The New Testament Canon

 

Rex Banks

 

 

 

Lesson 4

 

Scripture contains many stern warnings against adding to, distorting or taking away from the Word of God.  It also has numerous promises of blessings upon the faithful in every generation.  Clearly such warnings and promises make sense only if a permanent body of divinely-bestowed Truth, which is identifiable as such, exists, and is distinguishable from merely human productions.  Obviously if it is not possible to distinguish between the oracles of God and fallible human opinion, Truth is unrecognizable and therefore unknowable.  That’s why it is important for believers to know something about the “canon” of scripture.

 

In our Old Testament Chronology and Canon we emphasized that the Old Testament canon consists of that body of sacred writings which was entrusted to the nation of Israel, the covenant people of God in the pre Christian period.  We cited evidence that the so called “Protestant” Old Testament canon is identical to the Jewish canon endorsed by Jesus and the inspired writers of the New Testament.  Our present discussion relates to the New Testament canon.

 

 

Canon

 

In present usage “(the word ‘canon’) signifies a collection of religious writings divinely inspired and hence, authoritative, normative, sacred and binding” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).  The word “is of Christian origin, from the Greek word kanō̇n, which in turn is probably borrowed from the Hebrew word, קנה, ḳāneh, meaning a reed or measuring rod, hence, norm or rule” (ibid).  “(It) is first employed of the books of Scripture in the technical sense of a standard collection or body of sacred writings, by the church Fathers of the fourth century; eg in the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea (363 AD); in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius (365 AD); and by Amphilochius, archbishop of Iconium (395 AD)” (ibid).

 

The apostle Paul tells us that in the pre Christian era the Jews were entrusted with “the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), a designation for “the utterances of God given through Moses and the prophets…(Rom 1:2)” (James G. Dunn, Romans Word Biblical Commentary).  Evidently this usage “is already established in the Septuagint (Deut 33:9; Isa 5:24; Psa 12:6 [LXX 11:7]; 18:30 [LXX17:31]; 107 [LXX 106]: 11;…)” (ibid).

 

As we have seen, Jesus was the focal point of the Old Testament, and His advent signaled the fulfillment of the divine plan to bless all the nations of the earth in Abraham’s seed (Gen 12:3).  Jesus came as mediator of “a new covenant” (Heb 9:15, cf Matt 26:28; Jer 31:31 ff; Heb 8:6 ff) and “To those who confessed Him as Lord His words were at least as authoritative as those of Moses and the prophets” (F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture).  Although Jesus wrote no book, He promised that certain specially selected men would be divinely guided to record and preserve the provisions of the new covenant.  These individuals, who directly or indirectly “delivered” the Lord’s teaching to others, were guided by the Holy Spirit who taught them “all things” and brought to their remembrance all that Jesus had said to them (Jn 14:26).  When they spoke in defense of the Gospel it was the Spirit of God who spoke in them (Matt 10:20). Thus they claimed the same divine authority for their words that Moses and the prophets claimed (1 Cor 2:12 ff; 1 Cor 14:37; Gal 1:11-12; Eph 3:1-4; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:12;

2 Pet 3:1-2; Rev 1:1 ff).

 

Several Biblical passages provide further evidence that the New Testament writers placed their teachings in the same category as those of the Old Testament prophets.

 

“Thus the apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks of Paul’s numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with ‘the other Scriptures’ (2 Pet.3:16) - that is, of course, those of the Old Testament.  In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of ‘Scripture’ (1 Tim. 5:18):  ‘For the Scripture saith ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn’ (Deut. 25:4); and, ‘The labourer is worthy of his hire’ (Lk 10:7)” (B. B. Warfield, The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament).

 

Again in 2 Pet 3:2, Peter urges his readers to “remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour spoken by your apostles.”  Clearly Peter here has in mind the Old Testament prophets (cf 1 Pet 1:16-21) and again he places their words in the same class as those of the apostles who spoke “the commandment of the Lord and Saviour.”  In similar vein, Paul describes the church as “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20) likely meaning “the doctrine taught by the prophets in the Old Testament, and the apostles in the New” (Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible).  Thus, just as God’s covenant people in the Old Testament period were entrusted with the “oracles of God” so too His covenant people of the Christian era are recipients of a God-given body of truth which is to be carefully distinguished from fallible human opinion.

 

Although Scripture does not give a detailed historical account of how certain writings came to be accepted as canonical by Christians, Bible believers take seriously the implication of many Biblical statements that the formation of the canon was directed by God, and that the divine source of certain writings was recognized from the moment these documents were produced.  As Milton C. Fisher explains:

 

“The Church, in both Jewish and Christian eras, has served as custodian of and witness to the contents of the inspired Scriptures, but the latter do not derive their authority from any ecclesiastical body.  Canonization was not a matter of the closing of a list of entries, partial or final, but recognition of the inherent canonical quality and qualification of each portion as it became available.  Thus canonicity, an innate authenticity by virtue of divine inspiration, may be viewed as antecedent to canonization, the acknowledgement of the authenticity of the writings by the community of believers” (The Canon of the Old Testament, Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 1).  

 

Orthodoxy strongly affirms that “The Spirit of God that inspired these compositions also worked in the hearts and minds of the chosen people to testify to them that the writings were in fact the divine Word” (R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament).  But this is no mere circular argument.  Orthodoxy insists that since there is sound internal and external evidence for the supernatural origin of certain documents, these documents can be trusted when they affirm that an identifiable, distinctive and divinely authorized canon exists.  In a nutshell, evidence that certain writings are inspired is also evidence that a divinely authorized canon exists because the existence of such a canon is implied by these writings.  Ultimately, this is a non-circular argument grounded upon Christian apologetics. 

 

While it is true that the writings of earlier Christians and others provide helpful insights into the NT canon, belief in the existence of a collection of authoritative and inspired writings, distinguishable from all other writings, cannot be and must not be grounded upon the testimony of uninspired men.  Belief in the existence of such a body of material is the corollary of belief in inspiration, and in turn this belief in inspiration is firmly grounded upon the evidence supplied by Christian apologetics.  This is a very important point because discussions of the NT canon must avoid circular arguments and appeals to uninspired secular records as final authority. 

 

 

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

 

In our discussion of the Old Testament Canon (Old Testament Chronology and Canon) we made some comments about the Apocrypha.  (The term has an interesting history and in different contexts has various shades of meaning, but since Jerome’s time it has commonly been understood to mean “non-canonical”).  We noted that in the Old Testament context this “is the designation applied to a collection of fourteen or fifteen books (or parts of books) not included in the Masoretic Hebrew Bible.”  These fourteen or fifteen books were written during the last two centuries before Christ and the first century of the Christian era.

 

The New Testament Apocrypha is very extensive and is made up of a collection of books which imitate the style of the New Testament writings and which contain similar material.  There are “Gospels,” historical books purporting to record the acts of various New Testament figures, epistles, apocalypses, biographies and such like.  The term “Pseudepigrapha” means “false inscriptions” and it is applied to those writings falsely attributed to famous figures from the New Testament.

