarities in language. When narratives can be told in such a way that there are many of the same words and structures being used it seems likely to me that someone had access to another. This isn’t strange, especially since the author of the Third Gospel claims to have sifted through various sources.
I don’t see this as resulting in the search for a kernel. I am just looking at the development of the literature.
@Brian,
I wasn’t saying that you were doing this, personally. My only point, really, is that I’m not as sold on the idea that there was some sort of testimonia that the Synoptic authors were sharing as a source for their material. I’m speaking more to how an idea like “Q” ever arose in the first place. Ultimately it doesn’t bother me if this is how it actually played out either though 🙂 .