Protestants and the Gospels

I lament the fact that Protestants love their epistles (esp. Paul) for all it's doctrine, but struggle with the Gospels. Yes, the Gospels give us Jesus which is great, but it is Jesus as the subject of Paul's atonement theology that really matters for many folks. Yet surely it should be the other way around: for doctrine and discipleship we should start with Jesus and them move to Paul. As I often tell my students, Paul rocks, but Jesus reigns. The good thing about the Book of Common Prayer is that every day you get a reading from the Gospels, every day, words from Jesus, or a story about Jesus. I think that is important. Yes, I know of the debate about "Red Letter Christians," but the fact is that we have more manuscripts of the Gospels than the rest of the New Testament from antiquity and the Fathers seemed to have quoted the Gospels more than Paul. The primordial genesis of Christian doctrine took the form of a concerted dialogue with Jesus and the Gospels. As such the Gospels should be foremost in our theology, preaching, and discipleship. If ye believe not me, consider the words of J.I. Packer:

“Finally, we could then correct the wooliness of view as to what Christian commitment involves, by stressing the need for constant meditation on the four gospels, over and above the rest of our Bible reading; for gospel study enables us both to keep our Lord in clear view and to hold before our minds the relational frame of discipleship to him. The doctrines on which our discipleship rests are clearest in the epistles, but the nature of discipleship itself is most vividly portrayed in the gospels. Some Christians seem to prefer the epistles to the gospels and talk of graduating from the gospels to the epistles as if this were a mark of growing up spiritually; but really this attitude is a very bad sign, suggesting that we are more interested in theological notions than in fellowship with the Lord Jesus in person. We should think, rather, of the theology of the epistles as preparing us to understand better the disciple relationship with Christ that is set forth in the gospels, and we should never let ourselves forget that the four gospels are, as has often and rightly been said, the most wonderful books on earth.”

J.I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God(Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1984, reprint: 2005), 61.

Christos in Mark 1:1

From my work-in-progress Jesus is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels:

Mark’s incipit begins, ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah’.[1] Though several translations render 0Ihsou~j Xristo&j with ‘Jesus Christ’ (NRSV, NASB, ESV, CEB), the TNIV/NIV10 and NLT is probably correct to translate it as ‘Jesus the Messiah’. A titular meaning of Xristo&j as ‘Messiah’ here is not only possible, but preferable. Mark uses the name 0Ihsou~j some eighty-two times and Xristo&j is used sparingly only seven times, but on all but two occasions Xristo&j possesses the article and is clearly titular as designating the Messiah (Mark 8:29; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32; cf. without the article 1:1; 9:41). The subsequent usage of Xristo&j eliminates a purely nominal meaning for 0Ihsou~j Xristo&j in the incipit. What seems more likely is that 0Ihsou~j Xristo&j stands as an honorary designation for the central figure in the following story. As Adela Yarbro Collins states: ‘The narrative of Mark as a whole evokes the titular sense, “messiah.”’[2] Similar is John Donahue: ‘The density of the key terms in 1:1 prepares the reader for the dramatic unfolding of the whole work, which revolves around the proper description of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God’.[3] Mark is not content to assert this title, but his subsequent narrative demonstrates precisely how Jesus is the Messiah and what kind of mission this Messiah will undertake.[4] Thus, the question that dominates Mark’s Gospel is: who is this Messiah and how will he be enthroned? There are cryptic hints along the way as to how this Messiah will be coronated. As the plot unfolds it becomes gradually clearer that the cross dangles over the head of this Messiah like a sword of Damocles, unbeknownst to the disciples, but privy to the reader.[5]

---

[1] On the secondary nature of ‘Son of God’ in Mark 1:1 see Peter Head.

[2] Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 126.

[3] Donahue, The Gospel of Mark, 60.

[4] Francis J. Moloney, Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 132; I. Howard Marshall, ‘Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew,’ in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S.E. Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 121.

[5] See now Peter G. Bolt, The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel (NSBT; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004).

Who Chose the Gospels?

I've heard many times now (mainly from Ivy League Gnostics) that the Christian canon was imposed top down by a theologically narrow oligarch of bishops bent on eradicating all traces of diversity from the ecclesial landscape. I think the truth of the matter is that the four Gospels reflect the diversity within the majority of the early church and the so-called "lost Gospels" lost out because they weren't all that popular and weren't all that good to begin with. The Fourfold Gospel arose out of a large consensus of the eastern and western churches and not because a cohort of bishops with the backing of Roman power decreed it by force.

