Book Review of David Alan Black’s

Why Four Gospel? The Historical Origins of the Gospels 

Since the time of the enlightenment Scripture has been under attack by liberal scholars. Specifically in the New Testament, their guns of criticism have been pointed at the Gospels and their alleged errors and discrepancies between authors. Even the conservative Christian may ask, “Why are there four Gospels and not one?” David Alan Black lays forth a defense of why the Scriptures contain four Gospels and shows their historical development in his book, Why Four Gospels: The Historical Origins of the Gospels. This book is a concise and condensed survey on the matter for the non-specialist or layman. Black covers this area of New Testament studies in three chapters.

Black begins his book by showing how the Gospels were developed into an actual literary accounts. Black answers the question of how and why were the Gospels written. In the original sense, the gospel is not a composition of four books but rather the verbal message of salvation in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It was not until later that this proclamation of salvation was penned into four, and each Gospel had a specific purpose and intention of its composition. Therefore, each Gospel is unique from the other three, even though there are many similarities in the content. However, similarity in content does not destroy the undergirding purpose of each Gospel. Then, Black in the remainder of chapter one explains the four phases in which the inscripturation of the Gospels took place under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Black divides the four phases into these headings: Jerusalem, Gentile mission, Roman, and Johannine supplement.

As for the Jerusalem phase, Black places it within the chapters of Acts 1-12 in the time period of 30-42AD. Peter was the leading apostle in this phase and Matthew was directed to write his gospel to  be used as the fundamental document of the Christian faith and to become a missionary tool as the gospel was carried across the Roman empire. Certainly, Paul would have carried Matthew’s gospel with him on his missionary journeys.

The Gentile phase in Acts 13-28 is dated from 42-62AD. The leading apostle during this time was Paul. Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles recognized the need of unifying Jew and Gentile Christians. With this burden, he sought to produce a version of Matthew’s gospel that would reach the Gentiles spiritual needs, but Paul also wanted to ensure that this version would be accepted by Peter and the other apostles. Paul appointed Luke as the one to pen this Gospel in his third missionary journey. However, this Gospel was not published until Peter could review it in Rome.

The third phase is the Roman phase from 62-67AD. Acts 28 and 1 Peter 5:13 show this phase. Both Paul and Peter were the main apostolic leaders, and during this time the Gospel of Mark was produced. While Peter reviewed the Gospel of Luke, he delivered a series of lectures in Rome, and Mark helped compose the lectures. Later these lectures become the gospel of Mark. Mark functions as a bridge between Matthew and Luke. Black then concludes the first chapter with the Johannine supplement. John’s gospel is written last near 96AD and functions as a supplement to the ministry of Jesus that the Synoptics recorded. This is why John’s gospel is so unique compared to the other three.

Now, in the second chapter Black focuses on the origin of the Gospels through external and internal evidence. Black begins by looking at the Patristics for they are the closest external evidence that is available today. All of the patristics seem to attest to a Matthian priority, and further seem to affirm that Luke came second and then Mark. Today the majority of scholars seem to hold to a Markan priority in spite of the little external evidence for such a view. Black answers three of the most common Markan scholars’ objections to the patristic testimony.

Then, in the final section of chapter two, he lays forth a positive case for the Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis which holds to a Matthian priority view. Black recites the general tradition of how the Gospel of Mark came about and how Mark was never intended to be an independent Gospel. Peter’s lectures were recorded by Mark which became the Gospel of Mark after the hearers demanded a text of the lectures. Peter links the Gospels of Matthew and Luke together. Thus, this fourfold view defuses the synoptic problem in a way that the Markan scholars are not able to do.

In the closing chapter Black deals with the motives and makings of the Gospels. Matthews motives in his gospel are primarily concerned with the genealogy of Christ, the Torah and rabbinic interpretation, and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in Christ. Matthew also writes with very Jewish language in which he assumes his readers are familiar with the customs of the day and religious officers-scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. Matthew’s gospel is a gospel for the Jerusalem church and the very first document.

Next, is the gospel of Luke. Because of the Jewish nature of Matthew, Paul would have viewed it as a possible stumbling block for Gentile missions. This situation prompts Paul to appoint Luke to write a gospel for the Gentiles. Thus the Gospel of Luke would be a teaching tool for Paul to the Greek minded Gentiles. Black, then, shows the making of the Gospel of Mark and John.

In concluding Black summarizes the purpose and order of composition of each Gospel while proposing that the Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis gives a credible Sitz im Leben. Matthew was composed first between 30-44, then the Gospel of Luke spawned out the emergence of Gentile churches through Paul’s missionary endeavors. Then, with the need to infuse and bridge the two traditions together, Matthew-Jews and Luke-Gentiles, Peter through the apostolic man Mark composed his Gospel. Last, John composed his Gospel to supplement what was missing from the synoptics. From stages one to four, Black shows that the Fourfold-Gospel hypothesis has internal and external evidence that disarms liberal criticism and explains the purpose behind each Gospel and the historical progress of revelation.

In conclusion of this book review, I will now add my assessment in a personal way. Up until before reading this book my understanding of the four Gospels together has been at best infantile. Even with a high and reformed view of Scripture, I found myself unappreciative of the redemptive progression and purpose that lie behind each Gospel. Then, as I was made aware of the supposed problems in the Gospels, my mind became frantic in finding a solution that would answer the critics and magnify the Scriptures. The Markan priority view discredits the patristics and takes a more liberal view of the Gospels, though not all that hold to this view are liberals (many godly men do hold this view). This view seems to contain more postulation and subjectivity when dealing with the internal evidence. The Fourfold- Gospel Hypothesis is supported by internal and an almost unanimous external testimony. Truly, it would seem that only this view can answer the critics and show forth the beauty of the Gospels taking literary form in history. Seeing this unfolding of the historical origins of the Gospel has brought to my eyes the beauty and redemptive purpose of each Gospel. Layman or leader in the church would be amiss to neglect such a book that exalts the Christ of the Scriptures and the most wise and holy counsel of God that saw it fit to inscripturate not one but four Gospels.

David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels: The Historical Origins of the Gospels (Gonzalez, FL: Energion Publications, 2010).