 

Written in various languages and often surviving only in fragments, these works bear clear evidences of their human origin and were not included in the New Testament or the writings of the Apostolic fathers.  However, many of these writings are useful historical documents because they provide an insight into the beliefs, traditions, myths and superstitions which developed in early “Christian” circles, particularly those associated with Gnosticism.  Briefly, Gnosticism is a collective name for a mixed group of sects which appear to have arisen in the pre Christian era and which continued to exist down to the fifth century AD.  Deriving their name from “gnosis,” the Greek word for “knowledge,” the Gnostics claimed to possess secret knowledge of divine matters, and borrowed extensively from the main religions of their day, especially Christianity.

 

Typically, Gnostic sects which developed in “Christian” circles drew a distinction between the inferior God of the Old Testament and the God whom Jesus revealed.  (Some may even have identified the former with Satan).  This inferior deity was responsible for the existence of the material world, and matter - which was held to be evil and was allegedly the result of some primeval disorder.  Spirit on the other hand was good, and man’s spirit held captive by the physical body yearns to be set free from its fleshly prison.  This release could only be attained by means of some special “knowledge” (gnosis) and thus redemption was a matter of philosophy.  The content of this philosophy was derived from various sources such as tradition (allegedly communicated to a coterie of like minded spirits), portions of the New Testament, “enlightened” members of different sects and such like.  Moreover, since matter was evil, God’s becoming flesh was inconceivable.  (Of course any doctrine which denies the incarnation cuts the heart out of the gospel).  Some Gnostics advocated overcoming the flesh by indulging it while others advocated overcoming the flesh by ascetic practices.

 

We will have more to say about Gnosticism throughout this survey of the New Testament books, but the relevant point here is that much of the New Testament Apocrypha is saturated with heretical Gnostic teaching.  For example, in all the Apocryphal Acts, sexual asceticism is the dominant theme.  In the “Acts of Paul” (ca 160-180 AD) sexual abstinence is a condition of eternal life; in the “Acts of Peter” the apostle’s martyrdom occurs because he incurred the enmity of several influential citizens by persuading their wives to separate from them; in the “Acts of Thomas” the Lord appears to a newly married couple and convinces them to pursue a life of sexual abstinence and so on.  Moreover, the Gnostic Jesus of Apocryphal Acts is an unreal figure whose existence is an appearance only.

 

“This Docetic Christology is most prominent in the Acts of John, where we read that when Jesus walked no footprints were discernible; that sometimes when the apostle attempted to lay hold of the body of Jesus his hand passed through it without resistance; that when the crowd gathered round the cross on which to all appearance Jesus hung, the Master Himself had an interview with His disciple John on the Mount of Olives.  The crucifixion was simply a symbolical spectacle; it was only in appearance that Christ suffered and died” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

Various Apocryphal Gospels contain similar Gnostic themes along with fabulous accounts and legendary material:

 

·        In the so-called “Infancy Gospels,” the youthful Jesus is often pictured as a wilful child who uses supernatural powers in a frivolous or malevolent manner (eg harming children, giving life to a clay bird). 

 

·        In the Apocryphal Epistles (consisting of writings attributed to the Lord Himself, Peter, Paul and others), numerous unscriptural ideas are to be found. For example, in a letter attributed to Peter, the apostle insists that his teaching be limited to a select group in harmony with the Gnostic view that enlightenment is reserved for the elect.  Women become worthy of the Kingdom by being transformed into men.

 

These and similar doctrinal errors along with puerile stories and fanciful embellishments serve to highlight the great superiority of the Canonical books.  Certain early Christian writers may have accepted some non-canonical writings as inspired works or as genuine but there are sound reasons for excluding them from the New Testament.

 

 

History

 

Although the contents of Scripture do not derive their authority from synods, ecclesiastical bodies or uninspired individuals, it is helpful to know something about the historical process whereby the canonical quality of the New Testament books was widely recognized within the believing community.  Although fragmentary, the record available to us provides some useful information on the subject and in the following paragraphs we will mention some relevant individuals, documents and events as a guideline for further study.

 

 

Early Christians Writers

 

Early Christian writers did not typically identify New Testament citations as such and for this reason our interpretation of the evidence is tentative.  However, Norman L. Geisler points out: 

 

“Of the four gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on.  This includes 268 by Justin Martyr (100-165), 1038 by Ireneaus (active in the late second century), 1017 by Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-ca. 220), 9231 by Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254), 3822 by Tertullian (ca. 160s - ca. 220), 734 by Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) and 325 by Eusebius (ca. 265-ca. 339...).  Earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, 1st Corinthians in 95 to 97.  Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts and most of Paul’s Epistles.  Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1st Corinthians, and other books.  Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1st Corinthians, and other books.  Papias, companion of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, quoted John.  This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while some eyewitnesses (including John) were still alive” (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics).

 

These extensive citations are of great relevance to this present study.  For example, R. Laird-Harris quotes B. F. Wescott (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament) as follows:

 

“Polycarp’s use of Scriptural language is so frequent that it is wholly unreasonable to doubt that he was acquainted with the chief parts of our canon; and the mode in which this familiarity is shown serves to justify the conclusion that the Scriptural language of other books in which it occurs more scantily implies a similar knowledge of the apostolic writings.”

 

Laird-Harris then comments:

 

“Is it not a thrilling experience to have an epistle admitted to be authentic, and from the pen of one who had heard the apostle John, thus witness so extensively to books which form the core and make up almost half of our New Testament?”

 

Of particular interest are those citations which indicate that divine authority was ascribed to various writings.  For example:

 

·        Clement urges his readers to “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle” adding:

 

“What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?  Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties” (1st Clement 47:1-3).

 

Thus Clement acknowledges that Paul wrote under the influence of the Spirit. Elsewhere, Clement uses the formula “it is written” followed by a New Testament quotation.  For example, “For so it is written ‘Who maketh His angels’ spirits and His ministers a flame of fire’” (36:3).  The fact that Clement of Rome appears to have written to the Corinthian church on behalf of the church at Rome indicates that both churches were aware of the books to which he refers in about 95-97 AD suggesting an early and wide recognition of these writings.

 

·        In about 110 AD the martyr Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following as he was being taken to Rome to die for the faith:

 

“I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did.  They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour.  Yet if I shall suffer, then am I a freed-man of Jesus Christ, and I shall rise free in Him.  Now I am learning in my bonds to put away every desire” (Ignatius to the Romans 4:3).

 

Clearly Ignatius recognizes that the apostolic writings were unique and possessed an authority that his own did not possess.

 

·        In similar vein, Polycarp wrote a little later in his Letter to the Philippians:

 

“For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you taught face to face with the men of that day the word which concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent, wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you” (3:2).  

 

Elsewhere Polycarp quotes the writings of Paul and calls them “scripture.”  For example:  “Only, as it is said in these scriptures, Be ye angry and sin not, and Let not the sun set on your wrath” (12:1).

 

·        Ireneaus begins his Against Heresies as follows:

 

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.  For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.  For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge:  they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.  Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.  After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.  Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.  Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia (1:1).

 

Later Ireneaus argues that “the apostles, like a rich man (depositing his money) in a bank, lodged in (the hands of the church) most copiously all things pertaining to the truth:  so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life” (4:1).  He asks:  “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings?  Would it not be necessary, (in that case), to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” (ibid).  In Ireneaus’ view the church possesses “the Scriptures of the Lord” (2.35.4).