One book on this subject that has come out and I'm looking forward to reading is Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Conspiracy (Oxford: OUP, 2010). According to the blurb:

It is now widely said that the four Gospels rose to prominence only after a long battle within early Christianity, a battle finally won in the fourth century, after the establishment of the Church by Constantine the Great. In Who Chose the Gospels? Charles E. Hill demolishes this claim, providing a more historically accurate, alternative account of how the Church came to acknowledge four, and only four, narratives of the life of Jesus. Hill offers not only an informed critique of recent, overtly "political" readings of early Christian history, but also a more nuanced analysis of how and why, out of all the Gospels written in the early centuries of the Church, just these four "made it" into the Bible. In fact, the author shows that despite the profusion of Gospels, there was wide agreement among church leaders, in diverse regions of the empire, at least from the second century onward, as to the authority of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Thus it was not a conspiracy but common consensus that determined the books of the New Testament.

"The Intention of the Evangelists"

C. F. D. Moule wrote a very interesting piece in a collection of essays in honor of T. W. Manson in a book titled, rather plainly, New Testament Essays (Manchester University Press, 1959). I don't remember now how I became aware of the essay . . . perhaps in my research for the essay I'm writing on Paul and Matthew. While its content was not relevant to my essay's interest,  its argument is quite poignant especially in light of the discussions being had at least on this blog about the Historical Jesus. The essence of the essay is that the narratives of the four Gospels should be differentiated from the epistles of the NT because they are not strictly part of the "liturgy" of the church, but to the church's apologetic and outward evangelistic witness. Moule compares the Gospels to the narrative books of the OT:

At the time when the Gospels were being written and first used, the Church was well aware of a distinction between the "the Jesus of history" and "the Christ of faith" to use the modern cliches; and that, in so far as the Gospels were used in Christian worship at all (and we shall have to ask how far, after all, that was the case), they filled a place broadly comparable to the narrative parts of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Synagogue, as the historical background against which the interpretative writings might be read (165).

He contents that the Gospels as narratives would not have their most proper place in the context of worship, but rather in the support of the worship life of the church as its foundation story. Moule is answering the widespread view in his day that the Gospels cannot be viewed as reliable history since it was thought they represented only religious convictions and were infected beyond hope with the interpretation of the church; and thus the Gospels belong rather to liturgy and to "high theology" than to history. Their value as history was [still is] suspect. Moule admits that this dichotomy is a false one; these are not devoid of value-judgments or eccelesiastical interests. Nevertheless, he beleives that the Gospels, when read on their own terms, reveal, as it has been said, "the past of Jesus".  "The Christians knew the difference between the two--between the pre-resurrection situation and the post-resurrection situation--and that their aim was to try to tell faithfully the story of how the former led to the latter". Their intentions, where they have been discerned, constrained the Evangelists to keep embellishments and interpretive glosses to the barest minimum. Moule argued that the Gospels as narrative 

Remain in some sense distinguishable from theological deductions, form the preaching of the way of salvation, and from adoration. It is only one ingredient in worship; and its very nature demands that, so far as possible, it be kept in this distinguishable condition and not overlaid by interpretation.

One more quotation about the nature of the Gospels is significant in view of  discussion of the necessity of historical study of Jesus:

And--another point--its purpose accordingly was not only or even chiefly to be sued for worship. Still more, it was to equip Christians with a knowledge of their origins, for use in evangelism and apologetic. The real core of worship was the experience of the risen Christ within the Christian church through the participation in the Spirit [this sounds like Bonhoeffer -- forgive me I'm reading Joel Lawrence's book]. But [heres the important bit] Christians knew well that if they lost sight of the story behind that experience their worship would be like a house built on sand; and that if they preached salvation without the story of how it came they would be powerless as evangelists; and that if they could not explain how they came to stand where they did, they would be failing to give a reason for their hope.

It is the task of the church to read these narratives of Jesus historically so as not to fall into the same pit. 

Four Gospels as One Book

I liked this quote from David Parker's An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts:

"The Four Gospels, the Tetraevangelium, is the book of Christianity - not four books, but one codex. Such manuscripts comprise more than a half of all continuous-text Greek copies of New Testament writings. In every ancient language of Christianity, copies of the Gospels predominate among what survives. And in case this preoccupation is seen as an ancient phenomenon, be it noted that the Gospels in these ancient languages are traditionally far better served with editions and results of research than is any other part of the New Testament. Moreover, more editions of the Gospel manuscripts have been published, in facsimile or in some other form" (p. 311).

