The Canon of Holy Scripture: History, Heresy, and Hearsay Pt. 2 by Chris White

Pentecost

We are considering in this essay the question of Canonicity or, put another way, which books truly belong in the Bible and why others do not.  In part one of this series we looked at the canon of the Old Testament and found there to be an almost shocking unanimity about it.  It isn’t in human nature to not have some controversy when it comes to religion, but apparently for the descendants of Abraham, they knew when they heard the voice of God in their prophets, they recorded it in writing, and made copies of their collections for perpetuity.  When the Christian movement began, it came out of Judaism but didn’t leave behind the Law and prophets because in them was a foundational understanding which in part explains and predicts the incarnation and ministry of Jesus Christ.  Thus the canon of the Old Testament was a fait accompli inherited by the Christian Church.

The Christian scriptures, also known as the New Testament, went through their own process of recognition over several centuries which will be attended to in parts three and four of this series.  In this installment, I would like to fill in the story of the New Testament with regards to its completion, collection, and finally its connection to the Old Testament.

The actual writing of the New Testament literature happened between 45 and 85 AD.  Some date some of the Apostle John’s writings to as late as the 90’s which is certainly plausible as there is strong support for the idea that he lived into advanced age.  Given this time frame, the first thing which should strike you is that the events recorded in the Gospels had happened 17 years prior to any of them being written down.  In some regards that does seem like a long time, but on the other hand, nearly all of us have moments that are so profound, they are almost impossible to forget decades and decades later.  I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to say that those who were the eyewitnesses of the extraordinary life of Jesus probably remembered these things as if they happened yesterday.  But there is also another factor we must consider that is unfamiliar to us today and that is the preference for oral tradition that existed in the Eastern world where the Church began.

It could simply be that the Apostles and those who followed shared these stories day-by-day and so often that they knew them by heart.  An analysis of some of the sermons that are recorded in Acts of the Apostles, shows there was a pattern in how the gospel was preached publicly and this pattern seems to be followed in the written versions.  Part of this delay in writing could be explained by belief that Jesus’s return was imminent.  It might also have been related to simple economics.  Before the invention of the printing press, books were hand-copied and as such were quite expensive.  A book the length of Luke’s gospel would have run around $250 in today’s money.  Eventually these things were committed to writing, but when it happens it is done from a position of expediency before eyewitnesses die and in larger cities where copyists can be hired for better prices.

After the Gospels and letters of the New Testament were written, they began the process of being collected together.  This didn’t happen all at once but in segments.  One of the earliest known collections  of the Apostle Paul’s letters was in the city of Ephesus around 100 AD.  St. Luke had written the book of Acts which describes the early church era and the missionary journeys of Paul.  This is turn created an interest to read the other writings of Paul and soon the churches which had a letter from the Apostle began sharing copies with each other.  Soon Acts and the Letters of Paul are copied as a collection and owned by churches and individuals. Simultaneously is the collection of the four Gospels we know simply as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Irenaeus

That these writings were collected are attested by leading Christian teachers in the 2^nd Century.  One such author known as Irenaeus writes a famous book around 150 AD called Against Heresies.  What is important about this book is it catalogues all errors taught by false teachers in the early church.  In this book Irenaeus directly states that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only authentic gospels in existence and indirectly he gives testimony to the collection of the New Testament through use of quotations from every book of the New Testament except Philemon.

Hippolytus of Rome (170 AD) gives reference to the expansion of the scriptures to include the New Testament writings by referring to them in his writings as “The Prophets, The Lord, and The Apostles.”  In this same era there was another document written we know today as the Muratorian Canon.  It lists the collected works of the New Testament almost exactly as they are found today.  So even in this early era, collections exist of these individual works and there is an official sense developing of what is and is not truly authentic scripture.

Tertullian: First to name the New Testament

This brings us to the connection of the Old Testament to the New Testament.  The earliest Christians thought of the Jewish scriptures as their own.  The naming of them as “Old” and “New” Testaments is above all a theological statement and speaks to how Christians understand them.  This is why Christians and Jews can actually share a common book as scripture and yet be in opposition regarding their conclusions.  To generalize, Judaism focuses on the laws and covenants and the centerpiece of their faith, while Christians read the Old Testament as a unfolding revelation pointing to Jesus Christ (Jn. 5:39) who is the sum and substance of the true faith.  Historically speaking, it was the North African bishop Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) who first began calling the collection of Christian writings “The New Testament of Our Lord.”

