Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem. By Martin Mosse

2008; Wiley; Volume: 50; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00438_39.x

1468-2265

Peter Milward,

Historical and Linguistic Studies

Pp. xxxii, 364 , Bletchley, UK , Paternoster , 2007 , $50.00 . The metaphors that spring to one's mind on a perusal of this excellent survey of the synoptic problem from a historical point of view are those of puncturing a balloon with a pin, questioning the emperor's clothes, and singing extra chorum. The author's somewhat ironically stated standpoint vis-à-vis a surprising majority of New Testament scholars over the past two centuries is simply, ‘I doubt whether the optimal approach to any historical problem is to jettison all the available ancient evidence at the outset.’ (p. 19) He ventures to take his stand on what he calls ‘the overwhelming testimony of the early Church’ (p. 111) on such matters as the authorship of the four gospels, the reality of Q (which he calls in question) and the identity of ‘John the Elder’ (which he regards as a mere figment of the Eusebian imagination). His bete noire is the all too typical NT scholar who is variously termed a source critic, a form critic, and a redaction critic, but who is notably deficient in any historical expertise. One example of such cavalier criticism is a certain tendency to date Mark ‘around 70’, Matthew ‘about 80’, Luke ‘about 90’, and John ‘about 100’, concerning which the author wryly comments, ‘In any other scientific discipline such regularity would be considered remarkable and demanding of instant investigation.’ (p. 135) The implication is that this kind of criticism can hardly be considered either scientific or disciplined, without a historical training such as this author brings to his task. Whereas nowadays it is all too often taken for granted by NT commentators, whether scholarly or otherwise, that there is no necessary connection between the four evangelists traditionally named as authors of their respective gospels and the real authors whose names are glossed over under a veil of anonymity – according to ‘the modern tendency to assume that in early Christianity only unknowns knew how to write’ (E.Ellis, p. 281) – this author insists that ‘a failure to investigate historically the originating writers constitutes an indefensible flaw of methodology’ (p. 141). It is, on the other hand, by observing his method that he comes up with the names of St. Mark, the disciple of St. Peter, as author of the first Gospel in Greek for the Christians in Rome, St. Matthew, as author of the first Gospel in Aramaic (or ‘Hebrew’) for the Jews in Palestine but the second in Greek, St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, as author of the third Gospel for the Gentiles, and St. John, ‘the beloved apostle’, as author of the fourth Gospel and the whole Johannine corpus, including even the Book of Revelation. In other words, he is at once outspokenly radical in his opposition to NT scholarship, as it has developed since the nineteenth century under F.C. Baur and his Tubingen School, and die-hardly conservative in his acceptance of the old Catholic tradition. Not that he is opposed to any scholarly consensus built up over the centuries, but what surprises him is the extent to which ‘so many excellent scholars have arrived at so many and widely differing solutions’ (p. 155). He is, therefore, no mere essayist or Biblical dilettante, digging his heels into the past and rejecting all the advances made in NT studies over the past two centuries on the basis of personal prejudice. Indeed, it is his contention against the ‘source critics’ that ‘personal philosophy, unsupported by logical analysis, would appear to have taken precedence over historical investigation.’ (p. 185) In fact his own historical investigation in The Three Gospels is no less ‘dry as dust’ than the source criticism which he is criticizing (p. 143). With all the detailed charts and diagrams, the dates and abbreviations, with which he paints his pages, the reading of his book hardly makes for easy reading or humanist appreciation, apart from the occasional barbs of irony which he justifiably aims at his adversaries. It is as a professed historian that he argues his case, step by step, till he has satisfactorily demolished the position of so many NT scholars and upheld that of Catholic tradition. Not that he takes all NT scholars as his opponents en masse. He is never afraid to name names, distributing praise to some, while reserving blame for many more – though more often than not it is the former who are named and the latter who are allowed to take refuge in decent obscurity. Just a glance at the ‘Index of Modern Authors’ reveals no fewer than 222 names of those whom he considers and often cites in the text, which goes to show how well versed he is in the writings and the theories he is refuting or at least rectifying. Only, one wishes he could have shown less concern for the scholar, and more for the general reader. He rightly emphasizes, against his adversaries, that ‘people are the subject matter of history’ (p. 281), but I would add that people are also the readers of his book, and it would be advisable for him to pay more consideration to them in terms of a more readable style