One thing I like about the Book of Common Prayer is that every day has a Gospel reading. Though Protestants, esp. those of the evangelical and reformed variety, have a special affection for Paul, that should never interfere with the special and devout attention that Christians have for the story and teaching of Jesus.

The Next Big Thing in NT Studies: Gospels

What is going to be the next big thing in NT studies in the next 2-7 years? As I gaze into my crystal ball, I think it is going to be "Gospels and Non-canonical Gospels". I wouldn't say that the third quest for the historical Jesus has run out of steam (forthcoming volumes by John Meier, Craig Keener, Dale C. Allison, and even Michael Bird will keep it on the radar), nor has the "New Perspective on Paul" aged over the hill quite yet (forthcoming volumes by Doug Campbell and Michael Gorman alone will continue to stimulate discussions on Pauline soteriology and no doubt we all await volume 4 of N.T. Wright's COQG), but I sense a degree of fatigue in the discussions as most scholars in these debates have pretty much said everything that they have to say.

What is more, several things tip me off to look towards Gospels for the future.

1. Gospel of Judas. It looked as if study of the "other" Gospels from Nag Hammadi Codices had teetered out, but the publication of the Gospel of Judas by National Geographic (plus no small amount of sensationalism in the press) certainly reinvigorated the discussion. At SBL in 2007, I felt like I was the only person there who had not written a book on the Gospel of Judas. On the Gospel of Judas see the books by Simon Gathercole, April DeConick, and a good and sane intro is available from Peter M. Head, “The Gospel of Judas and the Qarara Codices: Some Preliminary Observations.” Tyndale Bulletin 58 (2007): 1-23.

2. Move beyond apologetic models. Discussion on the Gospel of Judas did open the subject of what is the difference between the canonical and non-canonical Gospels. It is a good opportunity to break down certain assumptions about the non-canonical Gospels. Not all the non-canonical Gospels were "gnostic" (most students I meet don't really know what gnosticism really is) and not all non-canonical Gospels are "heretical" (e.g. Gospel of Peter, Hebrew versions of Matthew, etc.).

3. Testing old assumptions. Nicholas Perrin's published dissertation on the Gospel of Thomas and Tatian, even if you don't agree with him (see discussion here), goes to show that there is still alot of work to be done in source criticism esp. if you take the time to learn the primary languages that are very rarely learned, i.e. Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic. This is better avenue for study than the tiresome hypotheses of a Q-Gos. Thom seedbed for Christian Origins prevalent amongst the Ivy League Gnostics. Likewise, Stephen Carlson's work on the Secret Gospel of Mark has shown how a bit of healthy scepticism can leave many assumptions of scholarship on shakey ground.

4. On publications, there have been a spate of introductions to the non-canonical Gospels and I recommend those by Hans-Joseph Klauck and Paul Foster. There has also been a number of publications of early Gospel Fragments edited by Thomas Kraus, Micahel Kruger, and Tobias Nicklas, Stanley and Wendy Porter, and by Andrew Bernhard which provide a good collection of the primary source texts for us to use.

5. Paul and the Gospels could be a big area too. David C. Sim continues to write a spate of articles articulating the anti-Paulinism of Matthew and I and Joel Willitts are editing a LNTS volume about the relationship of Paul to the canonical Gospels and Gospel of Thomas with an all star cast.

6. Christology of the Gospels. Synoptic Christology will be a new growth industry too. Simon Gathercole's book on Pre-Existence in the Synoptics and C. Kavin Rowe on Lord christology in Luke have begun breaking down the myths of the "low" christology of the Synoptics. The challenge is to situate the christology of the Synoptics in the context of early Christianity but also in relation to views of intermediary figures in second temple Judaism as well as in proximity to Graeco-Roman writings about divine figures. I myself would love to one day do something on the Marcan Jesus and the God of Israel. Though I expect Richard Bauckham will have much to say about that in his forthcoming two volume work on christology and monotheism.

7. Gospel Sources. I think that the field of studies in memory, orality, and texts provides many new exiting vistas for studying the Jesus tradition (see Tom Thatcher's study on John in this regard). Likewise, is it possible to adopt the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre view on the Synoptic Problem (Luke used Matthew and no Q), but still retain a place for some shared written and oral traditions between Matthew and Luke?