 

·        Justin Martyr’s well-known description of a typical worship service dating from about the middle of the second century contains the following significant statement: 

 

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things” (1st Apology 67).

 

Earlier Justin speaks of “the memoirs” composed by the apostles “which are called Gospels” (1st Apology 66).  Thus, Justin places the Gospels on equal footing with the “writings of the prophets” and tells us that the early church used both in the worship service.  Some argue that Justin refers to the synoptic Gospels only, but the following quotation from his Dialogue with Trypho suggests that he was also familiar with John’s Gospel:

 

“For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner, Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs” (105.1).

 

·        Tertullian speaks of the “apostolic churches…in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally” (Against Heresies 36).  He adds that “the law and the prophets she (ie the church) unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith.”  Evidently Tertullian is familiar with a body of writing in which “the writings of evangelists and apostles” are combined with “the law and the prophets.”

 

There is much more evidence to show that many of the books which we regard as canonical were considered divinely authoritative at a very early period.  Summing up the evidence from the “first thirty years after the death of the last apostle” R Laird-Harris concludes that “the bulk of the writings of the New Testament were already, in this early age, known, and used, as profitable” (Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible).  He adds:

 

“Each of the first three orthodox authors (Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp – Rex) recommends at least one of the Pauline Epistles (a different one each time) by name, and by Basilides, the heretic (see below - Rex), two are specifically called ‘Scripture.’ Barnabas, (ie the so called Epistle of Barnabas – Rex) similarly refers to Matthew.  All the Gospels except Mark (and this so closely parallels Matthew in material that it too, may be included) are utilized, as are all the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews (not to prejudge its authorship).  In addition James, 1st John, 1st Peter and probably 2nd Peter and Revelation are witnessed to, leaving only the two small Epistles of John and the single chapter of Jude without attestation.  With regard to these latter books, it should be pointed out that there is no negative evidence in this respect, but only a silence which may well be accidental.”

 

Although these early writings do not contain a systematic treatment of canonicity, they do permit us to dismiss as “entirely false” any idea that “the church took inordinately long to recognize the authority of the documents that constitute the New Testament” (D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris, Introduction to the New Testament).  It is clear that these books “were necessarily circulating much earlier, most of them recognized as authoritative throughout the church, and all of them recognized in large swaths of the church” (ibid).

 

 

Heretical Writings

 

Ironically, various Gnostic materials supply further direct and indirect evidence that at a very early period, various New Testament books were accepted as authoritative documents on par with the Old Testament writings.

 

 

 

Basilides  

 

According to Clement of Alexandria, Basilides wrote in the days of Hadrian (117-139 AD) and in typical Gnostic fashion, claimed to have received a secret teaching from Peter by way of one Glaucias, supposedly the apostle’s interpreter.

 

“In addition to psalms and odes, Basilides wrote commentaries on the Gospels and also compiled a ‘gospel’ for his own sect; only fragments of these writings have been preserved.  Contradictory accounts of Basilides’ theology have been provided by Clement, as well as by the theologians Hippolytus of Rome and Saint Ireneaus” (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

 

From the writings of Hippolytus of Rome (d ca 236 AD) we learn that Basilides cited 1 Corinthians and Romans as Scripture and was familiar with Matthew, Luke, John, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians Colossians and possibly 1 Timothy and 1 Peter.

 

 

Valentinus

 

A Gnostic teacher who lived in Rome from about 135-160 AD, Valentinus authored a number of treatises, the most famous of which was the so called Gospel of Truth written about 140-145 AD.  John J Wenham tells us that Valentinus “is acquainted with the Gospels, Pauline Epistles, Hebrews and Revelation, and shows traces of Acts, 1 John, 1 Peter and perhaps other New Testament books” (Christ and the Bible).  He adds that the writer’s language is permeated by them “because for him the language of these books is the language of the church.”  Wenham goes on to say:  “This evidence alone gives us the New Testament in the middle of the first half rather than in the middle of the second half of the second century.” 

 

 

Marcion

 

Marcion founded a sect at Rome in 144 AD which continued in the West for 300 years and in the East some time longer.  “They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).  Marcion’s ideas are set out in his Antitheses (Contradictions) - a work known to us only through the writings of his opponents.  The influence of Gnosticism is evident in his writing, although he differed from mainline Gnosticism on certain points.

 

Marcion supplied his followers with an edition of the Holy Scriptures, but his collection consisted only of the Gospel of Luke with omission of the first two chapters along with ten Pauline epistles.  The Pastorals (1^st and 2^nd Timothy and Titus) were not included and anything in the other Pauline epistles which Marcion found unacceptable he treated as a corruption and removed.  He also rejected the entire Old Testament.  In Marcion’s view, the twelve apostles misunderstood and misrepresented the teachings of Christ.  B. F. Wescott points out:

 

“There is indeed no evidence to show that any definite Canon of the Apostolic writings was already published in Asia Minor when Marcion’s appeared; but the minute and varied hints which have been already collected tend to prove that if it were not expressly fixed it was yet implicitly determined by the practice of the Church” (History of the Canon).

 

 

Early Lists of the New Testament Books

 

 

The Muratorian Fragment

 

In 1740 Ludovico Antonio Muratori, (1672–1750) published a list of New Testament books based upon a seventh century Latin manuscript.  Some scholars detect a translation from a Greek original while others are of the view that Latin was the original language.  Although some scholars contend for a fourth century date, the original probably goes back to about 170 AD.  Internal evidence for the early date is supplied by the following reference to the Shepherd of Hermas:

  

“We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.  But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome.  And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.”

 

Since Pius was “bishop of Rome” from about 142–157 AD, internal evidence favours a date towards the end of the second century.

 

The following excerpts from the Fragment are from Bruce Metzger’s translation in his Canon of the New Testament.  The first complete sentence reads:

 

“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke.  Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, whom Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to the general belief.”

 

Clearly the first and second books of the Gospel are Matthew and Mark.  A few lines later we are told that “The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, one of the disciples.”  Turning to the letters of Paul the writer tells us that “they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones they are, from what place, or for what reason they were sent.”  We are told that “Paul himself…writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence:  To the Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans seventh.  It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth.”  Paul also “wrote out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.”  However, “There is current also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to further the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church.  For it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.”

 

Concerning the general epistles we are told that “the epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted in the catholic Church.”  Surprisingly we read that also counted in the catholic Church is “the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour.”  Just why this Old Testament Apocryphal book is mentioned here is unclear.

 

In summary, the books of Matthew and Mark are presupposed while Luke and John are listed.  Thirteen letters of Paul are listed, and two spurious letters “forged in Paul’s name to further the heresy of Marcion” are excluded.  Two letters of John are included as is Jude.  While the “apocalypses of John and Peter” are listed, it is noted that some were opposed to the public reading of the latter.  The Shepherd of Hermas is excluded from public reading on the grounds of its late composition.  Thus, “We…have a history of the New Testament books as an authoritative collection almost exactly like our New Testament from someone who wrote less than seventy years after the death of the last apostle and who may well have talked with Polycarp himself or others who knew the apostles” (R Laird-Harris).

