(Folks, sorry for the weirdness in font…I can’t figure out why it changes and how to make it uniform. I did some copying and pasting from some other documents I’ve written, so perhaps that’s it. At any rate, I don’t know how to fix it, so I hope it’s not too much a burden on your eyes).
It’s been a while since I did a “Skeptics Answered” post. If you’ll remember, a looooong time ago I made a call to skeptics out there to give me their best shot in terms of objections to the Christian worldview. I’ve done several posts answering the challenges I received, and now, since I’m on spring break, I’ll manage a few more.
One challenge I received was this one:
When there are 13 Gospels(experts claim it to be more), why did only 4 make it into the Bible. Why where the other rejected? Is it simply because it did not contain anything important or it really contained something important? This is a clear indication of how fake the Bible is. The latest discoveries indicate how each Gopsel contradicts the others. For example, when all gospels in the Bible say “Judas betrayed Jesus,” why does the Gospel of Judas say, “Jesus asked him to do so”?
There’s a lot to unpack here. First, the dichotomy is somewhat confusing. As it stands, his challenge doesn’t make much sense, but I think I know what he’s asking. Why did the four Gospels (and the other books of the NT) included in the canon, whereas the other books and “gospels” didn’t?
The challenger references a common narrative: that there are a plethora of other “gospels” that were suppressed by men in power to preserve their own beliefs and positions of influence. Some, like Leigh Teabing in the Da Vinci Code, claim there were over 80 gospels!
Usually, the number of other “gospels” is grossly exaggerated, but no matter the number, there’s no reason to assume a conspiracy of suppression.
There is a very simple reason Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were included into the canon, whereas the others were not: the four canonical Gospels were and are the most reliable and therefore the most widely used and authoritative.
First, MMLJ (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were the earliest written, even if you assume a late date of writing (some scholars, for instance, date the Gospel of John to around the early 90s. This is a later date than others, including myself, argue for.). The others, often forgeries, came much later. The “Gospel” of Thomas is a prime example, having been written in either the late second or early third centuries.
Secondly, MMLJ had an apostolic connection: they were either written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life or were compiled by those who were closely associated with these eyewitnesses and were under their tutelage. Some are skeptical of traditional authorship, but the testimony of history as well as internal evidence solidly points to the traditional view of authorship.
For example, both Papias and Irenaeus, two early church fathers, defended Matthew as the author of, ummm, Matthew. In addition, the Gospel of Matthew has more references to money than any of the other Gospels. It was written in a highly, highly structured way. Both these facts comport well with Matthean authorship, who was known to be a former tax collector.
This is a commonsense standard of authority–it stands to reason that those who are closest to the events in question are usually the most reliable.
Thirdly, one just needs to read the non-canonical documents and compare them with MMLJ. They often contain downright crazy things. Here’s an example from the “Gospel” of Thomas:
Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Every once and a while in the mainstream media, a report comes out about the Gospel of Thomas. The report usually intimates that Thomas’ list of sayings is at least as reliable than the four canonical gospels. Most of the time, though, the news story fails to mention the above passage.
Another example (among countless others) is the Gospel of Truth. The following is typical of this writing:
He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. It did not, however, cause destruction because it was eaten, but to those who ate it it gave cause to become glad in the discovery, and he discovered them in himself, and they discovered him in themselves, the Father, the perfect one, the one who made the totality, within him is the totality and of him the totality has need. The Father was not jealous. What jealousy indeed (could there be) between himself and his members? It is he who fashioned the totality, and within him is the totality and the totality was in need of him.
Who knows what that’s all about. Pretty esoteric.
Others have wild narratives in them. The resurrection account in the Gospel of Peter, for instance (another later forgery), features a giant Jesus and a talking cross:
<9.34>Early in the morning, when the Sabbath dawned, there came a crowd from Jerusalem and the county round about to see the sepulchre that had been sealed. <35>Now in the night in which the Lord’s day dawned, when the soldiers, two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, <36>and they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw nigh to the sepulchre. <37>That stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulchre started to roll and give way to the side, and the sepulchre was opened, and both the young men entered in. <10.38>When now those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders — for they also were there to assist at the watch. <39>And whilst they were relating what they had seen, they saw three men come out from the sepulchre, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross following them, <40>and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was led of them by the hand overpassing the heavens. <41>And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, ‘Thou hast preached to them that sleep,’ <42>and from the cross there was heard the answer, ‘Yea.’
Not only is there a giant Jesus and a talking cross, but a whole crowd of folks gathered on that day to watch the spectacle!
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry!
Seriously, though, this is much, much different from the canonical gospels.