8. The Gospel audiences is still very much uncharted territory. I think Richard Bauckham and co. have taken us beyond the "community" hypothesis in its 20th century form at the height of form and redactional critics, but there are still many hold outs. Bauckham was more careful on this than his critics suppose, he did not deny that the Gospels circulated initially among an immediate audience, only that they were not intended exclusively for that immediate audience. I've had my own dig at the so-called "Marcan Community". In addition, Edward Klink is editing a volume on the Gospel Audiences and it includes my own essay on the audiences of the non-canonical Gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and Jewish Christian Gospels).

9. Many prominent scholars are moving into the field of Gospels research. Richard Hays is now working on echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, Francis Watson is about to start research on the non-canonical Gospels too, Luke Timothy Johnson keeps writing absolutely brilliant essays on the Gospels for various festschriften (see volumes in honour of Robert Morgan and Richard Hays), Simon Gathercole is writing a commentary on the Gospel of Thomas, Andrew Gregory will eventually publish some great work on the Jewish Christian Gospels.

So, if you're looking to do a Ph.D, my advice, start learning either Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and find something on the Gospels.

Gospel Audiences: Martin Hengel

Over at NTGeek, Greg Carey has a post on The Gospels: For All Christians? where he briefly critiques Bauckham's argument that the Gospels were not intended exclusively for isolated and introspective communities belonging to the Evangelistgs. Many have criticised Bauckham for this argument (e.g. Phil Esler, David Sim, Margaret Mitchell, and Thomas Kazen) and I've defended him in two articles in Journal of Theological Studies and European Journal of Theology (I should also mention that Micky Klink is editing a book in the LNTS monograph series as a follow up to Bauckham's work on the Gospels and it should be out next year). I think Bauckham is a bit misrepresented. He doesn't deny that the Gospels were influenced by the ecclesial situation that the Evangelists faced and that the Gospels were initially distributed and utilised among the Evangelist's own circle. What he does argue is that the respective Gospels were not intended exclusively for use in their own "community" and they are not simply mirrors of the disputes of a Matthean, Marcan, Lucan, and Johannine community. The Gospels were writen for as many Christians that might read them.

In reading over Martin Hengel's book on The Four Gospel and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, I was highly amused by this quote:

"Therefore nothing has led research into the Gospels so astray as the romantic superstition involving anonymous theologially creative community collectives, which are supposed to have drafted whole writings."

In other words, the Gospels are not simply the products of hypothetical (or fictitious?) groupings known as Gospel communities.

Why Were the Gospels Written?

Despite all the kafuffle as to why the Gospels were written (ranging from debates in a Matthean community, synagogue expulsions, identity formation, counter the rise of gnosticism, etc.), I still think one of the best reasons calling for the Gospels to be written is to tell the story of Jesus for a generation who did not know any eyewitnesses or have access to first hand accounts of the Jesus tradition. As Bob Gundry writes:

“Why were the Gospels written? A high estimate of historical authenticity deriving from the literary distinctives of the Gospels leads to a further, old answer. The spread of the church far from its place of origin and the dying off of Jesus’ original disciples created a felt need for records. Since Christians had not divorced theology from history, those records turned out to be both theological and historical. Theological concerns for the present prompted redactional activity and resulted in differences among the Gospels. Historical concerns for the past checked fantasizing and resulted in commonalities among the Gospels.” (Robert H. Gundry, “The Symbiosis of Theology and Genre Criticism of the Canonical Gospels,” in The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Tradition Interpretations [WUNT 178; Tübingen: Mohr {Siebeck}, 2005], 39).

Note also the words of Bauckham:

"In other words, the Gospels stepped into the role of the eyewitnesses, which they had vacated through death. They interacted with the oral tradiiton, influencing it, doubtless becoming partially oralized in the form of new oral traditions, but also functioning as the gurantor of the traditions, as the eyewitneses had in their lifetimes, and as comtrols on the tradition, making it possible to check its faithfulness to the testimony of the eyewitnessees as now recording in writing." (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 309).

New Books on Gospels

A couple of good books on the Gospels from Mohr/Siebeck that you should note are:

Adam Winn, The Purpose of Mark's Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda (WUNT II.245).

In this book, Adam Winn addresses the long debated question of the purpose of Mark’s gospel. After placing the composition of Mark in Rome at a time shortly after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, he seeks to reconstruct the historical situation facing both the Markan evangelist and his community. This reconstruction focuses on the rise of the new Roman Emperor Vespasian and the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt in Rome. A significant feature of this reconstruction is the propaganda used to gain and secure Vespasian’s power-propaganda that included oracles and portents, divine healings, and grand triumphs. Of particular interest is the propagandistic claim that Vespasian was the true fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecies. Winn argues that such a claim would have created a christological crisis for the fledgling church in Rome-a crisis that called for a compelling Christian response. Winn seeks to demonstrate that Mark’s gospel could be read as just such a response. He demonstrates how the major features of Mark’s gospel-his incipit, Christology, teaching on discipleship, and eschatology-can be read as a counter résumé to the impressive résumé of Vespasian. In the end, this project concludes that Mark was composed for the purpose of countering Roman imperial propaganda that had created a crisis for its author and community.