 

 

Origen

 

In his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Origen (ca 185-ca 254) speaks of the “peacemaker” who “demonstrates that that which appears to others to be a conflict in the Scriptures is no conflict, and exhibits their concord and peace, whether of the Old Scriptures with the New, or of the Law with the Prophets, or of the Gospels with the Apostolic Scriptures, or of the Apostolic Scriptures with each other” (Book 2). He goes on to describe the one who is skilled “in the music of God” explaining that this individual has learned “at the right time to strike the chords, now the chords of the Law, now the Gospel chords in harmony with them, and again the Prophetic chords, and, when reason demands it, the Apostolic chords which are in harmony with the Prophetic, and likewise the Apostolic with those of the Gospels” (ibid).  Origen makes no distinction between “the Old Scriptures” and “the New” and clearly classifies “the Gospels” and “Apostolic Scriptures” with “the Law” and “the Prophets.” 

 

In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius (ca 265-340 AD) has the following about Origen:

 

“In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:  ‘Among the four Gospels,’ which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew...  The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter…the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul…(and) Last of all that by John.

 

In the fifth book of his Expositions of John’s Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles:  ‘But he who was made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit, that is, Paul, who fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum, did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. And (John) wrote also the Apocalypse…  He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines.’

 

In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it:  ‘That the verbal style of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews, is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself rude in speech that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.  Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.’

 

Farther on he adds:  ‘If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher.  Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this.  For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.  But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows.  The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it’” (Book 6, chapter 25).

 

Thus according to Eusebius, Origen regarded the four Gospels, the Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and the Apocalypse as undisputed books.  (Eusebius does not mention the fact here but it is apparent from Origin’s writings that he is familiar with all 13 Pauline epistles).  Although it is clear from the above that Hebrews is disputed by some, in Origen’s view this epistle is “not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings.” Origen quotes extensively from Acts and attributes this book to Luke.  Peter’s second letter is “doubtful” while “not all consider (2 and 3 John) genuine.”  In his Commentary of Matthew, Origen speaks approvingly of “Jude a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James” who “wrote an Epistle of but a few lines, yet filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace” (10:17).  While Origen quotes from the epistle of James he refers to this book as “the reputed epistle of James” (Bruce) suggesting that some doubts existed about its canonicity.  

 

 

Eusebius

 

In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius records the history of the Christian movement from the time of Christ through to the days Constantine, using material from the famous church library at Caesarea.  Despite various deficiencies as an historian, Eusebius preserves valuable material from earlier works lost to history.  At one place in his History, Eusebius discusses the New Testament writings under three categories:  (1) the recognised or accepted writings (2) the disputed writings and (3) the rejected writings.  He writes:      

“Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned.  First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.  After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained.  After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time.  These then belong among the accepted writings” (Book 3, chapter 25).  

 

Earlier Eusebius speaks of “Paul’s fourteen epistles” which are “well known and undisputed” (Book 3, chapter 3) thereby including Hebrews in the Pauline corpus.  He acknowledges that “some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.”  Eusebius continues his discussion of the New Testament books as follows:

 

“Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.” 

 

Finally, Eusebius turns to the third category of books which he describes as “the rejected writings:”

 

“Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.  And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted.”

 

This threefold classification is easy to understand apart from the fact that the Apocalypse of John is listed among the “accepted writings” and also among the “rejected writings.”  Perhaps this reflects Eusebius own uncertainties about the book.

 

As Eusebius continues, his meaning is less clear.  He makes the statement that “all these may be reckoned among the disputed books,” and this is followed by an unsuccessful attempt to clarify this point.  He is clear however when he goes on to speak of “those (works) that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles.”  He explains that these books include “for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.”  The character of these books “is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.  Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.” This last statement may help us with Eusebius’ distinction between the “rejected” writings and “the (works) cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles.”  Perhaps his meaning is that the former are non-canonical but doctrinally orthodox whereas the latter are heretical and at odds with the apostolic teaching.

 

Eusebius’ writings reveal that he played another important role in facilitating the recognition of the canonical books.  In his Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, he says that “Ever careful for the welfare of the churches of God, the emperor addressed (him) personally in a letter on the means of providing copies of the inspired oracles” (4.34).  Constantine orders “fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures…to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art” (4:36).  These instructions “were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form.”  Although we are not told which books are included in these copies, in Bruce’s view “the answer is not seriously in doubt.”  He says:

 

“The copies contained all the books which Eusebius lists as universally acknowledged (including Hebrews, of course, but also including Revelation - to which Constantine attached great importance - Rex) and the five catholic epistles which he lists as disputed by some - in short, the same twenty-seven books as appear in our copies of the New Testament today…  If these copies did indeed contain the twenty seven books, no more and no less, that would have provided a considerable impetus towards the acceptance of the now familiar New Testament canon.” 

 

 

Cyril of Jerusalem

 

In his Catecheses written about 347 AD, Cyril (ca 315-386 AD) speaks of the “divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament” (4.33) affirming that “the God of the two Testaments is One, Who in the Old Testament foretold the Christ Who appeared in the New.”  Having discussed the contents of the Old Testament, Cyril continues:

 

“Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous.  The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort.  Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank.  And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say” (4:36). 

 

Cyril lists all of the books contained in our modern Bible except for Revelation, and this omission is likely due to the misuse of this book by heretical sects of the day.

 

 

Athanasius of Alexandria (293–373 AD)

 

“Athanasius is the first writer known to us who listed exactly the twenty-seven books which traditionally make up the New Testament in catholic and orthodox Christianity, without making any distinction of status among them” (Bruce).  He does not list these books in the order which has become traditional.  In 367 AD Athanasius, then “bishop of Alexandria,” wrote the following in his so called Festal Letter:

 

“Since some have taken in hand to set in order for themselves the so-called apocrypha and to mingle them with the God-inspired scripture, concerning which we have attained to a sure persuasion, according to what the original eye-witness and ministers of the word have delivered unto our fathers, I also, having been urged by true brethren and having investigated the matter from the beginning, have decided to set forth in order the writings that have been put in the canon, that have been handed down and confirmed as divine, in order that every one who has been led astray may condemn his seducers, and that every one who has remained stainless may rejoice, being again reminded of that.”

 

Having declared his purpose, Athanasius continues:

 

“Continuing, I must without hesitation mention the scriptures of the New Testament; they are the following:  the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, after them the Acts of the Apostles and the seven so-called catholic epistles of the apostles:  namely, one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and after these one of Jude.  In addition there are fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul written in the following order:  the first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians and then after these the one to the Galatians, following it the one to the Ephesians, thereafter the one to the Philippians and the one to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians and the epistle to the Hebrews and then immediately two to Timothy, one to Titus and lastly the one to Philemon.  Yet further the Revelation of John.

 

These are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them.  In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed.  Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them.

