The Fourfold Gospel: A Formational Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, volume 1: From the Beginning to the Baptist

Abstract

This volume, and the one to follow, are the product of 20 years of research and devotion from the author (p. xi). DelHousaye’s Fourfold Gospel seeks to walk the line of biblical commentary and devotional, utilizing the medieval Quadriga. This interpretive methodology, drawn from the Latin word for a chariot drawn by four horses, embraces four levels of scriptural interpretation: the literal, anagogical, typological, and tropological. The commentary itself is structured along the parallel rabbinic structure of PaRDeS (פַּרְדֵּס), wherein the “P” stands for peshat (פְּשָׁט)—the plain sense of the words; the “R” for remez (רֶמֵז)—the allegorical sense; the “D” for derash (דֵּרַשׁ)—the homiletical sense; and the “S” for sod (סוֹד)—the intent of the divine author (p. 30). The biblical text is then arranged in the form of a fourfold Gospel reminiscent of Tatian’s Diatessaron, with the commentary categorized by the letters explained above.Before arriving at the commentary proper, DelHousaye spends the first 126 pages explaining the methodology of the book, the historical development of its devotional approach, and a summarized history of the Gospels—including their reception in history, alternative arrangements, and competing Gospel texts within the first 300 years of the church. This introduction is a vital part of this commentary, as most Western readers will be wholly unfamiliar with the approach utilized or how to appropriate it. The author should be commended for his desire to reintroduce popular medieval concepts such as lectio divina into the Protestant reading of Scripture and present a work that is both academically challenging and spiritually enriching. For the reader interested in medieval spirituality, the bibliography contained within this introduction alone will be an invaluable resource for further study. While this work does not rest comfortably in the genre of biblical commentary that most are accustomed, DelHousaye encourages the reader to approach the text with spiritual preparation in order to allow the devotional content to permeate. Though this methodology may be uncomfortable for scholastics as well as lay Protestants, the author should again be commended for making the purpose of the text absolutely clear at the outset.Where this book succeeds is in its valiant attempt to summarize an often-overlooked era of Christian spirituality and synthesize it with modern academic Gospel studies. Its acknowledgment of the status quaestionis of the Synoptic Problem, as well as the historical-critical breakthroughs in Gospel research, open the door for the academic discussion without taking the forefront. Alternatively, this commentary seeks to demonstrate that modern academic discourse and medieval mystagogy can cohabitate. While not all commentary sections incorporate every aspect of the PaRDeS approach illustrated in the introduction, most attempt to close on a devotional thought designed for later reflection, and while this may be out of place for its peers, the devotional approach of this work presents the academic reader with something often overlooked: opportunity for introspection and internalization of the biblical text.While there is much to be lauded over an intrepid endeavour such as this, there are also infelicities that distract from the overall book. The introduction itself not without purpose, yet one wonders if it is necessary to include in a commentary on the canonical Gospels a lengthy discussion of apocryphal and heretical Gospels and Muslim literature. While worthy subjects of study in their own right, this diverts from the text in hand. Additionally, the author has chosen to include his own English interpretations of the Greek text—a common approach in most academic commentaries—resulting in several awkward readings of familiar texts and the adjusting of the Greek in uncommon ways.1 Last, the authors insistence that the Gospel of John was composed prior to Luke is at odds with most contemporary scholarship and is reasserted throughout the text without suitable substantiation.In spite of these minor disputations, it can be said that this work will stand out among its peers, given its unparalleled approach within the Protestant tradition. DelHousaye should be commended for his tireless efforts to gather such an immense collection of resources and his willingness to relate a work that is a deeply personal expression of his own spiritual formation. There is certainly a need in the academy for more of this within contexts dominated by intellectualism.