Emergence of the Four Gospel Canon
Dozens
of gospels circulated in early Christian communities. How were the
four now contained in the New Testament chosen?
The
Harrington Spear Paine Foundation Professor of Religion Princeton
University
EMERGENCE
OF THE CANON
In
the earliest Christian movement, there were actually many different
writings circulated, and many traditions about the sayings of Jesus.
Some of the leaders were concerned to say, "Well, which of these
writings can be read in church? Which are the right ones? Which are
the best ones?" And Irenaeus, the leader of a church in France
in about the year 170, declared that "The heretics boast that
they have many more gospels than there really are. But really they
don't have any gospels that aren't full of blasphemy. There actually
are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because
there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal
winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are
authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus' true followers."
Now,
today, scholars of the New Testament wouldn't agree with Irenaeus,
because we don't know who wrote the gospels we
callMatthew, Mark, Luke andJohn,
any more than we know who wrote the Gospel
of Thomas. They're all attributed to
disciples of Jesus, but we don't really know who wrote them. And we
don't know whether they came as the earliest sources or not. In fact,
chances are they didn't. But they did present views of Jesus, which
make him very important and make the institutional church
[central].... The gospels of the New Testament, of course, have a lot
of differences among themselves. But they're all similar in that they
all see Jesus as the pivotal person, the one on whom everything
depends, the Messiah, the Savior, the Lord. These other gospels, many
of them, see Jesus as a teacher, as a kind of figure of
enlightenment, a kind of bodhisattva figure, but one whom you and I
could emulate, whom we could perhaps become. And that's a very
different kind of emphasis. I think the gospels of the New Testament
were chosen because they do share this conviction of the importance
and uniqueness of Jesus, which also becomes the importance and
uniqueness of the church as the only means of salvation. That is, the
church that called itself "catholic," which means simply
universal, claims to be the only access to salvation there is. If
you're not a member of that church, leaders of that church have
claimed from the first century until now, you are outside, you are
perhaps consigned to damnation.
Professor
of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University
of Texas at Austin
A
PROLIFERATION OF GOSPELS
So,
if there were so many bibles, how come there are only sort of four
gospels included in the New Testament? How did that happen?
The
process of the development of the canon; that is, the bible itself as
the normative document in the way that we now have it, is really a
product of the second and third century use of the gospels tradition.
Now, from early on, of course, we have the four main gospels that we
now see in the New Testament; Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, but there were
many others that we know existed. There's the Gospel of Peter and
the Gospel
of Thomas, each of which may go back
to a very early tradition. There's the Q
document; the source, the saying
source that underlies the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It's now lost
but obviously it was known at one time, and it, too, is very early,
probably dating as early as the 50's of the first century.
In
the second and third century, we know that there were many other
gospels that were developed. We have a charming array of popular
kinds of stories of the life of Jesus. There's baby Jesus stories;
the infancy Gospel of Thomas is one of these where you have the
stories of the little child Jesus performing all sorts of miracles.
And obviously these are developing out of a kind of what we might
call popular interest. You can imagine the stories of Jesus
developing in a lot of ways much like any famous figure. I mean,
let's think of a Superman character. Once you know that Superman's a
great guy, what was he like as a child; the same thing happens with
Jesus. Baby Jesus stories are one of these, and we get some wonderful
little legends that develop this way.
We
also hear of other kinds of gospels that develop. Stories of the
birth that tell you in lurid detail, really, how true it really was
or how marvelous and miraculous it was; stores of apostles traveling
to all kinds of strange lands; Thomas, who goes to India; Andrew, who
goes out to some strange world, and so on. These kinds of stories
proliferate through the second and third century. There's a
burgeoning Christian literature, and in some ways, I think we have to
look at it as if it were really taking over the market, in a literary
sense, of the popular imagination of the second and third centuries.