 

But for the sake of greater accuracy I add, being constrained to write, that there are also other books besides these, which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety:  the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching (Didache) of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.  And although, beloved, the former are in the canon and the latter serve as reading matter, yet mention is nowhere made of the apocrypha; rather they are a fabrication of the heretics, who write them down when it pleases them and generously assign to them an early date of composition in order that they may be able to draw upon them as supposedly ancient writings and have in them occasion to deceive the guileless.”

 

Thus, the “springs of salvation” consist of “the four Gospels” the “Acts of the Apostles” the “seven so-called catholic epistles” the “fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul” and the “Revelation of John.”  Concerning these books Athanasius declares “Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them...”  The “apocrypha” on the other hand are “a fabrication of the heretics” although two non-canonical books the “Teaching (Didache) of the Apostles, and the Shepherd (of Hermas)” “serve as reading matter.”

 

 

Rufinus of Aquileia

 

In his On the Creed, Rufinus (ca 345-410 AD) asserts:

 

“Of the New (Testament) there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John.  These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith” (37). 

 

He adds:

 

“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical’:  …In the New Testament (these are) the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, (and that) which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine” (38).

 

 

The Situation in the Late Fourth Century

 

Laird-Harris affirms that “there has not been serious debate (about the New Testament canon) since the days of Athanasius” adding “We do not refer to the question of canonicity raised on the grounds of extreme skepticism.”  Certainly in the west from about the late fourth century the canon was quite stable.  Widespread acceptance of the New Testament canon was greatly facilitated by the prestige of two individuals, Jerome and Augustine whose influence in the west was profound.  Jerome’s Latin version of the New Testament which came to be known as the Vulgate was produced between about 383-405 AD.  It comprised 27 books “and with the general acceptance of the Vulgate by western Christians the dimensions of the New Testament canon were fixed” (Bruce). Augustine of Hippo, (354-430 AD) a figure of immense influence, accepted and defended the 27 book canon.  In about 397 AD he wrote the following in his On Christian Doctrine:

 

“Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard:  to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive.  Among those again which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of lesser authority.  If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number, and others by the churches of greater authority, (although this is not a very likely thing to happen) I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal” (2.12).

 

Of interest is the fact that Augustine does not make an appeal to some authoritative church council but rather to consensus.  It is also evident from his comment that some variation existed amongst the churches known to him.

 

Various other documents from about the same period contain interesting insights into the development of the New Testament canon but we simply note here that in the middle to late fourth century the Council of Laodicea (363 AD) and Gregory Nazianzen (329-389 AD) gave a list of 26 New Testament books, omitting Revelation, (Hymn). (The authenticity of the list of canonical books contained in the sixtieth canon of the Council of Laodicea is questioned by some).  From the same period Amphilochius of Iconium listed the 27 books while noting that that some rejected Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation (Iambics for Seleucus).  Epiphanius of Salamis includes all 27 books and for some curious reason adds the wisdom books of Solomon and Ben Sira (Panarion).  Disputes about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation continued to surface in various quarters and for this reason we will discuss the issues involved in our individual treatment of these books.

 

 

Esteemed Non-Canonical Books

 

In our discussion of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha we referred to a number of writings which purport to record the acts of various New Testament figures, or which are falsely attributed to such individuals.  We pointed out that these works bear clear evidences of their human origin and were not included in the New Testament or the writings of the apostolic fathers.  However, we do need to say a word about several documents which were cited approvingly by certain respected figures in the early church but which are, with good reason, excluded from the New Testament canon.  These writings never gained a noticeable degree of recognition, but usually they are mentioned in any discussion of the New Testament canon.

 

 

1 Clement

 

Attributed to Clement of Rome and dated at about 95-96 AD, 1 Clement was addressed to Christians in Corinth and outside the New Testament, it is one of the earliest extant Christian documents.  According to Ireneaus, “(Clement) had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes” (Against Heresies 3.3).  Referring to Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, Ireneaus writes that “Those who care to can learn from this writing that He (ie the God of the Old Testament) was proclaimed by the churches as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is older than those present false teachers who make up lies about another God above the Demiurge and maker of all things that are” (ibid).  Evidently Ireneaus accepted 1 Clement as authoritative.  Origen knows 1 Clement but it is not clear if he regards it as scripture.

 

Despite its antiquity, 1 Clement was never accepted as canonical.  According to Metzger, “(Clement) refers to Orpheus as ‘the theologian’, and speaks of Plato as being ‘under the inspiration of God.’  Even the Epicurean Metrodorus uttered certain words ‘divinely inspired.’”

Epistle of Barnabas

 

Although tradition ascribes this document to Paul’s companion Barnabas, it is clearly not the product of inspiration despite its early date of between 70 and 130 AD. The writer is very hostile towards all things Jewish, and even condemns certain Mosaic provisions as mistakes arising from Jewish blindness.  His misuse of Old Testament allegory is unmistakable.  The writer “condemns circumcision, fasting, bloody sacrifices, distinctions of meat, the Sabbath - indeed all the ceremonial precepts of Judaism” (Charles Bigg, The Origins of Christianity).  In fact: 

 

“He goes so far as to maintain that the Temple never ought to have been built; the way in which the Jews adored God in that house of stone was hardly better than the worship of Gentiles.  He asserts that the Law was never meant to be taken in its literal sense.  Unclean animals mean unclean vices; when God forbade His people to eat the flesh of swine, they ought to have understood the words to mean that they were not to associate with swinish men.  It was ‘an evil angel’ who misled the Jews into thinking that such carnal precepts, especially that of circumcision, a rite practised by heathen Syrians and Arabs, could be of any value to the soul” (ibid).

 

Although esteemed by some early Christians, the Epistle of Barnabas has no place in the canon.

 

 

The Didache

 

“The ‘Didache’ or Teaching (longer title, ‘The Teaching of the Lord, by (diá) the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles’).  This work is quoted as “Scripture,” without being named, by Clement of Alexandria (circa 170 AD, in Strom., i. 20).  It is mentioned in HE, III, 25 as the ‘Teachings so-called of the Apostles,’ ‘recognized by most ecclesiastical writers,’ although ‘not a genuine’ composition of apostles.  Athanasius (Fest. Epistle, 39) denies its canonicity, but acknowledges its utility” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

The Didache consists of two parts, the first containing instruction about (what is called) the “Two ways” and the second containing a basic manual of church order. Evidently the purpose of the first section was to instruct candidates for baptism about the Christian life, while the second section consists of instructions about food, fasting, the Lord’s Supper and such like.  The document closes with admonitions to be alert and watchful in view of the second coming.  According to Metzger, “most (scholars) prefer a date in the first half of the second century” for the composition of the Didache.  Lost for several centuries and known only through quotes and references in other early works, the Didache was re-discovered in 1875 in a monastery at Constantinople.

 

 

The Shepherd of Hermas

 

“Another work widely accepted as scriptural in early times is the Shepherd of Hermas, an allegory in apocalyptic form, containing five visions, twelve commandments, and ten ‘parables’….  The agent of revelation, sometimes an angel and sometimes the pre-existent Church, tells Hermas to transmit the content of the visions to two leaders of the Roman church (one named Clement) and to read it himself with ‘the elders who preside over the church’” (Robert M Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament).

 

The Muratorian Fragment also makes reference to The Shepherd.

