|
|
|
HISTORICAL JESUS |
|
Should Additional Gospels Have Been
Included in Our Bibles?
by
ATRI Staff Writer |
|
More than eighty gospels were considered for the New
Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for
inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them. —Dan Brown,
The Da Vinci Code, p. 231 1
"Fortunately for historians," Teabing said, "some of the
gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to
survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden
in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course,
the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to
telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of
Christ’s ministry in very human terms.… The scrolls highlight
glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly
confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by
men who possessed a political agenda—to promote the divinity
of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify
their own power base." —Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code,
p. 234 2
There is no question that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
(1949ff) and the documents at Nag Hammadi (1945) were important
in terms of biblical scholarship—but not for the reasons that
Dan Brown posits in The Da Vinci Code.
Dead
Sea Scrolls
According to Dr. Norman Geisler,
These ancient texts, hidden in pots in cliff-top caves by a
monastic religious community, confirm the reliability of the
Old Testament text. They provide significant portions of Old
Testament books—even entire books—that were copied and studied
by the Essenes. These manuscripts date from as early as the
third century b.c. and so give the earliest window so far
found into the texts of the Old Testament books and their
predictive prophecies. The Qumran texts have become an
important witness for the divine origin of the Bible. 3
By studying these
scrolls, scholars have found that the "scrolls give an
overwhelming confirmation of the faithfulness with which the
Hebrew text was copied through the centuries."4
Geisler goes on to quote Millar Burrows: "It is a matter of
wonder that through something like a thousand years the text
underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on
the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the
fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.’"5
But
confirmation of the Old Testament is not the only benefit the
Christian Church has derived from this amazing cache.
Recently, in Cave 7 of the Dead Sea discovery, New Testament
documents dating to the first century have been discovered.
Although still under debate, many feel these fragments could
be further proof that the gospels were written well within the
first century and not centuries later as skeptics assert. 6
In addition to
confirming the accuracy of the text, these scrolls have also
provided proof that "the New Testament view of a personal
messiah-God who would rise from the dead is in line with
first-century Jewish thought."7
Furthermore, in one important excerpt, the Dead Sea Scrolls
actually affirm that the deity of Jesus was assumed far before
the Council of Nicea! Geisler reports:
Even the deity of the Messiah is affirmed in the fragment
known as "The Son of God" (4Q246), Plate 4, columns one and
two: "Oppression will be upon the earth… [until] the King of
the people of God arises,… and he shall become [gre]at upon
the earth. [… All w]ill make [peace,] and all will serve
[him.] He will be called [son of the Gr]eat [God;] by His name
he shall be designated…. He will be called the son of God;
they will call him son of the Most High." 8
In short, "The Dead
Sea Scrolls in no way provide proof that any secret gospels
exist. Instead, they confirm the accuracy of the Old and New
Testament."9
Nag
Hammadi
But
what about the documents found at Nag Hammadi? Do they provide
any better basis for the claims made in The Da Vinci Code?
Sadly for Brown, the answer is no. For the most part, the Nag
Hammadi texts consist of so-called "Gnostic gospels".
The Nag Hammadi Texts, … are named after the place they were
found on the west bank of the Nile. A library was found
containing forty-five texts written in the Coptic language.
These were written from the early second century to the fourth
century AD. Examples of texts included The Gospel of Thomas,
The Gospel of Philip, The Acts of Peter and
others. These texts were Gnostic in character and found in a
library of Gnostic works…. 10
Gnosticism was a problem even in the first century church. The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia provides this
definition:
…Gnosticism may be described generally as the fantastic
product of the blending of certain Christian
ideas—particularly that of redemption through Christ—with
speculation and imaginings derived from a medley of sources
(Greek, Jewish, Parsic; philosophies; religions, theosophies,
mysteries) in a period when the human mind was in a kind of
ferment, and when opinions of every sort were jumbled together
in an unimaginable welter. It involves, as the name denotes, a
claim to "knowledge," knowledge of a kind of which the
ordinary believer was incapable, and in the possession of
which "salvation" in the full sense consisted. This knowledge
of which the Gnostic boasted, related to the subjects
ordinarily treated of in religious philosophy; Gnosticism was
a species of religious philosophy (Early Church History to AD
313, II, 71). 11
Warnings against
specific Gnostic teachings can be found in 1 Corinthians,
Colossians, 1 Timothy, and 1 John.12
But
while there is no evidence that the early church fathers
deliberately tried to hide or destroy these documents, we do
have evidence that they knew about them, and rejected them
because they were not accurate and trustworthy sources of
information about Jesus or the Christian faith:
The assertion by Brown that these are secret gospels is false.
