Dealing with Davinci

line


West Side Church of Christ

Can We Trust the Gospels?



As we pointed out last lesson, Constantine the Great did not compile or oversee the compiling of our current Bibles and in particular the New Testament and the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John!
Having determined this we are still left with the question of where did our Bibles come from?
(Note: for this lesson we will focus on the New Testament with specific looks at the gospels. There is evidence for the Old Testament, but seeing this is a study of Christ himself and his ‘story’ we will confine this lesson to the New Testament).

Imagine we are attempting to find out if there ever was a battle at Gettysburg and what would have occurred there. As we look over all the documents there are two main themes that keep getting pushed:
  1. At the battle of Gettysburg the armies of the south were brutally outnumbered by the North and yet fought bravely while the North used questionable tactics and were slaughtered.
  2. At the battle of Gettysburg both armies fought the battle but in the end the superior might and cause of the North were victorious.
    3. From these two themes what can we know happened?
    Both stories clearly show a bias, but the section that is not part of the bias can be confidently asserted:
    There was a battle of Gettysburg!

    Last week we mentioned three important factors in determining history:
    1. Multiple attestations—the more records of the same event, the more accurate a story to have occurred.
    2. ‘Criterion of embarrassment.’ Those who would be considered hostile sources conceding points against them in history would make the story more accurate.
    3. Filtering the bias of the historian.
    Christian historians can be biased and we have to be careful in examining claims made by all historians (For instance, Josephus is biased towards Rome in much of his writings, so we have to filter that out.)
    When the historian is writing about something he has no reason to be biased about, there is no reason to deny what he/she is stating.

    Three important claims for this lesson:
    Davinci code: Jesus is simply not a Saviour, a great man, an influential man of history, but not a Saviour of men. Gnostic Gospels: Jesus is one of many emanations from God. The Bible: Jesus is the one divine man who confronts us all as the only one who is qualified to bridge the gap between God and us.-> 1 Timothy 2:5, John 8:12

    Two contrasting opinions:
    Dvc: ‘More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke & John among them.’ (p.251) This lesson: ‘there was never a time when these 4 gospels weren’t considered the 4 gospels of the Christian faith except for that brief period before all were written.’

    The burden on us today:
    where did this claim for 80 come from?
    How can we be sure that there wasn’t even a little delicate ‘re-arranging’ of the Bible?
    Can anyone outside of the believing community be expected to trust the modern-day church’s claim that these are the books to read?

    ‘The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds.’ Leigh Teabing DVC—p.250

    ‘An interesting note, anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine’s version was deemed a heretic. The word heretic derives from that moment in history. The Latin word haereticus means ‘choice.’ Those who chose the original history of Christ were the world’s first heretics.’ Robert Langdon dvc—p.254

    ‘The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.’ Leigh Teabing dvc—p.254

    ‘Some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950’s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms.’ Leigh Teabing dvc—p.254 (Of note: the Dead Sea scrolls were not discovered in the 1950’s but in 1947)