 

As we have seen, Eusebius lists The Shepherd among the “rejected writings.”  On one occasion, Tertullian writes:  “I would admit your argument, if the writing of the Shepherd had deserved to be included in the Divine Instrument, and if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even of your own Churches, among the apocryphal and false.”  Although esteemed by many, evidence of the book’s human origin is clear:

 

“A single chance of restoration after fall is given to Christians and this opportunity is spoken of as something new, which had never been clearly published before…  It has been thought with some reason that he did not distinguish the Son from the Holy Ghost, or that he held that the Holy Ghost became the Son by His Incarnation.  But his words are not clear, and his ideas on the subject may have been rather misty and confused than definitely erroneous” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).

 

 

Conclusion

 

We conclude our brief discussion of the New Testament canon with the following observation by Philip Schaff, author of the classic History of the Christian Church:

 

“If we compare these documents (ie the writings of the early ‘church fathers’) with the canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, it is evident at once that they fall far below in original force, depth, and fullness of spirit, and afford in this a strong indirect proof of the inspiration of the apostles…but they bear a testimony none the less valuable to the genuineness of the apostolic writings, by occasional citations or allusions, and by the coincidence of their reminiscences with the facts of the gospel history and the fundamental doctrines of the New Testament.”

Lesson 5

Modern Biblical Criticism

 

It is not difficult to understand why it is that many new Christians who are eager to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 3:18) turn trustingly to the latest theologian promising new insights into the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.  Understandable yes, but also naïve and all too often very dangerous. Unfortunately, many times when the pretty platitudes and pious posturing are stripped away, the latest (“scholarly,” “masterful,” “groundbreaking”) study presents us with a portrait of Jesus which is a travesty of the Biblical figure.  Perhaps the Jesus on offer is an effete dreamer, a raving megalomaniac or a Machiavellian schemer, but usually his creator is on hand to assure us in smooth and dulcet tones that this in no way detracts from something called the “Easter message,” which turns out to be some vaguely sentimental feeling about hope or goodwill or authentic living - or really anything you care to name.  All too often our “theologian” begins his work with the assurance that he too is a “churchman”- yet he is content to leave his Jesus moldering in a forgotten tomb. The writers of the New Testament on the other hand speak of One who conquered the grave, and personally I prefer the Jesus of scripture.

 

Just how did we get to the point where many who are hailed as leading academics in the field of Biblical studies have parted company so completely with the scriptural record?  In order to understand this and in order to protect himself from egregious error posing as scholarly investigation, the Christian needs to understand something of the times in which he lives, and something of the spirit of the age which gave rise to modern Biblical criticism.

 

 

The Spirit of the Enlightenment

 

Certain basic presuppositions under-girding much modern Biblical criticism have emerged from what is often called the Enlightenment, a term used to describe an intellectual movement which began in the seventeenth century in England and developed in France in the eighteenth century.  Under the heading Enlightenment in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy we have the following:

 

“‘Enlightenment’ contrasts with the darkness of irrationality and superstition that supposedly characterized the Middle Ages...

 

Thus the watchword of the enlightenment is....‘Have the courage to use one’s own reason.’  Thus the leading doctrines of the Enlightenment, shared by many, if not all, of its spokesmen, are these:

 

1.       Reason is man’s central capacity, and it enables him not only to think, but to act correctly.

 

6.       Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.  Thus Enlightenment thinkers tended to atheism, or at most to a purely natural or rational deism, shorn of supernatural and miraculous elements and designed primarily to support an enlightened moral code and in some cases, to account for the fact that the universe is a rational system, wholly accessible to human reason.”

 

Now clearly in the case of the Bible, if the supernatural and miraculous elements are simply dismissed out of hand, the very essence of its message is destroyed.  There is, after all, no “good news” in scripture if Christ was not miraculously raised from the dead (1 Cor 15:13).  Yet the fact is that the guiding principles of modern Biblical criticism spawned by the Enlightenment operate to emasculate scripture in just this way.  In his book The Modern Search for the Real Jesus, Robert B Strimple lists the three primary principles which have guided modern Biblical criticism:

 

 

The principle of methodological doubt

 

All historical judgments (including those made concerning the events reported in the Bible) can only be statements of probability, which are always open to revision.  They can never be regarded as absolutely true.

 

 

The principle of analogy

 

All historical events are, in principle (in “quality”) similar.  Thus, “present experience and occurrence become the criteria of probability in the past…  In our present experience, ax heads do not float, nor do five loaves and two fish suffice to feed five thousand people.”

 

 

The principle of correlation

 

All historical phenomena exist in a chain of cause and effect, and therefore are mutually interrelated and interdependent. There is no effect without an adequate and sufficient cause.

 

In a nutshell, modern Biblical criticism is grounded upon the assumptions that:

 

·        The Bible is not a reliable historical document.

 

·        The miraculous accounts cannot be taken seriously.

 

·        The universe is a closed system from which the supernatural is excluded.

 

What we must keep in mind of course is that such an approach to the study of scripture is the product of a naturalistic world view.  It is the result of having adopted anti-supernatural presuppositions.  Given this bias, it is a foregone conclusion that the central doctrines of scripture (e.g. the virgin birth, the resurrection) will not survive.  The dice are loaded, the cards are stacked and the saddest thing of all is that many theologians are so steeped in this tradition that any alternative to naturalism is simply unthinkable.

 

 

A Few of the Cast

 

Many who are united in the conviction that the Bible is nothing more than the product of human genius are not united in accounting for its origin and existence. Theories on this subject have abounded, and we will say just a few words about several of the figures associated with some of the more influential ideas.  It will quickly become clear that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the claims of inspiration made by the original penmen of scripture and the imaginative reconstructions which were spawned by the enlightenment spirit.    

 

 

Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768)

 

In his book entitled Who Was Jesus, N T Wright states that the “so-called ‘Quest for (or ‘of’) the historical Jesus” begins with H S Reimarus. According to Wright:

 

“A little over two hundred years ago, the German sceptic H S Reimarus (1694-1768) declared that if we were to ask serious historical questions about Jesus, we would discover that Christianity was based on a mistake.  Jesus was not a “divine” figure; he was a Jewish revolutionary, who died a failure.  His disciples stole his body; then they wrote stories about him which made him out to be the great redeemer, expected by the Jews, who would appear on the clouds of heaven and bring the world to an end.  This didn’t happen either; but their early belief was adapted, not the least by Paul, into forms which enabled it to spread throughout the gullible ancient world.  We today, said Reimarus, can see that the whole thing was a tissue of lies.”

 

Thus Jesus viewed Himself and the Kingdom purely in political terms and His ethical and religious concepts were simply a reflection of His Jewish heritage.  His “miracles” were nothing more than fables and/or trickery.

 

 

David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874)

 

Strauss is perhaps best known for his three volume work The Life of Christ Critically Examined, in which he argued that the Gospel accounts are not historically reliable documents written by eyewitnesses but rather what he called, “historical myth.” By this Strauss meant that the Gospels consist of myths woven around the birth and death of a unique moral genius by a people who were convinced that He was the long-awaited, miracle-working Messiah.  As Strauss tells the story, Jesus’ followers were thrown into confusion by His death, but when their faith revived they appealed to certain Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 (which speak of a suffering dying figure) as proof that the crucifixion was a fulfilment of Messianic prophecy.  In a state of expectation and self-delusion, the believers succumbed to subjective visions which convinced them that Jesus had been restored to life - and the rest is history.