At
the same time, this burgeoning literature, ... even when it's used
for local traditions or is, for example, the official gospel of a
particular church, also presents a problem because if there's only
one Jesus, how can there be all these different gospels? And when you
look at them all, even the four gospels in the New Testament, not to
mention all these other kinds of things that we read; when you look
at them all, you really see that there are rather different
portrayals of Jesus that come out of them. There's a different image
in each different tradition. So, the proliferation of the gospels on
the one hand reflects the growth and the kind of upsurge of
popularity of Christianity. On the other hand, it produces a dilemma;
how can there be so many gospels when there's only one Jesus? And
this is even a problem that faces the development of the New
Testament canon itself. If there's only one Jesus, why even four
gospels, why not just one?
So,
by the late second and early third century, we're starting to face
this problem. We hear of people who want to harmonize all the gospels
into just one story. We actually have a document called the
diatessaron, produced by a Syrian Christian theologian by the name of
Tatian, and the diatessaron means "through the four;" he
weaves the four gospels together into one, single narrative, and it
produces some interesting effects with the story when he does so. In
fact, it's so much of a problem that he puts them together that way,
that people begin to worry too much if you do that.
So,
on the one hand, one gospel is too few, but the other possibility is
you could throw three of them out.... But if one is too few and you
can't fuse them all together, how many is too many? And finally the
answer comes down that four is the right number, and we have this
writer by the name is Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, in Gaul, modern day
France, who around the year 180 says that no, the number of the
gospels is properly four; these are the earliest, these are the best,
but four is the right number.
John
Carlisle Kilgo Professor of Religion and Director of the Graduate
Program in Religion Duke University
IRENAEUS
AND THE HERETICS
Who
is Irenaeus and what was bugging him?
Irenaeus
was a Bishop of Lyon in what today would be France in the later
second century.... [He] was particularly noted for his writings in
which he tried to combat various kinds of so-called heretics of
the second century. Most of these were people who would consider
themselves Christians. In fact some of these heretics such as Marcion
and Valentinus clearly thought that they were better Christians and
higher kinds of Christians than ordinary run of the mill Christians
in the catholic churches. Irenaeus took it upon himself to expose
these different kinds of so-called heresies, people that had chosen
wrong ways of thinking about Christianity, from his point of view. In
an enormous book called "Against Heresies" in which he
outlined all the difficulties, particularly, he said, many of these
heretics decried the created order. They thought the material world
was bad. They didn't honor the God of the Old Testament who was
represented as a creator. They didn't honor the law that God gave in
the Hebrew
Bible, and in fact that does seem to
be the case with some of these so-called heretics. They themselves,
however, certainly thought of themselves as being truer and higher
kinds of Christians who had gone beyond much of what the Hebrew Bible
said and were now into a different stage.... So what you really have
here I think is a kind of in-group Christian fighting over the who
has the purer, truer kind of Christianity.
Why
did it worry him that there were different interpretations?
Irenaeus
was very concerned to say there's one kind of Christianity which has
come down from the time of the New Testament and been preserved
through the bishops.... You could say Irenaeus was no postmodernist.
He did not think there were many approaches to truth or many kinds of
truths in the plural. There was one truth that he thought had been
given in ... the creed of the church such as it had developed at that
time and was preserved by bishops in their teaching authority, so he
was not willing to admit that there could be these varieties of
Christianity all of which were true.
THE
DETERMINATION OF THE CANON
In
the second and third century we know now there were any number of
gospels which had names of apostles appended to them. There were also
acts or also with names of apostles appended to them so you have The
Acts of Paul, The Acts of Thomas and so forth. ... these circulated
quite freely in the church and Christians for a while probably used
these ... somewhat indiscriminately; it's only a little bit later ...
you begin to have people objecting, "don't use this one, don't
use that one". ... It may surprise people to know that it's
really not until the year 367 that we have a list of New Testament
books that conforms exactly to the list of the twenty-seven books we
would call the New Testament today. So throughout the second and
third centuries there was quite a lot of fighting about which ones
are in and which ones not. I think there was general agreement quite
early Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, the Letters
of Paulwere safely in, but there was
fighting about books like Jude and Second Peter. Certainly the book
of Revelation was fought about a lot. The apocalyptic tone
of that work was not very suitable in the eyes of some Christians a
little bit later on....
