In our final installement of "DaVinci Decoded," we are going to look at the development of the Biblical Canon (Canon with one “n”, not cannon, like the weapon). Now, if that is a term which is unfamiliar to you, the Canon has come to mean the authoritative collection of Scripture that we deem to be inspired. The word “canon” means “rule” or “standard”. This issue comes up throughout the DVC, and the discerning reader is left with many questions. Namely, how reliable is the biblical canon? Or as I have turned the pun, “Is the canon shot?”
The Code says: “Everything you need to know about the Bible can be summed up by the great canon doctor Martyn Percy. … ‘The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven.’” (p231). I don’t really know anyone who is arguing this rather ludicrous suggestion. But we do claim a divine origin of the Bible, that it is God’s word. But the DVC denies this …
The Code says: “The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions.” (p231).
We do not claim that man did not have a part. 2 Peter 1:20-21: But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
It is untrue to suggest that the Bible has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. Each new translation or revision has sought to conform the text more to the most ancient and accurate manuscripts.
The Code says: “The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.” (p231). We have doubly dismissed this, by looking both at the career of
Other claims made in the Code are:
- “Thousands of documents already existed chronicling His (Jesus’) life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books,
- “His (Jesus’) life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land. … More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them.” (p231).
We have already acknowledged that there were other writings in existence that mentioned Jesus. But mentioning Jesus does not make something Christian scripture. The Quran mentions Jesus—it is not Christian. And very few of these other documents actually claim to be gospels. Eighty is certainly an unrealistic figure. And they were certainly never “considered” for inclusion in the NT, but were pretty much rejected on first encounter because of their obvious divergence from Christian orthodoxy. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John paint a picture of Jesus the God-Man. Most of the rejected writings emphasized a more spiritual Jesus than human one.
- “The modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda—to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base.” (p234).
Again, we have debunked this by removing
- “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.” (p235).
This is an epistemological claim that says Dan Brown’s sources are more trustworthy than ours. There simply isn’t any reason to believe that. On what basis do we declare that the writings of the NT are false? On the basis that other writings contradict them? Well, who’s to say that those writings are not false? In fact, as we shall see in our next discussion, the NT overwhelmingly passes every examination for historical reliability. F. F. Bruce has said that if the NT were a strictly secular book, its authenticity and reliability would have never been called into question.
- “History has never had a definitive version of the book.” (p231).
This is by far the most ludicrous canonical claim of DVC.
What criteria are there for a book being considered “Canonical” by the early church:
- It has God’s authority for what it says.
- It is not just a record of revelation that was given, but in fact IS the revelation in and of itself.
- It is an inspired text, coming through a divinely inspired human agent.
So, how did we get a Canon, an acceptable list of Scriptures:
The Old Testament Canon was closed about 400 BC with Malachi, the last writing prophet. Our Old Testament is the same Hebrew Bible that the Jewish community has relied on for centuries. It is the Bible Jesus used. The Council of Jamnia in 90 AD ratified the 39 books of the traditionally accepted Old Testament canon.
The “Apocrypha” contains writings that were never accepted in the Jewish canon for reasons of authenticity, historicity, and doctrinal contradiction. These books are accepted by Catholics, and rejected by evangelicals. The Anglican position on these writings is that they are profitable for example of life, but not to establish any doctrine.
Jesus promised divine empowerment for the writing of the NT (John 14:25-26). There is significant evidence to support a first century writing of all books of NT. Most of the books have evidence supporting their writing prior to 70 AD, and some perhaps as late as 90 AD. New Testament “Collections” were slow in forming because of geographical dispersion of writings.
The New Testament writers appealed to their authority as apostles
- 1 Jn 1:1-3; 2 Pet 1:16-18; 1 Cor 15:8
The writers spoke of the authority of their own writings
- 1 Thes 5:27;
The writers referred to the authority of other writings
- 2 Pet 3:15-16; 2 Tim 3:16
The Church Fathers used the bulk of the NT in their writings. The only books not clearly referenced are Mark, 2-3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter.
- Clement, Polycarp (a disciple of the Apostle John), and Ignatius (a disciple of Polycarp).
The early church had specific reasons for the formation of early canons. Marcion (90-160 AD) was a heretic who denied the essential truths of Christianity and formed his own Bible (c. 140 AD). He accepted the Gospel of Luke, and 10 Pauline Epistles. He acknowledged that the books he rejected were accepted by the church, and written by the apostles. Inadvertently, he tells us that there was an “accepted list of Scriptures” even at this early date.
Persecution also affected the canon. The church had to determine what it was willing to die for. By and large Christians determined that they were only willing to die for the writings that they were certain were authentic, authoritative, and orthodox.
Around 170 AD, Tatian’s Diatesseron was produced as an effort to harmonize the gospels. The material found in Tatian is exclusively from the four canonical gospels which we have today.
The Muratorian Fragment (c170) was a significant archaelogical find. It is a canon list which mentions all NT books except Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and with no additional books than the ones now in our canon.
By 200 AD the entire NT Canon is recognized with the exception of 2 Peter, and with no additions. However, it would be an error to say that the early church doubted the canonicity of Hebrews, James (even Martin Luther questioned its canonicity), or the Petrine Epistles. These writings were being debated because many believers accepted them immediately as authoritative. In the end, they were universally affirmed.
In 367 AD, more than 40 years after Nicea, Athanasius’ Canon recognized our 27 NT books plus/minus none. Thirty years later, the Council of Carthage (397 AD) issued this statement: “Aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” Our 27 NT books were listed without addition or exception.
So, what shall we say? Is the canon shot? No, but it seems that the Code is! In summary, a vast majority of the New Testament canon was overwhelmingly affirmed prior to 200 AD. Those parts which were not universally affirmed were affirmed locally in many areas. And so we might say that, “The church did not make the Canon, but the Canon indeed made the church.”
No comments:
Post a Comment