In fact, the only four that were ever taken remotely seriously by the early church were MMLJ. Yes, some radical sects, like gnostic sects, latched onto some of the lesser reliable documents, but the reason why they were not taken seriously is because they were just not that reliable. There was no power grab. Indeed, the church at that time didn’t have much power. The debate was won by good ‘ol fashioned argument.
From the very beginning, MMLJ enjoyed a wide circulation and use. The earliest church fathers, writing around the end of the first or very beginning of the second (Clement and Polycarp are two examples), quoted from them often and highly honored them in a similar way to the OT Scriptures. In addition, the amount of manuscript copies we have of MMLJ is gigundous compared to any of the others. This underscores their authority and use. If they weren’t valued highly, there wouldn’t be so many manuscripts that have been preserved.
Here is a quote from Mark Roberts, author of Can We Trust the Gospels?, on early testimony about the four gospels:
In the second half of the second century, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John became a foursome, to borrow a term from golf. We have evidence from various kinds of writings from this period, all of which points to the unique position given to these four writings:
Tatian’s Diastessaron: Around 170 A.D., a Syrian church leader named Tatian took Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and made one cumulative gospel, called the Diatessaron (from Greek, meaning, “one-through-four”). Tatian did not use any of the Gnostic gospels in his harmony.
The Muratorian Fragment: In 1740 Lodovico Antonio Muratori published a list of New Testament documents he had found in an eighth-century manuscript. Most scholars date the first writing of this list to around 170 A.D. Though the first part of the list is incomplete, it certainly included Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Here’s how the existing list begins:
. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. . . . (emphasis added)
Irenaeus in Against Heresies: Writing around 180 A.D., Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote a book refuting Gnostic and other Christian theologies he considered to be incorrect. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus acknowledges that the Gnostics wrote their own sacred works, but he recognizes four and only four gospels as authoritative. Here are a couple of excerpts from Against Heresies:
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. (Against Heresies 3.1.1; emphasis added)
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. (Against Heresies 3.11.8; emphasis added)
Thus from a wide range of sources and genres of writing, we learn that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were held in high esteem in the late second-century church, and that they were considered authoritative alongside the books of the Old Testament.
The authority of the four were pretty much unquestioned until Marcion came along in the mid second century.
Marcion was very influential in church history, but in an ironic sense. He wrote in the mid second century. He favored Christ, but saw a distinction between the god of Christ and the god of the Old Testament. He loved the former but despised the latter, seeing the OT god as a lesser, false god because he created the evil world in his own image.
Marcion therefore sought to expunge all Jewish influence from Christianity. He published a much truncated list of books, editing them according to his narrow theology. His canon included Paul’s letters (minus any OT quotations) and a shortened version of Luke (again, without any reference to the OT).
Along with the writings of Valentinus, a gnostic, who also published a list of sacred books, Marcion’s canon made the church at the time wake up. Though there was no official list of authoritative books at the time, the church knew enough to sense that these two men did not accurately represent the church’s history and origin. Marcion and Valentinus’ respective canons were a dramatic departure from what the church had practiced, believed, and cherished from the beginning. Thus the church had to defend and explain what it already implicitly recognized; the effort to officially state a canon was underway.
In the early fourth century, Eusebius described four categories of documents: the accepted writings, the disputed writings, the rejected writings, and the unworthy-of-mention writings. The majority of our NT books today were widely accepted (20 of the 27, including all four gospels). The disputed writings included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, whereas Revelation was accepted by some but rejected by others. Those in the “unworthy-of-mention” category included the “Gospel” of Peter and the “Gospel” of Thomas.
Athanasius, in his Festal Letter of 367, was the first to list all 27 and only the 27 books of the New Testament.
In summary, many assume that the New Testament came to be through a single decree from a very politically powerful group of men. These men, popular opinion continues, set several documents before them, and debated the merits of each, deciding in the end which belonged in the Bible and which did not.
However, though a Council decision did come into play at the very end, the canon was formed via a long, organic process. NT scholar F.F Bruce, commenting on the overall history of the formation, says,
When at last a Church Council–the Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393–listed the twenty-seven books of the NT, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. As Dr. Foakes-Jackson puts it: ‘The Church assuredly did not make the New Testament; the two grew up together.’
Bruce Metzger, another NT scholar, calls it a “long, continuous process.” During this process, books and epistles were not merely gathered; they were analyzed, weighed, and either used or rejected.
That is a brief sketch. I recommend the following books if you want more detail (the quotes from Bruce and Metzger were taken from these books):
F.F Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How we got our English Bible
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
I also recommend the following internet articles:
The DaVinci Code Cracks, by Greg Koukl (ID: pugnacious, Password: Irishman)
The DaVinci Opportunity, by Mark D. Roberts
The Gospel of Judas: a Special Report, by Mark D. Roberts
When were the NT Documents Written? by Mark D. Roberts
______________________________________________________________________________________
If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button at the top right in the side bar).