Irenaeus
doesn't like the idea that there are many gospels circulating with
different accounts about Jesus, particularly a number of these
accounts [which] rather down-play the materiality and physicality of
Jesus' body. They stress the kind of miracles that Jesus, as a little
child, performed, and Irenaeus thinks if we just stick to the gospels
-- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we will have a more historical, we
might say, account of Jesus. I think also what's at stake here though
too, is that the Catholic Church, which Irenaeus represents, is in
competition with groups, like the followers of Valentinus and the
followers of Marcion, who were not inconsiderable threats in the 2nd
century. So this is a kind of campaign about who has the best and
right form of Christianity....
Who
decided exactly what got in and what was left out? What was excluded?
What was suppressed?
It's
hard to say.... We do have a document called the Muratorian Canon ...
which tells us that one of the criteria for deciding whether a book
is scripture or not is whether it can be read in the church. Now,
this seems to be rather a circular argument, because you probably
don't read it in the church unless you think it's scripture, but
there seems to be something about suitability for public reading
during worship, that's one criterion. The churchmen who argued about
these points of what's in and what's out... [also] wanted to say if
we know a book was supposedly written by an Apostle or by a follower
of an Apostle, this gave it some authenticity. This was an attempt to
say, "We're as close back with eyewitness reporting as we can
be."
FROM
MANY GOSPELS TO FOUR
The diversity
of Christianity is certainly
closely related to the proliferation of gospels. Even the gospels
which we have in the canon of the New Testament are not of one mind,
but really represent very different religious positions and very
different images of Jesus. You go beyond this, we have the Gospel
of Thomas, which again is a very
different image of Jesus as the revealer of the divine truth about
the ultimate human self than we find in Mark, or in Matthew. We have
numerous fragments of other gospels, which sometimes we only know
they existed, but cannot really say what they [said].
So
the question of establishing some authority in terms of gospels,
which gospels should be read and which should not be read, was
discussed in the second century, especially after Marcion. Marcion
lived in the first half of the second century. He was a wealthy ship
owner and ship merchant. He came from northern Turkey... to Rome and
he gave the Roman Church a lot of money, and they welcomed him with
open arms. But he felt that the original Christian gospel was no
longer preserved, and he thought that only the apostle Paul had the
true gospel. And he set out to find this true gospel, and he took the
Gospel of Luke and purified it from whatever he thought was Jewish
and said, "This should be the scripture for the church, and this
should be the only scripture for the church." And the Roman
church became very suspicious of his manipulations with the Gospel of
Mark. It is reported that they gave the money back to him and said,
"Thank you very much, but we don't want you and your gospel...."
But
the church really had to think at that point, what should they do
with the many gospels on hand. And with new editions of the gospels
which were coming out all the time. Right after Marcion, we have
evidence from Rome that some other people sat down and wrote a new
harmony of the gospels of Matthew and Mark and Luke, melding them
together into one gospel. Now in that situation we have apparently a
recourse to the original function of gospel narrative which is the
narrative of Jesus' suffering and death as the story that accompanies
the celebration of the central Christian ritual, the Eucharist. And
that meant that only gospels who have a passion narrative can be
included. The Gospel of Thomas does not have a passion narrative. And
it was never discussed for possible inclusion. It is characteristic
that all gospels of the canon have a passion narrative because the
central Christian ritual, that's the Eucharist, cannot live without
that story. And it is out of that movement that the four gospel canon
arises. And it comes, interestingly enough, as a canon that preserves
diversity, within limits.... There is no claim that this canon
represents four gospels that are all saying the same thing. It is
rather an attempt to bring together as many Christian communities
that were bound to a particular gospel into one major church. And
this was essentially accomplished through the four gospel canon.
The
Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School
SYMBOLS
OF THE GOSPELS
Some
of the symbols that Irenaeus uses of the gospels have come to be
quite traditional and quite influential in the the symbolism
associated with the gospels. So the ox, the lion, the winged man and
the eagle that [are] used for the evangelists in many contexts, both
artistic and literary, go back to Irenaeus.
