 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Answer for yourself: After almost 2000 years of church history how can Christians be sure that they have the right Bible? Can we indeed be absolutely certain that we have exactly the right books in the Bible - no more and no less? As our standard of faith and practice can we confidently appeal to the canon of Scripture as a collection of authoritative writings to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away? What if archaeology uncovered an ancient epistle of Paul or another apostolic writer? Could such a hitherto lost document be added to the canon?
Answer for yourself: Can God speak authoritatively today, and if so should such revelation be regarded as on a par with Scripture - or perhaps even be added to Scripture? In other words, is the canon closed? Moreover, whence do we have the information about which books are canonical?
These are some of the urgent questions to which a thoughtful consideration of our topic will inevitably lead. They are not only issues of abiding theological interest, but can at times also be matters of apologetic importance and even of pressing pastoral concern. Here we touch upon the very basis of our Christian faith and life, and it is vital that these foundations be secure.
While we may dismiss such a question as hypothetical, there are similar questions which are only too painfully relevant in the life of the church today.
Some Christians are unnerved by the fact that nowhere does God itemize the sixty-six books that are to be included in the Bible. Many believers have at best a vague notion of how the church arrived at what we call the Canon of Scripture. Even after becoming more aware, some believers are uncomfortable with the process by which the New Testament Canon was determined. For many, it was what appears to be a haphazard process that took far too long. Let us begin our study with what for many is believed to be the first step in the canon of the New Testament; the Muratorian Canon.
The canon of Muratori is also called the Muratorian Fragment, after the name of the discoverer and first editor, L. A. Muratori (in the "Antiquitates italicae", III, Milan, 1740, 851 sq.), the oldest known canon or list of books of the New Testament (not counting of course Marcion's earlier Gnostic New Testament). The manuscript containing the canon originally belonged to Bobbio and is now in the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana at Milan (Cod. J 101 sup.). Written in the eighth century, it plainly shows the uncultured Latin of that time. The list of books included in the Muratorian Canon may date as far back as to 170 because it refers to the pontificate of Pope Pius I, which was from 140 to 155, as recent. This makes it the oldest known New Testament Canon connected to Roman Christianity today.
It is called a "fragment" because the first part of the manuscript is missing. It does, however, refer to Luke's Gospel as being in the third place, and John's in the forth place, so we can assume that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark came before. This of course dates it to after Ireneaus when he decided that only 4 Gospels were to be in the New Testament since there were "4 winds". In addition to listing the books that should be in the New Testament, the Muratorian Fragment specifies two books that should not be in the New Testament: an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians. By singling out these two books as non-canonical, it implies that some church were using them at least as late as 170 C.E. or later, and that these books did not meet with Rome's acceptance to the theology that they wished to endorse or teach. The "key" here is that Paul states that only he preaches "the" true Gospel; indicating the presence of a false gospel being preached at the same time. Today with the aid of modern scholarship and the discovery of the Gnostic Library in our generation we definately know more about these earliest Gnostic Christians than ever before and can without a doubt classify Paul as one of the earliest Gnostic Christians like Marcion. That being said no wonder this epistle was struck from the readings of the earliest churches once Rome gained the power to decided which books were to be read and not read and included in the New Testament as well as excluded; it was Rome who was preaching and spreading an anti-Gnostic gospel of a "canal, literal, historical Christ" which they had "limited to but one person" whom access was only available through the doors of the Roman Church.
The fragment is of the highest importance for the history of the Biblical canon as mentioned above as it portrays for us the religious milleau and climate of the day of these two varying "gospels" who were contending for surpremacy. It was written in Rome itself or in its environs about 200; A.D. and probably the original was in Greek, from which it was translated into Latin. This Latin text is preserved solely in the manuscript of the Ambrosiana. A few sentences of the Muratorian Canon are preserved in some other manuscripts, especially in codices of St. Paul's Epistles in Monte Cassino. The canon consists of no mere list of the Scriptures, but of a survey, which supplies at the same time historical and other information regarding each book. The beginning is missing; the preserved text begins with the last line concerning the second Gospel and the notices, preserved entire, concerning the third and fourth Gospels. Then there are mentioned: The Acts, St. Paul's Epistles (including those to Philemon, Titus and Timothy; the spurious ones to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians are rejected); furthermore, the Epistle of St. Jude and two Epistles of St. John; among the Scriptures which "in catholica habentur", are cited the "Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta", as well as the Apocalypses of St. John and St. Peter, but with the remark that some will not allow the latter to be read in the church. Then mention is made of the Pastor of Hermas, which may be read anywhere but not in the divine service; and, finally, there are rejected false Scriptures, which were used by heretics. In consequence of the barbarous Latin there is no complete understanding of the correct meaning of some of the sentences.
