19th May, 2006

JIM REIHER

The Bible came together over nearly 400 years. Nicaea was not the definitive moment when it was suddenly “declared” and given to the world.

In the second century AD, the church fathers were debating which books should be collected and seen as “inspired” and which should not. Lots of writings were being made. Not just sincere followers of Jesus were writing books and letters either. Even during the lifetime of the apostles, there were forgeries being made and signed off as if from one of them. Paul has to warn some of his churches that they must not believe every document that comes to them with his name on the bottom of it! (See, for example, II Thessalonians 2:1-2.) The early church was always concerned to have accurate documents that told the truth of Christ - who He was and what He did. And there were always fraudulent writings around.

The rise of both Gnostism and the Marcionites during the 100s meant the followers of Jesus were compelled to start identifying which books and Gospels and letters, were genuine and which were fabricated to promote stuff other than that which Jesus taught.  A number of church council meetings took place that included on their agenda discussion about the content of the New Covenant special writings. A number of tests were to be applied to any letter or book, before it would be recognized.

It is strongly accepted that the four Gospels were circulating as a group by the late first century. About 170 AD Tatian (a disciple of Justin Martyr), wrote his Diatessaron which was a harmony of the four Gospels we have in the New Testament. This gives important evidence that these four Gospels were generally the accepted ones: the four Gospels of the New Testament were well and truly accepted as authoritative by this date. Justin Martyr had referred to them in 163 AD and other church fathers do so after that date. For Dan Brown’s book to suggest that the Gospels in the New Testament are post-Constantine fabrications is just denial of clear history.

Origen (d. 254) used all 27 of the New Testament books and saw them as Scripture, but admitted disputes over Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John; and Revelation, as well as the Shepherd of Hermas; the Epistle of Barnabas; The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; and the Gospel to the Hebrews. He did not dispute the four Gospels, however.

After Constantine, a small church council meeting in Laodicea in 367 AD made up a list and it had all the New Testament books except Revelation. In the same year (367 AD), the church father Athanasius wrote an Easter letter that listed all 27 books of our New Testament as the correct ones - “These are the four Gospels; according to Matthew Mark Luke and John; afterward the Acts of the apostles; and epistles called Catholic - 7 viz. of James 1; of Peter 2; of John 3; after these one of Jude; in addition there are 14 epistles of Paul...and besides the Revelation of John.” He added that the Shepherd and the Didache could be read for edification, but they must not be seen as canon - like the other 27. And the Council of Hippo in 390 AD made a similar list (it had no Book of Revelation).

It was at the third Council of Carthage (397 AD), in North Africa, where the Western Christian churches accepted the New Testament as we know it. It has remained that same set of Books ever since. This was confirmed at the 419 AD Council of Carthage.

The different church councils that accepted or rejected different Books for the New Testament worked from a small set of general criteria. They really wanted material written by an apostle, or by an apprentice of an apostle, and they really wanted material that was from first century origin. They also chose material that was already widely circulating and accepted by the churches generally. There was no plot to put books in that suddenly made Jesus divine!

One of the other questions raised in The Da Vinci Code is whether the church council meetings created the New Testament or simply recognised it.

One of the great debates over the centuries since the reformation has been whether the church has greater authority than the Bible. Protestants have said the Bible should have the greatest authority. Catholics have usually said the church is the final word. A major Catholic position argues that the church decided what the Bible would consist of, and therefore the church is a greater authority - the church must interpret what it has brought together. Dan Brown needs this position to bolster the view taken in his novel.

The Protestant reply would be that the church did not make the Bible: rather it only recognized it. It did not one day wake up and tell Christian churches everywhere to accept this set of 27 documents that they had never seen before. Rather it recognized what was already being used and accepted, and simply formally acknowledged and listed it. The analogy of a jeweler recognizing an authentic diamond has sometimes been used here. The jeweler does not make the diamond authentic, rather the jeweler only uses his or her expertise to identify the genuine diamond.

It is reasonable to say that the canonicity of a New Testament book is not settled by the authority of the primitive church but rather by the testimony of the early church. The primitive church testified to the authorship of the New Testament documents not the content, first and foremost. If the authorship was considered to be apostolic, then its content would be trustworthy even if it speaks of unexpected topics. The authority of the first church councils and early Christians is not greater that any church council or Christians today: but their testimony is because they were closer to the events and had more resources to confirm their conclusions than we do today.

Jim Reiher (BA (double major in history), BA in Theology, Dip Ed. MA in Theology (Hons)) is a full time lecturer for Tabor College Victoria, lecturing in church history and New Testament; and also has speciality interest areas in women’s ministry, creative ministry, and the New Age movement. His views are not necessarily those of other Tabor faculty members or of Tabor College.