Yuzuru Miura, David in Luke-Acts: His Portrayal in the Light of Early Judaism (WUNT II.232).

Yuzuru Miura undertakes a scholarly analysis of all references to David in Luke-Acts, which has not been done so far. Previous studies of David have dealt with parts of the references to David in Luke-Acts, focusing on the subject of Davidic messianism, but it was only the Davidic genealogical character. However, Davidic messianism has another aspect - the typological character. In order to analyze all references to David in Luke-Acts, the Davidic typological character in Davidic messianism has to be considered. Thus, in the first part of this book, the author seeks to grasp the first-century Jewish perceptions of the picture of David, such as David in the LXX, the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran Manuscripts, the writings of Philo and Josephus, and early rabbinic thought. Then, in the second part, he analyzes all references to David in Luke-Acts in light of the first-century Jewish perceptions of David. Such a perspective - considering both the genealogical and typological characters of Davidic messianism - uncovers the overall function of Luke's efficient and well-organized use of the figure of David in his narrative to legitimize Jesus as the Davidic Messiah. Furthermore, such a perspective throws fresh light on various Lukan theological issues.

See review in AusBR.

Augustine and Origen on the Harmony on the Gospels

I’m currently reading through Francis Watson, ‘The fourfold gospel,’ in Cambridge Companion to the Gospels, ed. Stephen C. Barton (Cambridge: CUP, 2006) where he refers to how Origen and Augustine handled the plurality of the canonical gospels. Consider the following quotations:

1. Origen

"The student, perplexed by the consideration of these matters [differences among the Gospels], will either give up the attempt to find everything in the gospels true, and, not venturing to conclude that all f our information about the Lord is untrustworthy, will choose one of them at random to be his guide; or he will accept all four, and will conclude that their truth is not to be sought in the outward and material letter (Origen, Comm. Joh. 10.2)".

"[I]f they sometimes dealt freely with things which to the eye of history happened differently, and changed them so as to subserve the mystical aims they had in view – speaking of something that happened in one place as if it had happened in another or of something that took place at one time as if it had taken place at another, and introducing into what was spoken in a certain way some changes of their own. Where possible, they intended to speak the truth both materially and spiritually; and where this was not possible, they chose to prefer the spiritual to the material. Spiritual truth was often preserved, as one might say, in material falsehood (Origen, Comm. Joh. 10.4)".

2. Augustine

"Each evangelist constructs his own particular narrative on a kind of plan which gives the appearance of being the complete and orderly record of the events in their succession. For, preserving a simple silence on the subject of those incidents of which he intends to give no account, he then connects those which he does wish to relate with what he has been immediately recounting, in such a manner as to make the recital seem continuous (Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists 2.5.16)."

"If you ask which of these different versions represent what was actually expressed by the voice, you may fix on whichever you wish, provided that you understand that those of the writers who have not reproduced the identical form of speech have still reproduced the same sense intended to be conveyed. And these variations in the modes of expression are also useful in this way, that they make it possible for us to teach a more adequate conception of the saying than might been the case with only one form, and that they also secure it against being interpreted in a sense not consonant with the real state of the case (Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists, 2.14.31)."

----

From this it seems clear that Origen and Augustine were probably not inerrantists, but they still believed in the authority and veracity of the Scriptures as God’s Word communicated to human beings (whether or not they were consistent on that point will be for others to decide). Based on these quotes, Francis Watson the comments:

“In Augustine’s reflection on gospel differences, there is no trace of an a priori commitment to the precise historical accuracy of every part of every gospel. Rather, this is a pragmatic, inductive approach that considers each difference on its merits, and finds the harmony of the gospels more in the theological subject-matter than in the verbal expressions … Origen’s claim that a theological truth can come to expression in a historical falsehood, and that the fourfold gospel itself falsifies the absolute historicity of its individual narratives, seems better attuned to modern scholarly assumptions about the gospels. Yet, in the end, Origen and Augustine have a great deal in common. They have both made a careful study of the gospel differences; they are both convinced that the four gospels speak in various ways of a singular though infinitely rich theological subject-matter; and they both believe that this subject-matter is articulated in the differences and not in spite of them. In contrast, it is not clear that modern scholarship has achieved the balance sought by these patristic theologians in their reflections on the fourfold gospels: the balance between individual text and its plural contexts, or between difference and commonality (p. 50).