To conclude, the collections of both the Old and New Testament writings are joined in the Christian mind but only with the Old serving as an extended introduction to the New.  The Old Testament does not stand by itself but rather is subsumed in the New.

The Back Story on the Real Christmas Pt. 1 by Chris White

When you deal with a topic like the Christmas story, you are standing on holy ground.  First of all we are looking at sacred history.  This means that not only are most of the facts contained solely in the Holy Bible, but also that this event is so sublime and so mysterious that we must treat it with the greatest respect.  Though the world sees Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus lying in a manger, this is not the story of the humble beginnings of the world’s most famous moral instructor, it is the story of God becoming a man for the purpose of redeeming us; and like all men, he starts out as a baby.  Secondly, it is a very well-known and cherished story by millions.  Such stories must be treated with care and if a traditional aspect must be revised, it must be done with gently and with a sound explanation for the known facts.  The opposite of this is the journalistic approach so often employed today that loves to “debunk” everything in the name of truth, yet so often in that process ignores the fact that not all reason is free of personal agenda.  Of course I believe this story.  It’s my religion.  But even if you don’t share my religion I hope you will enjoy my treatment of this well-known story and maybe learn a thing or two you didn’t know before.

With that as prologue, let’s consider the issue of whether or not Jesus was born on the 25^th of December.  I’ll bet you’ve already made up your mind that this was just an arbitrary date chosen by the church to replace a pagan festival and you very well could be right.  The Romans did celebrate a winter festival called Saturnalia which included gift giving, bonfires, and lots of overindulgence.  And it does stand to reason that when the Roman empire became Christianized that they would seek to retain a winter celebration while removing some of its baser elements.  However, if we stick to the concise information of the Gospels, there is no real reason why Jesus couldn’t have been born on December 25^th.  There are no details in the story that would actually preclude this date.  Sacrificial lambs were kept outside in the winters near Bethlehem.  Shepherds did watch their flocks at night, there was still no room for Joseph and Mary, etc. etc.

The date of December 25^th is also recognized very early in the Church’s history.  Some have thought Christmas was not recognized until after Constantine the Great became the first Christian ruler of the Roman empire in the 4rth century, but earlier writings of the Church indicate that this was a long established belief.  One of the early witnesses to the December birthday for Jesus was Tertullian who was a respected leader and theologian in North Africa. Tertullian lived at a time when none of the first Christians or apostles are still alive, but some of their first successors were.  He states that he has knowledge that in the city of Rome there is a birth record that explicitly states Jesus was born on December 25^th.  Of course we don’t know that Tertullian saw this first hand or just heard about it or even if he did see it if it was some sort of well-meaning but still spurious document.

What troubles many with the December birth is that if Jesus was born on the 25^th, then you would have Annunciation of Mary, the Conception of John, the Birth of John and the Birth of Jesus basically corresponding to the change of all 4 seasons.  This seems a bit overly tidy for real life and more in line with arranging things so as to have one large Church festival in each of the four seasons.  However, it is not unreasonable to think that God would orchestrate this as He was keen on Old Testament Israel observing festivals throughout the entire year.  God is not only the creator of time but of rhythm.

Luke’s Gospel does furnish us with the inaugural date of John the Baptist’s ministry which would fall in the winter months.  Assuming he started at the traditional age of 30 and that he was 6 months older than Jesus as the New Testament indicates, this would put the birth of Jesus in the late spring or early summer.  All the events of the nativity work just as well in a summer scenario as they do in winter.  But we must remember this is based on an assumed age for John the Baptist and an assumed year which may vary due to differences in the modern calendars and the ancients reckoning of time.

My point?  As with all ancient events, pinning down an exact date is often based evidence other than the date itself.  There is evidence for both a winter and summer birth of Jesus; both would fit the story.  But for me, the winter birthday is far more poignant because it is the time of year where darkness has overtaken the light.  But Jesus came into the world to overcome its darkness with His Light and that is a fitting reminder no matter what the season.