Charles E. Hill (2011), Who Chose the Gospels?, Oxford University Press, 295pp.
Review originally appeared in the February edition of the Record of the Free Church of Scotland.
In recent years, there has been a surfeit of books
claiming to discuss so-called lost gospels about Jesus. Some, such as the
bestselling The Da Vinci Code, have been written at a popular level,
whereas others have been academic products, whether as articles or books. In
addition, some of these lost gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, have
been republished, and have been reported in magazines such as Time and Newsweek.
It is often claimed that these gospels were curtailed because a certain group
in the early church (that is, those who accepted our current Four Gospels) won
the day by oppressive means and so defined the orthodox view regarding the
Gospels.
Is there any historical evidence for these
claims, or to put the question another way, is there any historical evidence
against them? According to this book, the evidence is that the historical data
is not on the side of those who argue for the validity of the additional
gospels. The author takes us back to the world of the first centuries of the
Christian era. He explains how the modern claim that the early church was
willing to accept the additional gospels is not based on the available
evidence.
Readers will find out about various papyri and
codices that have been discovered, which make it clear that the church accepted
the Four Gospels at an early stage. They will also discover Irenaeus, the
second-century Church Father who wrote in defence of the Four Gospels and clearly
assumed that his view was orthodox already (he wrote long before many of the
later additional gospels were written) and that he was writing in defence of
the faith.
If one is concerned about some of the
implications of the Jesus Seminar and other writings suggesting that numerous
additional gospels have equal validity, he or she should read this book. Among
the endorsements is one from D.A. Carson, who says, ‘For those willing to
examine the documentary evidence, there is no better guide than this book.... Hill
is meticulous, even-handed, careful to distinguish between historical datum and
speculation, and a good writer to boot.’
The author teaches at Reformed Theological
Seminary, Orlando. He has written a well-researched book that takes seriously
the historical evidence that the early church accepted the Four Gospels and
rejected all others. Of course, we accept the reliability of the Four Gospels
because they are divinely inspired, but it is useful to know that the
historical evidence agrees with that reality.

No comments:
Post a Comment