 

In his book Have You Considered Him, Wilbur Smith describes Strauss as “the bitterest of all opponents of the supernatural elements of the gospels” and this appears to be a fair assessment.  In his The Old Faith and the New, Strauss wrote concerning Charles Darwin:

 

“Darwin…has opened the door by which a happier coming race will cast out miracles, never to return.  Everyone who knows what miracles imply will praise him, in consequence, as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.”

 

 

Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860)

 

Considered by many the father of modern studies in church history, Baur was head of the influential “Tubingen school” which dominated Biblical scholarship in the mid-nineteenth century.  Influenced by a particular view of history developed by the German philosopher Hegel, Baur concluded that early Christianity is to be explained as the outcome of a struggle between Jewish Christianity and Gentile (or Pauline) Christianity. According to Baur it is possible to date the books of the New Testament based upon the point of view expressed in each, because a particular writer’s viewpoint reveals the place of his work in the historical development of Christianity.  Thus Matthew, a Jewish-Christian document is early as are the Galatian, Corinthian and Roman epistles (the only letters written by Paul) which represent Pauline Christianity.  Since the rest of the New Testament books reflect the compromise viewpoint which grew out of the conflict between these two streams of Christianity, they must be viewed as late productions (post 150 AD).

 

Baur’s Jesus was a great moral teacher whose impact upon the world is explained by the fact that the religious people of His time were eagerly awaiting a Messianic deliverer, and many accepted Him as the promised one.  It was thanks to the contribution made by the Pauline/Gentile stream of Christianity that the new religion did not languish as a Jewish sect but became universal in scope.

 

 

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)

 

Recipient of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, this amazingly versatile man gained prominence as a leading figure in theological studies with the publication in 1906 of his book The Quest of the Historical Jesus.  Influenced by the views of earlier writers such as Johannes Weiss, Schweitzer depicted Jesus as a heroic figure driven by His conviction that the Kingdom of God was at hand.  Some kind of subjective experience convinced Jesus at the time of His baptism that He had been designated to establish the Kingdom of Heaven as the future Messiah of God.  Initially Jesus kept this secret to Himself, but later it was revealed to the inner circle of His disciples, then to the rest, and eventually, through the betrayal of Judas, to the priests and the mob.  This resulted in Jesus’ death.

 

According to Schweitzer, Jesus initially viewed His life’s work simply in terms of His mission to announce the imminent arrival of the Kingdom, but a progression in His thinking is evidenced by His words to the disciples in Matthew 10:23:  “you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”  But the Kingdom did not come, forcing Jesus to draw certain conclusions based upon His understanding of Jewish Kingdom expectations.  According to Jewish belief, a time of tribulation would precede the establishment of the Kingdom, and when it did not arrive Jesus concluded that the Lord had appointed Him to undergo this suffering in Israel’s stead.  Thus Jesus spoke to His followers of His suffering and death, and He also spoke to them of his resurrection, which Schweitzer sees as a reference to his coming again.  Basically Schweitzer’s Jesus died a failure, but the theologian offers some vague assurance that His life was in some sense a triumph.

 

 

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976)

 

Along with the names of K L Schmidt and M Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann is chiefly associated with the discipline known as “form criticism” which, as a form of Biblical investigation, originated in Germany in the years following World War One.  Form criticism began as a type of literary analysis but unfortunately certain presuppositions underlying its application to the Biblical documents produced very negative results.

 

The form critic takes the position that the Gospel accounts are made up of small independent units (called “pericopes”) which take the form of parables, miracle stories, exorcisms and the like.  These units originally circulated independently and were communicated orally by the early church.  The Gospel writers were editors who created an artificial framework of events, situations, geography, dates and the like in which to place and connect the various pericopes (which means of course that such details are not historically accurate).  What’s more, for a variety of reasons, the pericopes themselves also tell us very little about the real Jesus.  The main reason for this is that the various units are understood to have been devised or shaped by the needs of the early church. More often than not then the “words of Jesus” recorded by the Gospel writers are actually creations of the early Christian community, and they tell us more about the “life situation” (sitz im leben) of the early church than about the teachings of Jesus.

 

Of course there is much more to Bultmann, Baur and the rest, and much more to modern Biblical criticism, but hopefully enough has been said in this “readers digest” summary of a few key ideas to make the point that much modern scholarship rests upon unproven assumptions which effectively cut the heart out of the gospel message.  No amount of equivocation and double-speak can conceal the fact that there is no “good news” in a Bible that cannot be trusted and no power to save in a message which ends with a whimper.  All too often a gutted Bible and an impotent Jesus are all that remain after modern Biblical scholarship has eviscerated the sacred text.

 

Let’s conclude this discussion with an example of a recent hatchet job performed upon the Bible by a group of critical scholars who make up an alliance known as the Jesus Seminar.  The hatchet job has been a very public affair and this is not surprising. After all we are all inspired by stories of bold innovators heroically battling the forces of blind tradition, and it is in this role as courageous liberators from entrenched ignorance that the liberal theologians involved in the Jesus Seminar have become hits with the media.    

 

 

The Jesus Seminar

 

In 1985 a group of thirty scholars began meeting under the patronage of the Westar Institute with the declared intention of reviving the quest for the historical Jesus.  The Institute describes its twofold mission as that of:

 

·        Fostering collaborative research in the field of religious studies.

 

·        Communicating the results of this research to the public at large.

 

The Jesus Seminar is its best known undertaking and over time membership grew to more than two hundred Fellows before dwindling to seventy-four.  Participants possessed advanced academic credentials, but critics pointed out that the Seminar was heavily weighted in favour of liberal scholarship.  What is important about the Seminar is not the fact that it represents some new initiative, but rather the fact that its activities have made the man in the street aware of certain issues which were usually only discussed by the professional theologians. 

 

The objective of the Seminar was to reach consensus on the historical authenticity of the words and events attributed to Jesus by the writers of the Gospels, and following their deliberations the scholars rendered their verdicts by voting using colour-coded beads/marbles.  A fourfold choice was offered:

 

·        Sayings attributed to Jesus that were likely authentic (red bead).

 

·        Sayings which are somewhat likely to have been spoken by Jesus

(pink bead).

 

·        Sayings which are somewhat unlikely to have been spoken by Jesus

(grey bead).

 

·        Sayings that Jesus is unlikely to have spoken (black bead).

 

A full account of the Seminar’s deliberations was reported in The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.  We are assured by these erudite specialists that only about 18% of the sayings and 16% of the events normally associated with Jesus are authentic!

 

Now of course the Fellows knew that such a claim by individuals 2,000 years removed from the Jesus of history is not likely to go unchallenged, and in his opening address to the Seminar in 1985, founder Robert W. Funk had this to say:      

 

“We are about to embark on a momentous enterprise.  We are going to inquire simply, rigorously after the voice of Jesus, after what he really said.  In this process, we will be asking a question that borders the sacred, that even abuts blasphemy, for many in our society.  As a consequence, the course we shall follow may prove hazardous.  We may well provoke hostility.  But we will set out, in spite of the dangers, because we are professionals and because the issue of Jesus is there to be faced, much as Mt. Everest confronts the team of climbers.”

