This important book on the authorship of the gospels is now available in our Aer.io store, and includes a book preview.
Here’s an extract from the postscript that will answer that question:
In this book we sought to build a picture of the historical origins of the Gospels based on the tradition preserved for us in the patristic writings. In particular, we were concerned with the attempt in the early church to explain the distinctive nature of the Gospel according to Mark. Two significant points have emerged from our study. First, Mark’s Gospel is best seen as the result of the cooperation between Peter and Paul to ensure that the unity of the early church was not impaired as a result of the publication of the Gospel of Luke alongside the Gospel of Matthew. In other words, the Gospel of Mark was never intended to be a rival of Matthew and Like, for its purpose was a very limited one, namely to provide the approbation necessary for Luke to find general acceptance in all the churches, both east and west. Second, the Gospel of Mark is best understood as Peter’s declaration that Luke is faithful to the apostolic tradition. The Gospel of Mark is therefore to be seen as the necessary link between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This fact alone explains the supposed contradiction between Clement’s assertion that Matthew and Luke were written before Mark and the canonical order Matthew-Mark-Luke, for it is possible for Mark to be regarded as both second and third – third in order of actual composition, and second in order of authority as the work of Peter.
(From Dave Black Online. Used by permission. David Alan Black is author of Energion titles The Jesus Paradigm, Christian Archy, and Why Four Gospels?.)
9:55 AM Why the Gospel of Luke?
Through hindsight we can determine the assignment that Luke received from Paul by comparing the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and by noting Luke’s deviations. In the first place, Luke carefully followed the main structure of Matthew throughout and generally adhered to the order of its various sections and anecdotes, though he also made highly interesting changes. For example, his story of the birth of Jesus is totally different from Matthew’s, which (as we have noted) was almost entirely apologetic in tone and content. Luke, however, provided a straightforward narrative that stems either directly or indirectly from Mary herself. When Luke came to Jesus’ Galilean ministry he added certain details to each of the stories from Matthew’s Gospel that he decided to adopt. Indeed, in one way or another he absorbed nearly everything that Matthew had written, and yet managed to add a good deal of extra material. Luke did this by omitting a number of duplicate stories (e.g., the famous Lukan omission of Matt. 14:22–16:12) and by inserting into the heart of the Matthean text at the end of the Galilean ministry (cf. Matt. 19:1–2) a section of no less than nine long chapters, Luke’s central section (9:51–18:14), comprising (1) the excerpts that he had extracted from Matthew’s five great discourses in order to lighten the content of his own version of them and (2) additional sayings and parables that Luke had collected. (It is perhaps worth noting here that Luke’s central section roughly corresponds to the conjectural document known as Q, which many modern scholars consider to be one of the sources of Matthew and Luke.)
From Why Four Gospels?
THE PROTESTANT CHURCH culture in America, of which I am a part, often overlooks the immense contribution that the science of patristics makes to the way we understand the Scriptures. Now I certainly do not wish to replace a text-centered hermeneutic with an approach that is enslaved to the dogmata of councils and creeds. My claim in this book is not that the fathers of the church solve the synoptic problem. It is that any approach to a solution that rejects their testimony is, by definition, illegitimate. One reviewer of the first edition put the matter this way:
Black identifies the trend among scholars who approach the New Testament and especially the gospels with a dogmatic presupposition that any explanation other than what the Church Fathers, the early church, church tradition and faithful Christians have believed and passed down is to be preferred regardless of its unsubstantiated speculation, lack of logic and rejection of historical context.
This may not seem like a major issue to some, but at least in principle it gets to the heart of the present work. My positive appreciation for the writings of the church fathers does not mean that I take an uncritical view of early Christian interpretation of Scripture. Yet I fail to see how the watchword “ad fontes!” (or, in evangelical Christian circles, “sola scriptura!”) justifies a continued separation between Scripture and history.
