• Summary
• Full Review
• Our Rating of this book

Summary

Recommended

Book Description:
Not available.

Martin Hengel demonstrates why he is one of Germany's (and the world's) most respected New Testament scholars in this volume, which examines the issues of the composition, authorship, and collection of the canonical Gospels. This purpose is achieved primarily through an exploration and analysis of the evidence contained in the writings of the early church, including (expectedly) that preserved for us from the likes of Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. This is complemented when necessary by correlations that can be drawn from the milieu of the Roman Empire in which the early church resided.

Hengel provides valuable discussions regarding the controversial topic of the chronological order in which the Gospels were recorded, based largely on the external evidence provided by the early church writings. After discussing the issues of the superscriptions attached to each Gospel, the significance and meaning of the title of "Gospel" itself, the manuscript evidence, the evidence of a very early collection and utilization of the fourfold tradition within the churches across a wide geographical spectrum, and the virtually universal agreement among the church fathers regarding authorial attribution to the various Gospels, Hengel demonstrates the high likelihood that the Gospels were in fact never anonymous as is often claimed. He also stresses that the evidence suggests that the Gospels were written to be distributed more widely than just the respective evangelists' so-called communities. The following is worth quoting:

Contrary to a widespread view, none of the four Gospels was written only for one particular community; far less do they simply reproduce the views of one individual community. They give primarily the views of their authors. We cannot even say with certainty whether they ever came into being only in one community, for the missionaries of the early church traveled a great deal and could be authoritative teachers at different places. So we should stop talking automatically about 'the community of Mark', 'of Luke', 'of Matthew', 'of John' as the one really responsible for the composition of a Gospel writing and its theology. The four Gospels have nothing to do with 'letters' which were occasioned by a community. These are relatively rare in the New Testament and its environment. Even more nonsensical is the term 'Q community', i.e. the community of the Logia source (we do not even really know in what forms this source [or these sources] existed). The authors of these works do not represent the view of a collective community, but of an individual yet authoritative teacher of one or more communities (or a school), and in their quite different forms proclaim the one truth which should be binding on all believers. This is true regardless of the fact that of course authors were in constant dialogue with a community, or more frequently several communities, and with their disciples or school. (pp. 106-107)

In this sense Hengel's conclusions are complementary to that of Richard Bauckham et al (see here). Beyond this, Hengel's book also includes discussions of Gospel authorship, dating, the theology of the respective evangelists, the Petrine tradition underlying the composition of Mark's Gospel, and the use of the Gospel as kerygma and narrative. A helpful postscript ends the book where Hengel elaborates on his views of the Synoptic problem.

Hengel ultimately argues for the order and dating of the Greek Gospels as follows: Mark in 69/70; Luke/Acts b/w 75-85; Matthew b/w 90-95; John b/w 100-105. He affirms traditional authorship of Luke and Mark (with the latter being based on Peter's preaching), but states that Matthew was composed by a member of the Matthean school (IOW, while it was not anonymous, Hengel still affirms pseudonymity), and that John was actually written by John the presbyter. As far as sources are concerned, Hengel argues that Matthew uses both Mark and Luke, and that speculation about the Q source should be proceeded with caution since we can only know so little about it, much (or perhaps all) of which is conjectural. He postulates, for instance, that there could be more than one "Q-like" source used by Matthew and Luke, and that in places where Q is thought by some to be present it may actually be Matthew simply using Luke as a source.

This book contains very valuable insight on a wide array of important topics, though I personally would not agree with all of the conclusions drawn. Also, a minor note about the format, this book would have benefited greatly with the use of footnotes rather than endnotes. I was amazed to find 114 pages of endnotes for a book whose text is only 207 pages! Thus quite a bit of "flipping back and forth" is required to take in all of the book's content. On the other hand, this underscores the great erudition that characterizes the painstaking work and research of a top scholar!