|
|
|
HISTORICAL JESUS |
|
Is it True that
Constantine Determined What Books Were Included in the Bible?
by
ATRI Staff Writer |
|
[Sir Leigh Teabing]: "More than eighty gospels were considered
for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen
for inclusions—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them."
"Who chose which gospels to include?" Sophie asked.
"Aha!" Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. "The fundamental
irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was
collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the
Great."—Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, p. 231. 1
Is
it true that Constantine produced the Bible as we know it today?
We
believe that even a quick glance at church history will show the
fallacy of this statement. Consider first these statements from
F. F. Bruce. Dr. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of
Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester
in England. He is the author of many books, among them Paul,
Apostle of the Heart Set Free, A Mind for What Matters. He
also served as general editor of The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. He says:
The historic Christian belief is that the Holy Spirit, who
controlled the writing of the individual books, also
controlled their selection and collection, thus continuing to
fulfil our Lord’s promise that He would guide His disciples
into all the truth. This, however, is something that is to be
discerned by spiritual insight, and not by historical
research. Our object is to find out what historical research
reveals about the origin of the New Testament canon.…
The first steps in the formation of a canon of authoritative
Christian books, worthy to stand beside the Old Testament
canon, which was the Bible of our Lord and His apostles,
appear to have been taken about the beginning of the second
century, when there is evidence for the circulation of two
collections of Christian writings in the Church.
At
a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united
in one collection. They must have
been brought together very soon after the writing of the
Gospel according to John. This fourfold collection was known
originally as "The Gospel" in the singular, not "The Gospels"
in the plural; there was only one Gospel, narrated in four
records, distinguished as "according to Matthew", "according
to Mark", and so on. About AD 115 Ignatius, bishop of
Antioch, refers to "The Gospel" as an authoritative writing,
and as he knew more than one of the four "Gospels" it may well
be that by "The Gospel" he means the fourfold collection which
went by that name….
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament
books did not become authoritative for the Church because they
were formally included in a canonical list; on the
contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she
already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising
their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or
indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the
canonical books were both held in North Africa—at Hippo
Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397—but what
these councils did was not to impose something new upon the
Christian communities but to codify what was already the
general practice of those communities. (The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? (5 th
ed, Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1959).)2
B.
B. Warfield (1851-1921), also makes some important points in his
"The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament" (Philadelphia,
PA: American Sunday School Union, 1892):
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they
obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening
estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a
lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted
Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the
estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning
as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the
other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did
not, then, first form a rival "canon" of "new books" which
came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and
authority with the "old books"; they received new book after
new book from the apostolical circle, as equally "Scripture"
with the old books, and added them one by one to the
collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at
length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be
looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was
framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the
Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called "The Law
and the Prophets and the Psalms" (or "the Hagiographa"), or
more briefly "The Law and the Prophets," or even more briefly
still "The Law"; so the enlarged Bible was called "The Law and
the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles" (so Clement
of Alexandria, Strom. vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, De
Prms. Men 36), or most briefly "The Law and the Gospel"
(so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenaeus); while the new books apart
were called "The Gospel and the Apostles," or most briefly of
all "The Gospel." This earliest name for the new Bible, with
all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer
Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who
makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., ad Philad. 5; ad
Smyrn. 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the
controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians
aroused among the Judaizers (ad Philad. 6). "When I
heard some saying," he writes, "‘Unless I find it in the Old
[Books] I will not believe the Gospel’ on my saying, ‘It is
written.’ they answered, ‘That is the question.’ To me,
however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death
and resurrection and the faith which is by him, the undefiled
Old [Books] — by which I wish, by your prayers, to be
justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest
better," etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the "Gospel" as
Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the
answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the
well known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the
Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What
we need now to observe, however, is that to Ignatius the
New Testament was not a different book from the Old Testament,
but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an
accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it.
This is the testimony of all the early witnesses—even those
which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. …
Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the
fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the
Christian writings of that very early time, it appears
that from the beginning of the second century (and that
is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection… of "New
Books"…, called the "Gospel and Apostles"…, was already a part
of the "Oracles" of God…, or "Scriptures"…, or the "Holy
Books" or "Bible"….3
Further, Warfield points out an important principle to be
considered when determining canonicity for any book:
Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly
apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest
churches, constituted a book a portion of the "canon." …
The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but
imposition by the apostles as "law." Hence Tertullian’s
name for the "canon" is "instrumentum"; and he speaks of the
Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New
Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on
the churches which they founded—as their "Instrument," or
"Law," or "Canon"— can be denied by none. And in imposing new
books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority,
they did not confine themselves to books of their own
composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was
not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with
Deuteronomy as equally "Scripture" with it, in the first
extant quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The
Gospels which constituted the first division of the New
Books,—of "The Gospel and the Apostles,"—Justin tells us were
"written by the apostles and their companions." The authority
of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the
church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the
church as law, not merely in those they themselves had
written.
The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into
the New Testament all the books historically evinced to them
as given by the apostles to the churches as their code of law;
and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow
circulation and authentication of these books over the
widely-extended church, evidence of slowness of the
"canonization" of these books by the authority or taste of the
church itself.4
In
conclusion, we have seen that 1.) long before Constantine, the
Church Fathers had compiled a list of books that were considered
inspired; 2.) the reaction of the apostles to a book was an
important factor in determining it’s canonicity; 3) comparison
to the teachings of the Old Testament and Jesus Himself were
important factors in determining inspiration and canonicity.
Not
all books on the list were equally accepted by the Early Church.
Some continued to be disputed for centuries. In that regard,
Constantine may well have played a role in how quickly the
church in the East accepted which books should be considered
inspired, and therefore included in the canon,5 but
that is as far as his influence went.
(In
a companion article, Dr. Norman Geisler explains more about the
process by which the canon was formed.)
Notes)
1 Dan Brown,
The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), p. 231.
2 Online at:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html Emphasis added.
3 Online at:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield2.html Emphasis added.
4 Ibid., emphasis
added.
5 "Canon of the
New Testament," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T1834.
|
|
|
|
THE JOHN
ANKERBERG SHOW |
|
Make a donation to
The
John Ankerberg Show
If you have
been
ministered to today, please help us minister to others by making
a contribution to the ministry.
Please enter gift amount then press
"Make a Donation"

CLICK HERE
TO WATCH ONLINE
DR. JOHN ANKERBERG'S RESPONSE TO CREATION QUESTIONS

Dr. John Ankerberg answers your
questions on creation in the following article available both as
a downloadable PDF and broken down into individual questions for
online reading. Click the link below to read:
Does Scientific Evidence Today Show
that God Created the Heavens and the Earth? And What Does the Bible Say
About When He Created?

|
Copyright 2006, Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
|