As stated above, the date of this canon is entirely unknown, but orthodoxy places it at the time of Irenaeus (200 A.D.), again simply it recognized the Four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, First John, Second John, Jude, and Revelation. It mentions the Wisdom of Solomon which is no longer in the Bible, among the New Testament books; speak approvingly of the Shepherd of Hermas, and says that the Revelation of John and the Revelation of Peter were accepted by the writer, although many were unwilling at the Revelation of Peter should be read in the churches. It does not mention either First Peter, Second Peter, First John, or James (Westcott, On The Canon of the New Testament, p. 527), all of which are not in the Bible.
As to the author, many conjectures were made (Papias, Hegesippus, Caius of Rome, Hippolytus of Rome, Rhodon, Melito of Sardis were proposed); but no well founded hypothesis has been adduced up to the present. It speaks of the Epistle to the Laodiceans, calls the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistle to the Alexandrians (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, p. 225), and says both were forgeries, passing under the name of Paul-a fact of which modern theologians are discretely silent, when they cite, as they do with so much exultation, this manuscript as "early evidence of the canon." You can judge for yourself how desperately the church was is in need of support when, after a tremendous conflict, it is willing to accept as "early evidence" a manuscript whose date is at least one hundred an fifty to two hundred years after Jesus was crucified.
These facts are disconcerting if you ponder them. We are 170 years removed from the Great Commission issued by Jesus. We find that almost 200 years later we have not the finished book that one would think necessary for such a noble endeavor as the Great Commission. I used to preach that it is hard to imagine Jesus issuing this "Great Commission" to go into all the world and teach the nations but end such command with such a saying similar to: "but guys, I won't have your book ready for some 200 to 400 years". Such an idea a command without the necessary book or teachings is absolutely foolish. I challenge you to imagine for a moment Jesus commanding his Apostles to go into all the world with this "New Testament" message of salvation but ill equipped due to not having the manual yet ready.
Answer for yourself: What of those that perished without accepting the necessary messages of these books which we deem divine today? What of those that died without the knowldge of later formed "dogmas" so necessary for "eternal life" that would be formualed by later Roman Church Councils and later incorporated into the texts of our New Testaments as we have today?
I can just hear Jesus saying:
Matt 28:18-20
18 …"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"…but look guys…I don't have the new Bible ready yet…. the Father and I will not be able to agree on what to give you guys as the new manual for salvation for well over 350 years yet."
Answer for yourself: Have you ever stopped to think that Jesus was incompetent for his role if he expected his followers to go without the proper message or the necessary books?
Answer for yourself: How were these disciples and Apostles to teach the nations, better yet what were they to teach if they could not agree on what to teach with so many conflicting Gospels and Epistles circulating in the first centuries of the Gentile Church? Where in all of this religious conflicting theologies is the Unity of the Faith to be found?
Answer for yourself: Were the people deprived of these books "damned" to a fiery hell without hope automatically because they did not have the completed New Testament with all is necessary beliefs contingent upon one's salvation; a New Testament which had discarded the many other books and theologies that found their way to the cutting room floor with supposedly the "correct" one now securely within it?
Answer for yourself: Is this inability to decide upon what was "inspired" by the early church the work of the Holy Spirit, and if so, what does that do to our image and understanding of a perfect God who cannot make up His mind and speak to his people let alone take almost 400 years to do it?
