Jesus and Gospel

Abstract

Jesus and Gospel, by Graham N. Stanton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 252. $23.99 (paper). ISBN 0521008026. In any case, Christianity did not only adapt an old term, but reinterpreted it radically and filled it with a Christian meaning: very earliest Christians developed their own 'in-honse' language patterns, partly on basis of Scripture, especially in Septuagint, and this partly in light of their distinctive Christian convictions, but also partly by way of modifying contemporary 'street' language. In this way they developed their own 'social dialect,' and in turn this was very influential on their self-understanding and their worldview (p. 52). Stanton reconstructs several partly overlapping phases in development of term: first, meant spoken kerygma about importance of Jesus' salvific death and resurrection. Second, Gospel of Mark is oldest extant source where word also describes Jesus' words and deeds. A last step can be seen in Gospel of Matthew, where term for first time is related to written stories. Chapter 3 is devoted to a new question: When and why did early church begin to accept four Gospels (or a fourfold gospel) as its founding document? What are consequences of this decision? Stanton discusses sources like Irenaeus of Lyon or Muratorian Fragment, but bases his argumentation on material artifacts, namely, earliest extant Christian codices, which seem to witness a Four-Gospel-Canon near end of second century. Even earlier evidence can possibly be seen by means of Justin, Gospel titles, and division between Gospel of Luke and book of Acts: Taken cumulatively, this evidence suggests that adoption of fourfold Gospel may well have taken place in some circles (though not necessarily everywhere) shortly before Justin's day (p. 81). The decision for a fourfold gospel seems not to have been made as a demarcation against heretics; if so, it would have made more sense to decide in favor of asingle Gospel. Instead Stanton reminds us of fact that Christians very early began to prefer books in form of a codex to scrolls, which allowed them to produce volumes containing more than one Gospel. Of course, it can be discussed whether this argument is decisive, but Stanton here points to a factor in development of canon which is only rarely considered. Stanton is aware that at least some of his arguments are a bit speculative; his theses always show a high level of methodological sensitivity. Simultaneously, Stanton's enormous knowledge about material relics of ancient Christian culture allows him to tread new paths and formulate important theses. On whole, Stanton describes development of Four-Gospel Canon as a gradual process, which unfolded not everywhere in same way and which for a long time was paralleled by oral tradition. With that idea he objects to theories presupposing a kind of a central authority which was responsible for development of Christian canon. Stanton also recalls that, on one hand, in many Christian circles (e.g., around Marcion or Tatian) demand for a single authentic Gospel was kept alive for a long time; on other hand, many groups read texts which today would be considered apocryphal (e.g., Gospel of Peter). The chapter closes with a discussion of theological, christological, hermeneutical, and liturgical implications of decision for a fourfold gospel. Chapters 4 and 5 are quite short. Stanton discusses Jesus and gospel traditions in writings of Justin and Irenaeus and interpretation of phrase the law of Christ (from Gal 6:2 through second century until Martin Luther). The second section is titled Jesus. Chapters 6 and 7 are devoted to accusations against Christian preaching in ancient times. Chapter 6 discusses argument that Jesus was a magician and a false prophet who led people astray. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.