How was the New Testament Assembled

How was the New Testament Assembled?
John 16:5-16; 2 Timothy 3:10-4:5

I don’t know if you are aware but Dan Brown’s book has spawned an entire Da Vinci Code industry. Here are some titles that have not yet made it into the bookstores but watch this space.

Opus Day: Everyone's Favorite Cartoon Penguin Invades the Secretive Catholic Organization By J.T. Chick, with an introduction by former Opus Dei leader Alberto Rivera.

Gneutered Gnostics: Troubling Gender-Inclusive Language in Da Vinci Code Response Books By Wayne A. Grudem

The Rembrandt Code: Understanding the Hidden Calvinist Messages in The Prodigal Son and Other Paintings.
By Hendrik van den Leeuwen

The Power of a Praying Painter: The True Meaning and Devotion of Leonardo da Vinci's Art. By Stormie Omartian.

The Da Vinci Cure: How Leonardo Painted the Perfect Diet By Don Colbert, M.D.

A New Kind of Code: The Church Needs to Read Heretical Fiction Because It's So Modernist, Man. By Youth Specialties:

So far in this series on Breaking the Da Vinci Code, we have examined two key questions: Who was Mary Magdalene? And was Jesus married? Today we come to the third question: How was the New Testament assembled?

I’d like to recommend a book that has helped me more than any other on this subject. It is by Josh McDowell and entitled “New Evidence that Demands a Verdict” It deals with many issues relating to the Bible and how it was written. On the table is also a short article by Rusty Wright entitled “The New Testament: Can I trust it?” copies of a little booklet produced by Campus Crusade for Christ.

On Saturday 24^th June Simon Vibert is coming to speak at a men’s breakfast. He is a great speaker so please sign up for that if you fit the gender.

I’m going to use a Q&A approach (based on an interview with Josh McDowell). But lets begin by restating the central premise of the Da Vinci Code.

What is the central premise of The Da Vinci Code?
Through its characters, The Da Vinci Code asserts that "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." The Catholic Church has kept the facts hidden through force and terror. Dan Brown claims Jesus was not the Son of God. He was a mortal prophet, a great and powerful man of staggering influence who inspired millions to a better life. He was also a radical feminist. He was a good man who was deified by the pagan emperor Constantine in A.D. 325. Prior to that, no one believed Jesus was divine. Brown alleges that at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, Constantine upgraded Jesus into a deity. He became the son of God by a narrow vote. This turned Jesus, the mortal prophet, into a deity. Constantine's motive was to give power to the Roman Catholic Church.

How on earth does he get to this conclusion?
Brown alleges that it was Constantine who collated the Bible as we now have it. That Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made him god-like. Constantine allegedly rejected dozens of other "gospels" and rewrote the four that are in our Bibles. Thousands of gospels were burnt or outlawed, but some survive: e.g. Q, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi documents. The church has been hiding the real truth about Jesus ever since. This is the greatest conspiracy and cover-up of the last 2000 years.

Now it is true that Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. However, it is not true that "he was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest." Constantine's policy was to unite the Christian church to the secular state. He did his best to conciliate both pagans and Christians. It is difficult to say when he was converted. It is true he was not baptised until shortly before his death-but the deferment of baptism was common in those days. His policies were strongly Christian from the first. Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea primarily to end disunity caused by the Arian controversy.

Arius taught that although Jesus was the Son of God, he was less than the Father. He was a lesser god (the nearest equivalent might be the Jehovah's Witnesses today). The Council was probably attended by around 300 bishops. The Arian Creed was rejected. They produced the Nicene Creed with four anti-Arian anathemas attached. This was accepted by all but two of the bishops (i.e., over 99% in favour). They declared that Jesus was the son of God "begotten not made, of the same substance (homousios) as the Father." Jesus had been regarded as the son of God from the very beginning of the Church.

The discussion at Nicaea was therefore not about whether Jesus was the Son of God, but whether he was the same substance as the Father or a lesser God. The vote was not "relatively close," but an overwhelming majority were in favour of the orthodox creed.

According to recent research done by historian Dr. Paul Maier at Western Michigan University, “the vote was 300 to 2.” So, no, I wouldn’t say it was very close, and again the issue was simply whether Jesus was coeternal with God the Father.

Nor is it true to say that "the Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great." The emperor Constantine had absolutely nothing to do with fixing the canon of Scripture. The canon was pretty well fixed by the fourth century. The Gospels and epistles we have were recognized as authentic by those who knew the authors to be eyewitnesses and trustworthy.

No Council of the Church gave the New Testament documents the status of Scripture. It was the Scriptures that gave the Church its status. Early Church communities recognized the inspiration and submitted to the authority of the Scriptures. They recognized what Paul wrote to Timothy that:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The New Testament documents were in wide circulation during the 2^nd Century and diligently copied and copiously quoted by the Early Church Fathers. So much so, you could destroy every manuscript in existence and still re-write the New Testament from the quotations taken from them in the first three centuries of the history of the Church.

The Gnostic gospels which Dan Brown relies on were never among the books considered for the canon by the early church. They were written a century too late to be written by the people they name (e.g., Thomas, Philip, or Mary Magdalene). Even the Gnostic second century leader Marcion did not list these as part of his canon, but only the books found in our current New Testament.

This is the strongest possible evidence that the so-called "Gnostic gospels" did not exist at that stage. In fact Dan Brown does not produce a shred of evidence for an earlier form of Christianity to that which we find in our New Testament.

