Ever since the publication of the international best-seller The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown, the reliability of the New Testament canon has come under stead attack by an emergent crop of neo-Gnostics. Even though Dan Brown's knowledge of church history is slightly less accurate than my four year-old son's drawings of knights on horseback, his popularity has led to the spread of mythical misinformation about the selection of the books for the New Testament canon. Many people now think Emperor Constantine selected the books of the Christian New Testament at the Council of Nicea, despite the fact that the Council did not address the issue of the canon at all.
Probably the best way to counter these claims is to examine the writings of Christians who lived before Nicea (325 AD), especially those who lived closest to he times of the Apostles. Studying the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers (those who lives before 325) and especially the Apostolic Fathers (those who lived right after the Apostles) is very illuminating. But you don't have to study that much, especially if you have an open mind and are willing to consider evidence fairly.
What's remarkable and important for us to know is that in his relatively brief letter, Polycarp makes 112 references to the Bible, 100 of which are references to what we now call the New Testament. Polycarp knows his Scriptures well and he quotes from Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 & 3 John. That's 16 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Guess how many Gnostic Gospels or "lost books" of the NT are referenced in Polycarp? None. Of course, none of them had been written yet, because they were all late frauds, claiming authorship from the First Century but really being composed after 155 AD, more that 120 years after Christ's life.
Facts are stubborn things. Ignatius' letters, which are even older than Polycarp's (before 110 AD, less than 15 years after the Apostles), quote from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Thessalonians. And they, too, don't refer to any of the "lost books of the Bible."
So, was Polycarp a well-connected and powerful political figure getting rich off religion and suppressing all dissent? No. He was a simple pastor and church leader who was arrested in Smyrna in 155AD and put on trial for refusing to worship the Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. He was burned at the stake and run through with a sword because he would no curse Christ and offer incense to the Caesar. He said, "Eighty-six years I have faithfully served Christ, and He has never done me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" He died humbly and willingly because he knew John who has known Jesus and had seen Him resurrected. Polycarp had confidence that Christ would keep His word.
We can trust in the Bible we have. Constantine did not create it. Neither did Polycarp. No church council created it. God gave it as a gift to His people and to the world. It is reliable and the message it conveys gives hope that conquers tyrants' flames!
For more on Polycarp and the formation of the NT canon, read this.
Thanks for this post. I like learning about church history and seeing the hand of God.
ReplyDeleteHow did Polycarp, Ignatius, etc know which things were in the New Testament and which weren't?
ReplyDeleteTim, The evidence we have demonstrates that the church recognized very early on which letters were given by the inspiration of God and were Scriptures and which were not. While there were a couple of letters that were debated (Jude, Hebrews), most of the "books of the New Testament," as we know them today, we immediately recognized by the church as having full Scriptural authority. We even have Peter referring to Paul's letters as "Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16). The "lost books" of the NT have two key characteristics that distinguish them from the books included in the canon: They were written much later (after 155 AD) by false authors (pseudoepigraphia) AND they were never widely recognized as Scriptural by the church. Even by 110AD, Ignatius and and Polycarp were not only quoting from the books of the NT by memory, but they were also encouraging the churches to whom they wrote to read and study "the Scriptures," by which they meant the Gospels and letters of the New Testament. This means that churches had their own copies and that these copies were read and studied as Scripture. This is all happening over 200 years before Constatine's "conversion" and over 215 years before the Council of Nicea.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue: The early church cared deeply about authentic authorship. Contrary to contemporary critical scholarship, which assumes that Paul didn't write half the letters that bear his name and that it doesn't matter whether Thomas and Barnabus really wrote the letters attributed to them, etc., the early church would ONLY recognize as Scripture those letters whose authorship they could verify. That's why Hebrews took so long to be included in the canon because the authorship was unknown. However, even Hebrews is not pseudo-epigraphia. In other words, the author is unknown, not falsely attributed. The early church had no tolerance for fraudulant documents. I know modern critical Biblical scholars will say the opposite, that pseudoepigraphia was so widespread in the ancient world that people didn't care about authorship. However, if you read the church fathers on the NT Scriptures, you'll find that this issue was centrally and vitally importat to them.