This raises some interesting issues for Gospel interpretation!

The Gospels in Early Christianity

I spent a couple of years looking at the place of the Gospels in early Christianity and in particular testing Richard Bauckham's thesis of the Gospels for All Christians against the actual phenomena of the circulation of the Gospels. One thing I continue to find interesting is how the Gospels represent an integration point or funnel for various Christian traditions. Consider the following:

1. Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark clearly has a Pauline view of the Torah for Gentiles (Mk. 7.19c), a Pauline view of Christ's death (Mk. 10.45), and a similar view of gospel (Mk. 13.10); see Joel Marcus on this. And yet, the biographical material in Mark has a largely Petrine flavour and it elevates Peter among the disciples (so Bauckham et. al.).

2. Gospel of Matthew. Matthew has often been regarded as anti-Pauline (e.g. D.C. Sims) but more recently R.T. France has argued that it represents a synthesis at Pauline and Jewish Christian traditions. It is clearly Jewish Christian on the Law (e.g. Mt 5.17) but essentially a Pauline perspective on the Gentiles (e.g. Mt. 28.19-20).

3. Gospel of Luke. In a previous generation Luke was associated with an "early catholicism" which was where Pauline and Petrine Christianities were reconciled (e.g. Baur to Kasemann). This category is pretty much defunct (despite J.D.G. Dunn's modification of it) and I think it better to see Luke as representing a form of post-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity that wants to remain in continuity with Jewish Christianity whilst maintaning its cosmpolitan vision in the Greco-Roman world and holding out hope that Israel may yet respond positively to the gospel and to the followers of Jesus.

4. Gospel of John. John is pretty much in his own tradition (with the exception that he has probably read Mark or heard it). He stands between an incipient Gnosticism, a post-70 Judaism, and a Hellenistic Jewish Christianity.

Gospels that remind me of Movies

Certain Gospels remind me of certain movies:

1. The Gospel of Mark - The Bourne Identity. I think Phil Harland is right. The whole plot of Mark's Gospel is dominated by "so who is this guy?"

2. The Gospel of Matthew - Schindler's List. One guy stands up to the bad guys on behalf of the Jewish people.

3. The Gospel of Luke/Acts - Ben Hur. Both are set in the Greco-Roman world and Palestine and touch upon Christian themes. BH won a mammoth 12 Oscars that has never been matched and Luke-Acts is certainly an epic of similar proportions.

4. The Gospel of John - ET. Think about, a stranger comes from out of space, visits earth, and brings a family together. I sobbed my eyes out as a kid when I saw this.

Historical Jesus Scholars and their Favourite Gospels

Recent work has left me thinking about how much of the differences among Historical Jesus scholars stems from their preference or favouring of one particular Gospel. For instance:

Albert Schweitzer - Gospel of Matthew

- Schweitzer held (I am pretty sure) to Matthean priority.

- Schweitzer's key verse is Mt. 10.23 which determines the program of Jesus' ministry in Schweitzer's view.

E.P. Sanders - Gospel of Mark

- Sanders favours the Farrer-Goulder option for the Synoptic problem.

- Sanders' Jesus is very much the Jesus of the Marcan outline, and I read somewhere that he has been criticised as such.

N.T. Wright - Gospel of Luke

- Wright is deliberately ambivalent about the Synoptic problem (though he favours Marcan priority) and he supposes that a good Historical Jesus hypothesis is one that does not depend on any particular view of the Synoptic problem

- The vibe I get in reading Jesus and the Victory of God, is that Luke is Wright's default gospel which is apparent especially in his discussions on Lk. 4.16-21, 12.1-59, 13.1-5, 33; 15.1-32; 17.20-22.

John Dominic Crossan - Gospel of Thomas + Q

- Crossan's view of the sources and strata of the Gospel tradition is well-known and frequently criticised (see Dale C. Allison's criticism in particular which are most penetrating).

- Crossan's Jesus is very much derived from the purported non-eschatological layer of Q and from Thomas (see criticisms by Mike Bird "Peril of Modernizing Jesus" EQ [2006] and Gerd Theissen's apt description of the "California Jesus").

Does anyone know of a scholar who privileges the Gospel of John (Ernst Renan?)?