    Can we trace historically the coming together of our New Testaments?
    As we look at these lists, remember the men putting them together did not have a bias to prove the existence of these books but were using these books to prove other things!
    The fact that they are mentioned, and mentioned as being in use by the church helps us today discover the early history of our New Testaments.
    We will begin at approximately the year 400 A.D. and work backwards:
    1. The council of carthage 397 A.D.
      —they listed these books as scripture: 4 gospels, Acts of the Apostles, 13 epistles of Paul, 1 to the Hebrews, 2 epistles of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude & 1 of the apocalypse of John.
      Attached to the list ‘we have received from our fathers that these are to be read in the churches.’
      All 27 books completed for sure and recognized by the church by 397 A.D. Yet, with attached note must have been completed earlier—conservative estimate at least by 350 A.D.
      (Someone might say, that still shows it was after Constantine’s time)
    2. Athanasia—bishop of Alexandria 326—373 A.D. (he was present at council of Nicea)
      He warned against deception by false books and listed the true books and the list was all 27 books of our New Testament.
      He noted ‘delivered to the fathers, by those who were eyewitnesses & ministers of the word.’
      He said he had ‘learned this from the beginning.’ By including the ‘beginning’ can we not say that a conservative estimate is that completion of the canon was accomplished by at least 300 A.D.?
    3. Eusebius-bishop of Caesarea 270—340 A.D. (he too was present at council of Nicea)
      Lived through persecution of Diocletian (303-311 A.D.) where all Bibles to be burnt throughout Empire (see last lesson’s notes).
      Christian scriptures were widely known and widely used. Which books?
      He lists all 27 and states that 7 had been ‘disputed’: Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation. Yet, he says they were constantly recognized by most of our ecclesiastical authorities. The date for these 27 books is now pushed back into the 3rd century and implies a much earlier time. Completion can be given a conservative estimate of at least 250 A.D.
      (Interesting that all 27 books had reached throughout the Empire)
    4. Origen 185-254 A.D.
      He wrote a homily on Joshua and listed all 27 New Testament books. He also mentions that some doubted 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and the authorship of Hebrews. Still, for our purposes, the origin of all 27 books is now before the year 200 and they were the recognized collection of the church. We are even getting closer to the middle of the second century—less than a century removed from the apostles)
    5. Clement of Alexandria-catechetical teacher in Alexandria 189-202 A.D. (Lived from 165-220 A.D.)
      Wrote the Hypotuposes (outlines) where he gave an explanation of all canonical scriptures not omitting the disputed books. In other works he quotes from every book but Philemon, James, 2 Peter & 3 John. Born some 65 years after John’s death and the 27 books of the New Testament were their scriptures. A conservative estimate now places this completion of the canon to at least 150 A.D. or closer to the time of the apostles.
    What is the point?
    Our New Testaments were clearly in finalized, recognized form in the time of the students of the apostles if not the apostles themselves. It would have been easily proven or disproved by them.

    Other supports:
    Peshito syriac version 150-180 A.D.—contains all books but 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude & Revelation.
    Latin version 140-170 A.D.—contains all books but Hebrews, James & 2 Peter.
    Irenaeus 135-200 A.D.—quotes from every book but Philemon, Jude, 3 John & James.
    (Note: from these three sources alone, every book is contained in at least one)

    Justin martyr 140 A.D.—‘the memoirs of the apostles for the writings of the prophets are read according as the time allows.’ The church must have had a settled canon by this time.
    Polycarp-bishop of Smyrna 69-156 A.D. (disciple of apostle John)—‘I trust that ye are well exercised in the Holy Scriptures and the quotes our Ephesians 4:28).
    The point being that the church recognized scriptures. He quotes in other writings: Matthew, Acts, 10 of Paul’s epistles, 1 Peter & 1 John.
    Clement of rome-bishop of rome 93-101 A.D. (he would have been in Rome when John was writing his letters)
    —Clement wrote an epistle to the Corinthian church. In his letter he quotes from 1 Corinthians, Matthew, Luke, Ephesians, Romans, Mark, Titus, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter. Just 20-30 years after these letters were written, Clement quotes them in exhorting the Corinthians.

    1. By the evidence of manuscript copies yet in existence we have traced all the books to the first half of the fourth century.
    2. By the evidence of the catalogues we have traced them all to the second half of the second century.
    3. By the evidence of translations we have traced all the books except the second epistle of Peter to the first half of the second century.
    4. By the evidence of quotations we have traced all the books to the age of the Apostles with the exception of Philemon, James, 2 & 3 John, Jude and possibly 2 Peter. These last we have traced so near to the apostles as to render their spuriousness in the highest degree probably. (from McGarvey—p.176,177—see list of aids in back of lesson book)
    It is simply not true that a council met and finally decided which books would be recognized! The books that were recognized were the ones always recognized and the new ones that came along were the ones cast aside.

    Luke 1:1-4—People knew what Jesus said, to now make them up would mean the people could have ripped it apart. (Only by writing generations later could a book possibly survive, which none of our gospels were)
    2 Thessalonians 2:1,2—already books written under a pseudonym were being urged to be avoided.
    1 John 1:2,3—the benefit of being an eye witness to the ‘STORY’!

    An interesting thing in history that the Davinci code does not bring up:
    it claims 80 books were chosen out of and only four were taken. If the ‘compilers’ of the Bible were trying to make a Bible to their own liking, why didn’t they include the writings that did compare favourably with the books included?

    ‘the commonly held view is that man determines what is scripture. If that is true, then why limit our doctrine and practices to the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James and Jude? Why exclude the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp and Barnabas?’
    (Tom L. Bright from a lecture on who decided which New Testament books belong in the Bible? From Terry Hightower’s book-p.313—see list of aids at back of lesson books)

    What about the claim though of the books not in agreement with our Bibles found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts?