The
eagle is the usual symbol for the Gospel of John, because his thought
is so lofty and it flies so high. And the ox is the symbol of the
third gospel, the gospel according to Luke, perhaps because of the
way in which Jesus is presented as as someone born in a manger. It's
unclear exactly why but that's certainly an element. The man with
wings is associated with the Gospel of Matthew. And this may go back
to traditions about Matthew having some sort of angelic assistance in
the composition of his gospel.... Mark is symbolized by the lion,
it's unclear why, but perhaps because the lion is a symbol of Jesus
in the book of Revelation. And Mark does have connections with an
apocalyptic view of Jesus.
POLITICS
BEHIND THE CANON
I
think the composition of a four-fold gospel canon reflects
complicated developments during the course of the second century. One
of the factors that played a role here certainly was the fact that
certain gospels were revered in certain ecclesiastical centers, so it
may be that Antioch had a special affection for the Gospel of Luke.
We don't know that for a fact, but this is certainly an element in
the development of the gospel canon. So as the centers got together
and wanted to share fellowship and shared their readings, it would
have been important for them to recognize one another's principle
texts. There may also have been some theological issues that were
being debated, and the use of certain texts in connection with those
debates probably played a role in the recognition of those texts as
authoritative. We know that that was the case with the Gospel of
John; by the end of the second century there was a faction among the
Roman church leadership that rejected the fourth gospel and said, "We
ought not have it." They thought that perhaps there was a
portrait of Jesus that compromised his humanity. And so the
insistence upon the full humanity of Jesus would have been an issue
in the acceptance of John as authoritative. So there were both some
political and also some theological reasons that no doubt played a
role. And then there were various other gospels that were not
included within the fourfold canon that probably did not have the
sponsorship of a major church, or had some feature to them that was
particularly problematic from a theological point of view.
Associate
Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
CANON
EMERGES FROM CONSENSUS
Sometimes
when the New Testament scholarship discusses the matter of canon
formation, the story implied is that there are some smoke filled
rooms somewhere in the 2nd century and a bunch of these cigar smoking
Christian big shots got together and they decided who was going in
and who was going out and then... it was a wrap, they closed up and
then everything else was on the cutting room floor.... If we return
to Irenaeus' argument for the canon, I think precisely the contrary
is closer to a more responsible historical reconstruction, and that
is that there's some kind of consensus among people in the Jesus
movement as to what constitutes reliable tradition, reliable
literature - literature that they want to read or they want to hear
over and over again, and other kinds of literature that they don't
want to hear. And, of course, there are groups that have differences
of opinion about this. There's some discussion about certain books
that can be read but can't be read in church, for example. You can
read them on your own, but there's a kind of parental advisory on
them or something, and you don't read them in church and you're
careful when you read them by yourself, this kind of thing. Or
there's some pieces of literature that a lot of people are reading
but that the Grand Poobahs in the church don't want them to read. But
these really constitute special cases that imply a kind of consensus
that are formed very early about the kind of literature Christians
used that spoke to their self-identification and by which, they in
turn, identified themselves.... That's kind of touchy-feely; it's
hard to get a get a historical fix on it, but it's got to have been
there. That was a development... from the bottom up, as opposed to
from the top down. In Irenaeus' voice, I think we're hearing some top
down arguments ex-post facto.
Read
more on the development of the canon in this essay by
Marilyn Mellowes.
symposium . jesus'
many faces . a
portrait of jesus' world . storytellers .
first christians . why did christianity succeed?
maps, archaeology & sources .
discussion . bible history quiz . behind the scenes
teachers' guide . viewers' guide . press reaction . tapes, transcripts & events
first christians . why did christianity succeed?
maps, archaeology & sources .
discussion . bible history quiz . behind the scenes
teachers' guide . viewers' guide . press reaction . tapes, transcripts & events
No comments:
Post a Comment