Hopefully your reason and intellect is such that you can see the folly of such inability to decide which books God had determined necessary for the salvation of the world. What we have is a power struggle between the many different factions comprising the newly emerging Gentile Church; many of which supported the ancient Spiritual Wisdom and the ancient Sacred Scriptures and others who desired to reject them and create their own. Sadly for us the survival of the fittest prevails and this cost us dearly with a terrible loss of Divine Truth which goes unnoticed by most today. The investigation of the sequence of books being deemed "in" and "out" and "in" and "out" over and over again during the ensuing centuries does little to bolster the image of a God who leads a people let alone speaks to them.
John 16:13
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Well the Holy Spirit is evidently not guiding mankind very good for several centuries. If you take the above passage from the New Testament seriously then God is out of His mind because He is evidently speaking one thing to one group at one time and a completely different and contradicting thing to another group at another time; even at the same times. We call this phenomena schizophrenia today and prescribe mind-altering drugs to cure such conditions. Surely God does not need a pill.
Preserving the honor of God hopefully the Holy Spirit had little to due with this confusion in the canonization of the New Testament. What should trouble you is the inclusion into this "New Testament" of the various sects conflicting and competing theologies which today, not knowing the origin or the identity of them, one is relegated to reading the New Testament under the false notion that all is "inspired" and accepting such "beliefs" if they came from God. Let me give you a parallel. You go to the store and buy four puzzles consisting of a thousand pieces. You quickly go home and empty the pieces together into one jumble and then begin to fit and force them into a frame that was meant to only handle one puzzle. You read the instructions on the box and they inform you that these pieces are "inspired" so with utter confidence you begin to force the pieces together and make them fit even when they won't. Needless to say the picture come out distorted and is not true to the original. This is what has happened by the continual jockeying for authority by sect after sect over hundreds of years as they got "their views and ideas" recognized as the Word of God through successive Church Councils. These "ideas" became literally Holy Scripture! Your failure to understand the history of the Canonization of the New Testament and the selection of books by sect after sect has robbed you of the truth in understanding what validity and authority such a document might possess today.
At the very crux of this issue is the key question of "eternal life". The "power struggle" of which I often mentioned centers upon two very different understandings of "eternal life" and "obtaining it". The very books which were "in" or "out" of the earliest New Testament of Marcion differ completely in the goal of humanity. The current New Testament espoused traditional dogmas taught in Christianity regarding "eternal life" and obtaining it. Most know what they are. Unknown to Christians is that the books that were the earliest understanding of the Gnostic Christians taught a very different and Spiritually elevating message of "eternal life" and the goal of humanity. These earliest Christians and their "books" espoused that the goal of humanity is "Divinity"; becoming perfected human beings first, then joining the ranks of those who evolve into the "fullness" and "stature" of Christ. In short, all of human life is geared to the progressive sanctification of life whereby humanity becomes "gods" with the One God; we become like our Father in Heaven. This is the future of humanity; Godhead, the goal that lies ahead for every human. The promise of the future is in ourselves, hidden away in the deepest recesses of our nature, in the hidden Christ within, in the tiny seed which is our real Self, the growing-point out of which comes all that we shall be. This is the message we don't get today because we never are taught the hidden Gnostic and Hermetic teachings held in "secret" for those who live a life accordingly and in so doing earn these deeper teachings of the "higher mysteries". Instead we get a "Christ" separated from mankind and limited to but one supposed historical person; lost is the "Christ within" each child of God awaiting "resurrection from the deadness of matter" in us. These "books" that originally carried this message of man's True Self did not make Rome's Second Edition of the New Testament; perishing with Marcion and other Gnostic Christians during the first five centuries of the common era.
To stake your Eternal Life upon such a "power struggles" for supremacy by those fractions within the Gentile Church is not wise; especially in light of the knowledge you are now acquiring let alone a honest comparison of the teachings of the Jewish Bible vs. The New Testament. You might have never noticed by the New Testament contradicts the Eternal Word of God as found in the Jewish Tanakh in multiple places; that should not be! Dear one, this means that the "jots" and "titles" that Jesus said were forever were nullified many places in the New Testament. You lack of awareness does not negate such; only study on your part will reveal this to you.