 

And like Strauss, Schweitzer et al before them the Fellows found their Jesus.  They found an itinerant wise man who was not virgin-born, not a miracle worker, not the unique Son of God and who was not raised from the dead.  (What’s left you may well ask?).  What’s more, they claim to have recovered this authentic portrait of Christ because the results of their deliberations were not predetermined by theological bias!  And there’s the rub.  It’s this claim of scholarly objectivity which rings so hollow and which simply cannot go unchallenged.  You see, the Jesus of the Seminar is a product of that same naturalistic, anti-supernatural spirit which has pervaded modern Biblical criticism for generations.  The best way to highlight this lack of objectivity is to mention some of the presuppositions which guided the Fellows in their deliberations.

 

 

Burden of Proof

 

The following very revealing statement is taken from The Five Gospels:

 

“(The) gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church’s faith in him, and by plausible fiction that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first-century listeners who knew about divine men and miracle workers firsthand.  Supposedly historical elements in these narratives must therefore be demonstrated to be so.  The Jesus Seminar has accordingly assumed the burden of proof:  the seminar is investigating in minute detail the data preserved by the gospels and is also identifying those that have some claim to historical veracity” (emphasis mine).

 

So having “assumed” that mythical embellishments overlay the Gospel accounts, the Fellows proceed on the basis that the burden of proof rests upon those who argue for the genuineness of a particular saying rather than upon those who deny its authenticity. Guilty unless proven innocent!  How stacked is this particular deck?  How loaded are these particular dice?  How real is the claim of objectivity?

 

 

The Creative Community

 

Of course the above quotation from The Five Gospels also makes clear that members of the Jesus Seminar have taken the unproven assumptions of Form Criticism on board (see Bultmann above), treating many of the sayings normally attributed to Jesus as reflections of the “life situation” of the early Church.  Only by going beneath these layers of embellishments can we see something of the Jesus of history, we are told, and of course the Fellows can help us here.  Consider a few examples of the process whereby the Seminar peeled away the layers of myth from the Jesus of the Gospels:

·        On the assumption that predictive prophecy is just not possible, any statements by Jesus about the future (eg the destruction of Jerusalem) were considered unauthentic.

 

·        On the assumption that miracles simply do not happen, miracles too were viewed as embellishments or explained away.

 

·        On the assumption that Jesus did not quote or interpret scripture, any passages which record His doing so were considered inauthentic.

 

·        On the assumption that Jesus never claimed to be divine, to be the expected Messiah, to have power to forgive sins and the like, such claims were treated as creations of a later generation of believers.

 

·        On the assumption that the early church attempted to deal with certain issues by attributing particular sayings to Jesus, any saying attributed to Him which could have been useful in promoting later Christian causes were deemed inauthentic.    

 

We could go on but the point is clear - rigid presuppositions provided the sieve through which the words and deeds of Jesus had to pass before they received the Fellows’ (coveted?) seal of approval and of course these rules of engagement also ensured that the Seminar would find exactly the kind of Jesus that they set out to find.  So much for objectivity!  Yet in the Introduction to The Five Gospels we read:

 

“The Fellows of the Seminar are critical scholars.  To be a critical scholar means to make empirical, factual evidence - evidence open to confirmation by independent neutral observers - the controlling factor in historical judgments.”

 

Evidently it is far easier to make this claim than to abide by it.         

 

 

A New Canon

 

By speaking of the five Gospels as opposed to the fourfold Gospel, Funk et al alert us to the fact that our Fellows have also decided to abandon the traditional canon of scripture.  It is instructive to consider a little of the tortured logic behind this decision.

 

Briefly, since predictive prophecy simply does not happen, Mark, the earliest Gospel must have been written sometime after 70 AD because it describes the destruction of Jerusalem.  The other Gospels of course are later still.  In this case, earlier sources devoid of many embellishments must have appeared sometime between the time of Christ’s death and 70 AD.  Clearly these sources, being early, should enjoy priority, and our scholarly friends believe that they have identified two such sources, namely “Q” (or “Quelle”) and the Gospel of Thomas.

 

 

 

Source “Q”

 

If you’ve never read “Q” don’t panic because no one else has read it either.  In fact, no-one has ever seen a copy.  The name of C. H. Weisse (1801-1866) is associated with the so-called Markan or two document hypothesis, which holds that where Matthew and Luke are parallel and agree with Mark, the first two Gospels are dependent upon the last.  However, Matthew and Luke are longer than Mark and they also share some of the extra Markan material.  The theory holds that here Matthew and Luke show dependence upon another source which came to be designated “Q” (short for Quelle, the German word for source).  Despite the fact that there is no manuscript evidence to support this hypothesis, the Fellows regard the “Q” material as earlier than that of the canonical Gospels.

 

 

The Gospel of Thomas

 

In the 1940s a library of ancient Christian and Gnostic texts was discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.  One Coptic text dated at about the fourth century AD was the so-called Gospel of Thomas, which consists of a collection of wisdom sayings attributed to Jesus.  The text begins:  “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.  And he said, ‘Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.’”  The emphasis upon salvation through secret knowledge (gnosis) identifies this as a Gnostic document.  There is evidence that an earlier version of Thomas may have existed, and the Fellows claim to be able to identify material from an “early edition” which dates from about 50-60 AD.  

 

So we have a truly ludicrous situation.  Privileged status is given to two so-called “source” documents:  one which exists only as a theoretical concept (“Q”), and another which clearly advances second and third century Gnostic ideas!  And all this because these alleged sources are easily harmonized with a preconceived view of Jesus as a “laconic sage” (Funk) who did not perform miracles, forgive sins or speak of His future resurrection from the dead.

 

Apart from anything else, the Jesus of the Seminar is an unbelievable figure.  Why would such an innocuous figure arouse the ire of the Jewish leaders?  How can we entertain the idea that the concept of a miracle-working, suffering, atoning and resurrected Christ evolved gradually over time, when there is abundant evidence that Paul was preaching such a Christ from the 40s of the first century?  Why did multitudes of people in the decades immediately following the crucifixion make incredible sacrifices to follow a dead man if he was remembered as nothing more than wise man who made no special claims for himself?  An avalanche of questions remains unanswered.    

Concluding Comments

 

The Bible warns us again and again that Christians are to exercise discernment and that they must protect themselves from egregious error communicated in smooth and comforting words.  The Bible has nothing to fear from intensive investigation, and Christians acknowledge that when legitimate methods of historical research are judiciously applied to scripture this serves to enhance our understanding and appreciation of the sacred text.  But the Christian must also understand the times in which he lives and the sad fact is that ours is an age so saturated with theological modernism that many who are hailed as Christian leaders/thinkers have stripped the gospel of all those elements which are offensive to the naturalistic world view, thereby depriving it of its power to save.  Christians are of course to be “innocent as doves” in their dealing with others, but let’s not forget that there is also a time to be “shrewd as serpents” (Matt 10:16).