We have known of these for centuries. The early church fathers
wrote about the texts and rejected them as uninspired and
non-apostolic. Iraneaus (130-200 AD) and Tertullian (160-225
AD) mentioned the texts in their letters and stated their
rejection of them. These texts were never considered part of
the inspired writing of the Apostles for several reasons.
Many of the texts are dated well after the death of the
apostles. The teachings are inconsistent with previous
revelation of Jesus and apostolic teaching. The teaching of
Gnostic dualism is what the gospels of John and Epistles
appear to be reacting against. Additionally, the church
fathers knew of these texts and never regarded them as equals
to the gospels. 13
Other Gospels?
What
about the other 40 or so apparently "lost" gospels that Brown
refers to? Is there any evidence that they existed? Not
according to Craig Blomberg:
Another blatantly fictitious portion of The Da Vinci Code
is the claim that "more than eighty gospels were
considered for the New Testament." Add up everything that was
ever called a gospel in the first half-millennium of
Christianity (most of which are small compilations of esoteric
sayings ascribed to Jesus and not narratives of any portion of
his life) and you come up with about two dozen documents.
About half of these are known only from quotations in early
church fathers or small scraps or fragments that have been
discovered, and there is little that is unorthodox in them.
Others are clearly Gnostic and equally clearly "Christian"
mutations of earlier apostolic tradition. The only apocryphal
"Gospel" that any sizable number of scholars of any
theological stripe gives serious credence to is the Coptic
Gospel of Thomas, a collection of 114 sayings attributed to
Jesus, of which approximately 1/3 are roughly paralleled in
the canonical Gospels, another 1/3 are clearly Gnostic and
non-Christian, and the remaining 1/3 are neither necessarily
unorthodox nor demonstrably Gnostic. It is in this last group
where intriguing questions about what else Jesus might have
actually said, not preserved in the canon, primarily emerge.
But Brown’s characters do not appeal to the Gospel of Thomas
at all! 14
And
then there is this interesting comment from James Holding:
One of Brown’s characters makes the astonishing claim that
there are "tens of thousands of pages (p. 256) of
documentation for the "true" version of Christian origins.
Given that we seldom have as much as even a single book’s
worth of information on the vast majority of ancient
historical figures (e.g., Alexander the Great and Julius
Caesar), the claim that anyone would have compiled such
encyclopedic resources about Jesus is outlandish, especially
since writing materials were so scare and expensive, and the
ancient literacy rate was no more than 10 percent. 15
Conclusion
So
what is the evidence that these Gnostic Gospels give us better
information about Jesus than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? There
is none. What is the evidence that they should have been
included in our Bibles? In fact, the opposite is true—they
simply do not qualify as "inspired, inerrant" works. But even if
we take them simply as literature, there is another problem
these "gospels" face:
Put simply, the church has a better claim to have "been there
first." Their documents have the evidence of earlier
composition—in terms of manuscript evidence, internal
linguistic evidence, and external attestation—and the evidence
of context, for the "male dominated" society that is so
despised by ideologues like Brown is better matched in the
Jewish culture in which Christianity formed, while the "divinized
female" ideal that they prefer is found only in much later
Gnostic materials. 16
(Please see the companion article, "What is The Gospel of
Thomas" by Dr. Norman Geisler for an extended discussion of what
has been referred to as the "superstar" of the Gnostic Gospels.)
Notes
1 Dan Brown, The Da
Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), p. 231.
2 Ibid., p. 234.
3 Norman L. Geisler,
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1999), p. 187.
4 Ibid.
5 Millar Burrows,
More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Viking,
1958), p. 304, in ibid.
6 "Discerning Fact from
Fiction in The Da Vinci Code." http://www.evidenceandanswers.com/.
7 Geisler, p. 188.
8 Ibid., quoting Robert
H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls
Uncovered (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1992), p. 70.
9 "Discerning Fact from
Fiction in The Da Vinci Code." http://www.evidenceandanswers.com/.
10 Ibid.
11 "Gnosticism"
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (www.studylight.org)
12 Ibid.
13 "Discerning Fact from
Fiction in The Da Vinci Code." http://www.evidenceandanswers.com/.
14 Craig L. Blomberg,
Ph.D., Review of The Da Vinci Code in Denver Journal,
An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological
Studies, http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2004/0200/0202.php.
15 James Patrick
Holding, "A Summary Critique – The Da Vinci Code:
Revising a Cracked Conspiracy," Christian Research Institute,
www.equip.org.
16 James Patrick
Holding, "Not InDavincible - A Review and Critique of The
DaVinci Code," http://www.tektonics.org.
|
|
|
|
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
|