Book Review: WHY FOUR GOSPELS?

BY DAVID ALLEN BLACK

There seems to be two trends in the study of the Gospels. First, the Q Hypothesis is being abandoned among many scholars. Second, there is a new look on the subject of Markan Priority. This book does both. It is an introduction to what Black calls the Four Gospel Hypothesis. It makes a case for a return to Matthew as the first Gospel written and interdependence of the Gospel tradition. He calls for a return to taking the Patristic witnesses seriously, and stop paying lip service to their writings. For too long scholars have devalued, ignored, or denied these sources. He relies heavily on these witnesses, which “utterly fails to support the priority of Mark at any point” [p.32]. He sees the synoptic Gospels springing from what he classifies as phases of the apostolic period, with John being a late supplement to the other Gospels. He maintains that each phase provided circumstances and the need for each Gospel. The essence of this hypothesis:

• 
  The Jerusalem Phase (30-42 AD; Acts 1-12). He views the Gospel of Matthew was the manifesto of the mother church of Jerusalem.
• The Gentile Mission Phase (42-62 AD; Acts 13-28). This Gospel of Luke was written to (1) to produce a version of Matthew’s Gospel that would meet the spiritual needs of the Gentiles. (2) To make sure the modified version would be acceptable to Peter and the Twelve.
• The Roman Phase (63-67 AD). Written by Mark as a joint action by Peter and Paul to help verify Luke’s Gospel. The Gospel of Mark was Peter’s record to add another eyewitness of the written record.
• The John supplement. Written to make clear the primary objective of Jesus throughout his public ministry is to win over the spiritual authorities in Jerusalem. John supplements what is not in the synoptic Gospels.

Black views Matthew as the priority Gospel, and states that this hypothesis does away with the need for the so-called Q document, as well as Markan priority. He sees Luke using Matthew and Mark using both Matthew and Luke. The weakness is that the presentation is brief and concise [only 78 pages]. Also it is not clear how he comes to some conclusions or speculations concerning Mark. The detail for support is limited, giving only the major arguments. This is because it was written as an introduction or handout for teaching a course. However, there is enough to whet the appetite of the student and stimulate his thinking. I hope he expands his views in a deeper in further publication of the hypothesis. There is a good biography for students to use to explore the synoptic problem. The present work was written for his students, pastors and well studied laymen. However, most laymen will have a hard time understanding this complicated subject of the synoptic problem. For those who have an interest in this subject this work should not be overlooked, even if there is little or no agreement with his views. I found the ideas interesting and worthy of consideration. It also left me with questions and a desire for more study of the subject. It is a succinct alternative position to the popular view of the synoptic problem.