When was the New Testament Written?

The only way that you can test the reliability of the New Testament is to apply the same kind of test that you would to any other document, that is to consider the evidence. Our legal system uses this approach in the law courts in order to establish a verdict based on reasonable evidence.

There are several factors that must be taken into account when considering a piece of ancient writing like the New Testament. This includes such factors as who wrote it, how soon after the actual events happened was the document written, how many copies were written and what is the time-span between the original work and the first copy being made? Obviously the longer the period of time between the actual events happening and the first copy being made increases the possibility of errors occurring or information being changed. Taking the New Testament documents as our example, let’s apply this method of investigation to the Gospel accounts.

The Credibility of the Writers

Eyewitnesses

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

So begins the opening verses of Dr Luke’s gospel account of the life of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Bible. Luke possessed a scientific mind and wanted to investigate the reliability of this amazing story about Jesus. He and his fellow disciples were eye witnesses.

Reliable Eyewitnesses

“You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, (2 Timothy 3:10)

Their lives were open to examination.

Contested Eyewitnesses

“persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,” (2 Timothy 3:11-12)

Their writings and teachings were openly challenged.

The Dating of the Original Documents

When it comes to dating the New Testament books (our primary source of information about Christ), there are differences between conservative and liberal scholars but only in terms of decades, not centuries. For example, the conservative dating for the Gospel of Mark is between A.D. 50-60, with more liberal scholars placing it around A.D. 70. This is remarkable, when you consider that Jesus died somewhere around the year A.D. 30; these are authentic eyewitness accounts. Generally speaking, Paul’s letters were written between A.D. 50-66, the gospels between A.D. 50-70, with John’s gospel being written sometime around A.D. 80-90. If you can believe it, we actually have a fragment of John’s gospel (The John Ryland’s papyri dated 120 AD and already translated from Greek into Coptic.

The Dating of the Extent Manuscripts

To discover the accuracy of copying for the New Testament material and see whether or not it has been “changed,” you have to look at two factors: One, the number of manuscripts existing today; and two, the time period between the original document and the earliest manuscripts still in existence today. The more manuscripts we have and the closer the manuscripts are to the original, the more we are able to determine where copyist errors happened and which copies reflect the original.

A Comparison with other Historical Documents

For example, the book Natural History, written by Pliny Secundus, has 7 manuscript copies with a 750-year gap between the earliest copy and the original text. The number two book in all of history in manuscript authority is The Iliad, written by Homer, which has 643 copies with a 400-year gap.

Now this is a little startling: the New Testament has currently 24,970 manuscript copies, completely towering over all other works of antiquity. In addition, we have one fragment of the New Testament (NT) with only a 50-year gap from the original, whole books with only a 100-year gap, and the whole NT with only a 225-250-year gap. I don’t think there is any question from all of these early copies that we know exactly what the original documents said.

Is it true that the New Testament was decided upon at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325)?

It was actually later, at the synod of Hippo in A.D. 393, quite a few years after the death of Constantine, when the church listed the 27 confirmed books of the New Testament. But, of course, both dates are misleading.

Why are they misleading?

Because the church had recognized these books as the definitive New Testament nearly 200 years before Nicea. It was only due to the challenge of missions, fraud and heresy that the church leadership felt the need to clearly articulate the list.

How early was there a defined New Testament?

It’s hard to pin down an exact date, especially because the letters circulated in different geographic areas. We know from writings within the first century that many of the books of the New Testament were already regarded as scripture by that point. The early church father Iraneus was brought up in Asia Minor studying at the feet of Polycarp and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John. In the writings of Iraneus, A.D. 180, he attests the canonical recognition of the fourfold Gospel and Acts, of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, of 1 Peter and 1 John and of the Revelation–that’s most of our New Testament. There is considerable evidence such as this, that by A.D. 150 at the latest, the church recognized a New Testament pretty close to the one we have today.

So if the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is so strong, why the popularity of books like Dan Browns?

Then why are Dan Brown’s speculations so popular?
I think the main reason is that if the Bible is true, people will have to change the way they think and live. That’s why I believe so many people dismiss the Bible. It’s not because there is insufficient evidence for its reliability, but rather they want to keep God out of their lives. Paul specifically warns Timothy about this tendency, as it was happening even within that first generation.

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

But simply dismissing the Bible does not change its message or teaching. If the Bible is true, then that has huge implications for our eternal destiny. The Apostle John wrote the following words in his first letter to the early church.

“ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete. (1 John 1:1-4)

John was an eyewitness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. What he saw, he, like his colleagues, recorded accurately for us to read today in his gospel account - that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God – the Saviour for sinners. Two thousand years later, the number who testify to the same living encounter with the risen Lord Jesus, continues to grow. If The Da Vinci Code only claims to be a novel, that is fine. If it claims to be based on scholarship, it is fanciful, absurd, and in the end, ridiculous. It is not the kind of book to bet your life on, let alone your eternal destiny. For that you need the truth. This week we celebrate the ascension of Jesus into heaven, from where we believe he will soon come again to judge the living and the dead. If you are in any doubt as to your eternal destiny, then engage with the truth of Jesus. For He promises,

“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32).

This talk draws heavily on the excellent research undertaken by Paul Maier, Josh McDowell and Nicky Gumble.