I am indebted primarily to my professors in Basel for calling my attention to the need for studying the writings of such early Christian authors as Origen and Eusebius. After all, who could take a course from Martin Anton Schmidt and not be convinced of the need for the theological discipline called Dogmengeschichte (history of doctrine)? Then too, my Doktorvater, Bo Reicke, was already well known in scholarly circles for his historical approach to the New Testament writings by virtue of his widely-used introductory textbook aptly entitled Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Professor Reicke’s concern for a critical use of external evidence exactly characterizes my position.
Ironically, despite the lip service that is often paid to the patristic testimony by gospel scholars, the fathers are perhaps more neglected today than ever before. My friend Scot McKnight, for example, in his outstanding essay “Source Criticism” (in Interpreting the New Testament, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2001 ), observes, “The Oxford proponents cannot simply dismiss early Church traditions as pious and sentimental legends” (p. 82). An astute point! In fact, the rest of his essay deals exclusively with the internal evidence and ignores the patristic testimony. The same kind of neglect runs through the majority of New Testament introductions and guides to the synoptic problem. The late Bernard Orchard once quipped to me that, if I took the fathers’ writings seriously, I – an evangelical Christian – would be accused of being a Roman Catholic in Protestant clothing! I sometimes put the matter this way to my students: If reading the church fathers critically makes me a catholic (please note the small “c”), then so be it. Professor N. T. Wright makes the incisive point in The New Testament and the People of God (Philadelphia: Augsburg/Fortress, 1 992, p. 61 ) that “There are some strange bedfellows in the world of literary criticism.” Surely New Testament scholars of all denominational stripes can learn from each other even if we do not share the same convictions about the magisterium. It is sad that so often this potential for cooperation is not exercised in fact. The kind of integrative research with which I am concerned is still in its infancy in some evangelical circles, despite our claim to “scientific objectivity.”
It is fascinating to contrast the secular historian’s approach to the early church fathers with the skepticism of biblical critics. I fear that the very contrast between “history” and “theology” only contributes to the atomization of an already fragmented discipline. To suggest that evangelical Christians should pay attention to the fathers will strike many as absurd. Is not the very hallmark of Protestant Christianity the commitment to a text-centered hermeneutic? Though I am very happy to be classified as a textbased exegete of the New Testament, it will be clear that I think we have abandoned a rich source of knowledge. For me, this means that although I delight in studying and reading the New Testament in its original language, I think it is an advantage – rather than a detriment – to learn Scripture through the works of Tertullian, Luther, Calvin, Barth, and Yoder. Indeed, I believe that the fragmented and atomistic approach to the New Testament documents today is often merely an excuse for intellectual laziness. As another reviewer of the first edition of the book commented, “This is a book written for a lay audience but welcomes professional scholars and theologians who have not felt comfortable with the tenuous theories put forth among academics since the Enlightenment eschewed the supernatural and ignored church Fathers as being irrelevant.” This is a strong statement, but I believe it is completely accurate. Be that as it may, it will be obvious to everyone that I have taken tradition seriously, and with that tradition I have found my home and am at peace.
This edition differs from the original version of Why Four Gospels? in that I have rewritten and expanded the postscript and have significantly updated the bibliography. I have also gone through the book line-by-line and word-by-word to enhance its clarity and flow. Amid the continuing controversy over the synoptic problem, the original argument remains intact. It has been quite a challenge to shrink a complicated problem into a short volume.
The book could easily have been expanded into a full-length tome. But that was not my goal. I write as a teacher who, after 33 years in the classroom, is beginning to realize that “less is more” and that the law of diminishing returns applies no less to the craft of writing than to the art of teaching. Along the way I have been aided and abetted by many friends and colleagues. I am especially pleased to acknowledge the help of my personal assistant, Mr. Andrew Bowden, who prepared the expanded bibliography, and Mr. Henry Neufeld of Energion Publications, who enthusiastically answered “Yes” when I asked him, “Want my next book?” I am also grateful to the many readers who took time to send me their comments. Finally, I am truly blessed to know that there are some Bible schools and seminaries out there (Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC, for example) that actually require this volume as a textbook. I guess their professors felt there might be something worthwhile in it that could help their students. I hope the present edition continues to do the same. But whatever the outcome, soli Deo gloria.
David Alan Black