Why should we be confident that our four canonical Gospels –
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – are the very Gospels that our Lord would want us
to have? Skepticism about this was given new life in 1946 when the Gnostic
Gospels (GG) were uncovered at an Egyptian site – Nag Hamadi. Although we had
already known about these “gospels” from the writings of the Church Fathers,
who excoriated them, in many cases, this was the first time that scholars
actually had them in hand.
Since then, some extreme voices have declared that these “gospels”
are just as valid as the Biblical ones. Dan Brown’s fictional work, The DaVinci Code, even expounded the
position that the church had used all of these “gospels” until the Council of
Nicea in 315 when they were finally banned. However, there are many compelling
reasons to retain our confidence in the four Canonical Gospels (CG):
- The GGs reflect a theology alien to the Bible and more in line with Greek and Eastern thought. For instance, they maintain that the creation is evil, created by an evil sub-god. This directly contradicts the Biblical creation account which holds that God had regarded the creation as “very good” (Genesis 1:31). In contrast, the CGs do not contradict the Hebrew Scriptures in any way – exactly what we’d expect to find if God is the author of all.
- The GGs are all pseudonymous – falsely attributed to an Apostle. This was clearly a device used in hope of gaining acceptance within the church. In contrast, the CGs are all unnamed. Seemingly, they had nothing to prove and were concerned more about truth than in gaining acceptance.
- The GGs are consistently dated late into the 2nd century and therefore could never have been regarded as Apostolic or as eyewitness accounts. In contrast, the CGs are all dated within the 1st century, even by the skeptics. One liberal scholar, J.A.T. Robinson had dated the CGs 40-65 AD. The Church Fathers all contend that the Gospels were Apostolic. Consistent with this, they claim that Mark’s Gospel recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts, while Luke’s Gospel reflects Paul’s sermons.
- The CGs were universally accepted by the church. There was never any indication that the church had ever questioned any of the four. In contrast, the GGs were accepted by none! No ancient Bible manuscripts contain them alongside of other NT writings. The only times that a Church Father quoted them was when he wanted to criticize them. Even the Gnostic philosophers never cited them as canonical. Nor did they write commentaries on them. Meanwhile, they did write commentaries on a couple of the CGs!
- The Gnostic philosophers site the NT CGs as authoritative. One Gnostic philosopher, Marcion 160 AD, identified his “bible” as containing simply the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul’s Epistles. None of the Gnostics ever cited GGs as part of their bible.
- While all of the ancient canonical lists contain the four CGs, they never contain any of the GG.
- The Gnostics either claimed that they had been privileged to have received secret knowledge from the Apostles or from within. However, they were never able to produce any evidence of such a transmission of material. Nor is there any evidence that the GGs were ever part of anyone’s church. In fact, the Church Father Irenaeus (180) attempted to check out their claims by interviewing a number of church elders who would have knowledge of any secret transmission of teachings. However, he reports that they were all unaware of any such teachings.
- The CGs are all God-centered. As such, even the Apostles are portrayed in a disparaging light. Clearly, the CGs are not self-promoting, but instead, seem committed to presenting a factual picture of the life of Jesus. In contrast, the GGs are very self-promoting. It is only the superior who are capable of understanding their secret message and of being saved.
- The GGs disappeared, while the CGs remained. The Bible declares that the Word of God endure forever (Isaiah 40:8). This certainly could not be said about the GGs!
Our Lord has promised that He would protect His Word. We
therefore can assume that we have the books that He has ordained.
Greetings Daniel Mann,
ReplyDeleteAfter attending your Saturday viewing of the DVD "Marks of a Cult" my interest was peaked to do some additional research about the 66 Books of the Bible/Canon as a WHOLE. I found some interesting information online that I think will be helpful in "lighting a path" to additional information about the already GOD CONFIRMED Bible. I also feel that the link below will promote additional research within and about God's Word. I am curious to know what your response will be about the link below.
Also, please continue to encourage others about God's Word...you are definitely making a difference in the lives of Christians...your work is not in VAIN! You are inspiring students (like myself) to be courageous in the ministry and confident about what God is saying to us through his holy, inerrant and inspired Word!
May God continue to bless you and your household!
Blessings,
Melissa Grant
Intro to Theology #200
How Do We Know the 66 Books in the Bible Are the Right Books?
How can we be sure that each book in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, Old to New Testament, that all sixty-six books are the right books for the Bible? How do we know that there is not more books that should be in the Bible?
http://thetruth-blog.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-do-we-know-66-books-in-bible-are.html
If you have any questions or comments, feel free to comment about this entry. Also, please email the writer Mr. Troy Hillman via vexx801@yahoo.com
Can we be real? Are you really reading and following the directions from what you already have?
ReplyDeleteEunice
Any attempt to label these FAKE gnostic gospels as valid is silly. Yes, they're fake gnostic gospels. I.e. they would not have survived unless the orthodox wanted them to, and the orthodox would only allow gnostic gospels created by themselves for the purposes of making gnostics look stupid to survive (and these do) so these are not real gnostic gospels.
ReplyDeleteBut the reality is that shaken faith in the 4 canonical gospels does not result from the appearance of gnostic gospels (whether real or fake) [except maybe in the minds of stupid people]. Shaken faith in the canonical gospels results from the fact that the story is created based on a misuse of OT passages rather than real history. Go read the first 2 chapters of Matthew, for instance, and then go back and read the OT passages being cited in context. They aren't about the events Matthew makes them about, and this in turn causes questions about the events. Did the events really happen (like Herod slaying the babies of Bethlehem) and then Matthew twisted Jeremiah 31 (about the Babylonian captivity) to make it fit? Or did Matthew misinterpret Jeremiah 31 FIRST and then CREATE Herod's supposed killing of the infants? This is the sort of stuff that causes a real loss of faith in the canonicals, not silly gnostic gospels.
As I've argued here and elsewhere, the Gospels are highly credible and present history that is highly regarded by all historians. Even the skeptic Bible critic Bart Ehrman confesses:
Delete• “The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus…are the four Gospels of the NT…This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the NT and in its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity…it is the conclusion that has been reached by every one of the hundreds (thousands, even) of scholars.” (“Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code,” p. 102)
About the Gospel Luke, for example, deceased New Testament scholar F.F.Bruce writes:
• “A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where means of testing aren’t available. Accuracy is a habit of mind…Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.”
Given, these types of endorsements, it is not enough for you to point to particular accounts in the Gospels that you find hard to believe. You have to present evidence why!
Once again, with your many responses and endless criticisms, you have to convince me why I should bear with this dialogue.
"A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where means of testing aren’t available. Accuracy is a habit of mind…Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy."
ReplyDeleteAuthors of historical novels study and research hard to make sure that they get their facts right for the historical backdrop they put their fictional tale in. Accuracy in such a case is not a habit of mind, but something worked hard at, precisely in order to give the fictional tale an air of historicity. Statements like the above by FF. Bruce simply betray a naive shelteredness with respect to literacy. If a man only ever reads the Bible and theological literature and never novels, he might not know this.
BW, My esteem for FF Bruce and for those who likewise esteem him goes undiminished despite your charge. Perhaps if you had offered something substantive I might have rethought my position.
DeleteIf our dialogue is just going to be a matter of you offering these kinds of charges, I will deem it "not worth my time."