    To go along with the error of the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Davinci code is just wrong that there were any gospels discovered there.
    There were however, ‘gospels’ discovered at Nag Hammadi which go along with the Gnostic so called ‘gospels’.
    Some facts about these ‘gospels’:
    1. man’s problem is not sin but need for self-knowledge. (if an agnostic believes he/she can’t know, the Gnostic believes he/she can know all)
    2. Physical resurrection of Jesus is denied
    3. Redemption is within our own power
    Interestingly, long before Constantine and the Catholic Church, Irenaeus fought viciously against these in his writings, Against Heresies! ( I guess the dvc’s claim that the original heretics were those who chose against Constantine is a little off again!)

    The Gnostic texts are gaining in popularity because they are allowing people to feel like they can be a Christian in a ‘different’ way.
    What is confusing to the modern person is the title of these texts:
    The Gospel according to Philip or Thomas or Mary or Peter!
    Don’t they at least sound to be on a par with Matthew, Mark, Luke & John?

    Other facts about these ‘gospels’:
    despite the dvc’s claim, these are not the earliest records of Christianity but are all written well after the second century began and some in much later centuries (hint: no eye witnesses to prove or disprove)
    These gospels are not traceable in any way historically like ours in New Testament because they make no references to cities, rivers etc. or sequential events.

    Most important fact about these ‘gospels’:
    they do not give a new way of being a ‘faithful’ Christian.

    Why is there a desire to accept these?
    Because there is a desire to escape the responsibility one has when meeting the Jesus of our gospels! People are seeking a relationship with God that is not tied to the discipleship demanded in the Bible.

    A taste of these ‘gospels’:
    ‘Those who say the Lord first died and then rose are mistaken, for he arose and then died. If one does not first get resurrection one will not die.’ –Gospel of Philip
    ‘See I’m going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female element that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’    —Gospel of Thomas
    ‘When you see one who has not been born of woman, fall upon your faces and prostrate yourself before that one, it is that one who is your father.’    —Gospel of Thomas
    ‘there is no sin, but it is in you who makes sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.’    —Gospel of Mary

    Notice the two types of ‘gospels’ (Remember—the Davinci Code claims that the Gnostic gospels show Jesus more human and the New Testament gospels do not!)
    Four traditional gospels:
    They always display the great tension between Jesus’ humanity and divinity!
    Jesus suffers before being glorified. He displays power in glory but only after displaying human weakness on the cross. Discipleship in all 27 books includes following Jesus down this path of suffering to glory.
    ‘take up your cross daily…’
    These four all fit into a first century Jewish context and yet show some startling differences that if made up would have been laughed into oblivion—John 20:25-28.

    Gnostic gospels-
    There is simply no tension at all. Jesus is in fact, hardly human in these gospels.
    He taught us to follow wisdom and by following such we too will not suffer like the world. We will be enlightened. These do not fit into a first century Jewish context but reflect attempts to make Jesus fit into another set of theological categories.

    New testament put together—
    1. Letters from the apostles were written and received in the churches; copies were made and circulated.
    2. Growing group of books recognized as Scripture. Was the book written by an apostle?
      Written by a companion of one?
      Was it in harmony with the other books?
    3. By end of 1st century, all 27 books were written and received by the churches.
    4. One generation after age of apostles, all 27 cited as authoritative by some church father.
    When our gospels tell us that Jesus was born of a specific woman (who was a virgin) and died at the decree of a certain identifiable Roman official of the first century they give us details that distinguish Jesus from any cosmic myth as well as from any other human ever born. He is human but also divine (not one without the other)!
    The gospels maintain the tension between two equally powerful convictions concerning Jesus. The first is that a human person who was born like us and who died as we must also die continues to encounter us in our specific community. The second is that when we are touched by Jesus, we are also touched by God.     (Taken from Luke Timothy Johnson’s 1999—p.36,37—see list of aids at back of lesson book)

    Can we trust the gospels we have?
    The answer is they are the only sources that take us back to the time of the apostles and their students or listeners. How do we know that they are telling the truth?
    How do we know that they are worth listening to?
    For this we must go to our next lesson:
    who are we meeting when we meet the real Jesus?

    line

    Back to Davinci Series.
    Back to classes page.
    Back to home page.