Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 73:2 (Fall 2011)
Article: Reviews Of Books
Author: Anonymous

---

WTJ 73:2 (Fall201 1) p. 381

Reviews Of Books

Charles E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. 295. $27.95, cloth.

In this recent volume, Dr. Hill seeks to finally set the record straight concerning certain urban myths about the recognition of the four canonical Gospels by the church, and those Gospels’ putative competitors. In fact, Hill does more than set the record straight. He exposes the lies, hyperbole, and exaggerations of contemporary popular theories of the formulation of the canon of the NT. If you have ever been disturbed by anyone from Dan Brown to Bart Ehrman and their outrageous claims about (against?) the Bible, then this book is for you.

In chapter 1, Dr. Hill addresses the Ehrman argument that there was no orthodoxy before the fourth century. It was not until a majority of bishops got together, Ehrman argues, who were able to squeeze out a victory against the opposing side that there was anything “orthodox.” Before that point, you only had equally valid competing views—and Gospels. But after the orthodox victory, the winners silenced the minority and destroyed their books. However, Hill cites numerous examples of evidence from the excavation site in Egypt (the home of early Christian heterodoxy, orthodoxy being in the minority) called Oxyrhynchus (the place of a massive garbage heap) where over 500,000 bits and pieces of manuscripts have been found, the majority of which are from three of the four Gospels and date to the second century. Hill finds it interesting—and odd—that “orthodox” manuscripts would be found in a garbage dump if it were actually the orthodox groups that were covering up the “heterodox” documents in some grand conspiracy (p. 23). This rather deflates the Dan Brown conspiracy theories of the sneering, mean, ignorant Bishops who hid truth for the sake of building up their own power and influence!

Chapter 2 is nothing less than brilliant. What about Ireaneus’s comments about the church being given only four Gospels? Well, this issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that Ireneaus gives somewhat of a spurious reason for these four only, namely, because of the four corners of the earth and the four pillars of the truth of the church. Throw into the mix a questionable application from Rev 4 and Ezek 37, and one may doubt that the ancient church father should be given any credibility. However, Hill masterfully cuts through the issues and rightly points out that the value of Ireneaus’s comments—despite his allegorizing—lie in the fact that they testify to the fact that the four canonical Gospels were, by the second century, already well established as received and reliable witnes...

visitor : : uid: ()