In other posts, I've cited evidence from ancient Christian and non-Christian sources against that kind of scenario. I'll mention several examples here before moving on to some other lines of evidence I want to focus on in this post. (For a fuller discussion of the canon more broadly, which is relevant to the subcategory of the gospels in particular, see here.)
Part of the evidence for the canonical gospels is their widespread acceptance among groups outside traditional Christianity. Those groups accepted the documents in spite of how inconsistent they are with the teachings of the groups, often causing them to appeal to unusual methods of interpretation in an attempt to reconcile their views with the canonical gospels. It would have been in the interest of these groups to have rejected the canonical gospels, but they accepted them instead, probably because the documents were too well established to dismiss. By contrast, the traditional Christian sources saw no need to accept the non-canonical gospels. Irenaeus tells us that some heretics rejected some New Testament documents (Against Heresies, 3:11:7), but that most "do certainly recognise the Scriptures; but they pervert the interpretations" (3:12:12). Tertullian wrote, "that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned." (Against Marcion, 4:5) Origen notes, "There are countless heresies that accept the Gospel According to Luke." (Joseph Lienhard, trans., Origen: Homilies On Luke, Fragments On Luke [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 1996], 67) Eusebius refers to all of the canonical gospels as undisputed among the churches, whereas none of the other gospels were even accepted by a majority (Church History, 3:25). See here and other relevant posts in our archives for more such examples.
And there are many indications that what we call traditional Christianity today - the group most responsible for elevating the canonical gospels above others - was also the mainstream, the majority, in the earliest years of church history. Traditional Christian sources are the most prominent in the historical record, including in descriptions of Christianity in non-Christian sources, and all agree that they were the majority in later centuries. Early Jewish and pagan responses to Christianity are more focused on traditional Christianity than they are on any of the alternatives, as we see in Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho and Origen's Against Celsus, for example. When addressing heretics in the second century, Irenaeus often refers to them as highly fragmented and suggests that they were relatively small groups. As Eric Osborn noted, "He [Irenaeus] contrasts the universal spread of the rule [core doctrines of traditional Christianity] with the local sectarian Gnostic phenomena." (Irenaeus Of Lyons [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 23) Even Celsus, who often spoke hyperbolically of Christian diversity and sectarianism, recognized that there was a "great church" and "those of the multitude" (in Origen, Against Celsus, 5:59, 5:61), probably the traditional Christianity that sources like Irenaeus and Tertullian refer to. Celsus may have a similar concept in mind concerning Judaism when he refers to "the multitude of the Jews" (in Origen, Against Celsus, 5:61). As with Judaism, there was a Christian mainstream that was recognized by both insiders and outsiders. The majority status of traditional Christianity in the earliest centuries would make more sense of its later prominence. Continuity makes more sense than discontinuity.
But there are some other lines of evidence for that conclusion that get much less attention. Charles Hill discusses them in the first chapter of Who Chose The Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). As he documents, we have far more copies of the canonical gospels than non-canonical ones in the earliest centuries of the manuscript record. And the nature of those manuscripts suggests that the canonical ones were held in higher regard. In other words, it's not just that the number of copies of the canonical gospels is higher, which would be significant by itself. It's also a matter of the quality of those manuscripts. The manuscripts of the canonical gospels have both a higher quantity and a higher quality. You can read Hill's chapter for a fuller discussion, but here are some of his comments:
Heterodox groups do seem to have flourished in Egypt more than in some other places in the empire such as Rome or Asia Minor. But this means that an obvious conclusion (even more obvious for the followers of Bauer) must follow. If there is any place in the empire where we should expect to see a high concentration of heterodox or non-canonical texts, it is Egypt….
But the most remarkable thing is that the Egyptian rubbish heaps, which are no respecters of persons but which are a constant threat to conspiracy theories, so far attest that even in diversity-rich Egypt non-canonical Gospels were perhaps a third as popular as the canonical ones. And what we know about Egypt naturally suggests that elsewhere in the empire, in places where Christianity was apparently not so diverse, alternative Gospels might have made an even worse showing than they have so far in Egypt….
Whereas most of our early papyrus copies of the canonical Gospels are from codices which were at least suitable for the purpose of public reading in the churches, none of our surviving copies of the Gospel of Peter or the Gospel of Mary was. Of all the early apocryphal Gospels from the second or third centuries, only the single copy of the Egerton Gospel and one of the three copies of the Gospel of Thomas were written in formats which could have made public reading a likely possibility. This, of course, does not mean they ever were so used, nor does it tell us what sort of Christians would have used them in this way if they ever were used in this way….
And the kind of popularity that Gospels like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary did enjoy was most likely not the same kind of popularity that the canonical Gospels had. Many scholars have in fact argued that a high proportion, at least, of the apocryphal Gospels and apocryphal 'Acts of the Apostles' were 'popular literature' produced for private reading for various groups of Christians, much like the Christian novels and other popular Christian literature one sees on bookstore shelves today….We know from literary sources that the four canonical Gospels, on the other hand, were being copied not only for private reading but also for reading in services of worship already at some point in the second century (as we shall see in later chapters).
(24-25, 31-32)
Keep in mind that the early sources had no way of anticipating how the climate would affect the preservation of documents over time, changes in technology, the development of the field of archeology, and other factors that would produce the findings referred to by Hill above. The early proponents of traditional Christianity had no way of manipulating this sort of evidence even if they had wanted to. And the evidence suggests they weren't of such a character that they would have engaged in that sort of manipulation even if they had been capable of it. The best explanation for why traditional Christianity and the canonical gospels dominated is that they deserved to.
"In general, these [non-canonical] gospels show far less knowledge of Palestinian topography and customs than do the canonical Gospels...one can appreciate the difference between the character of the canonical Gospels and the near banality of most of the gospels dating from the second and third centuries....these four [gospels] came to be recognized as authentic - authentic both in the sense that the story they told was, in its essentials, adjudged sound by a remarkably unanimous consent, and also in the sense that their interpretation of its meaning was equally widely recognized as true to the apostles' faith and teaching. Even the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas, both of which may preserve scraps of independent tradition, are obviously inferior theologically and historically to the four accounts that eventually came to be regarded as the only canonical Gospels....the apocryphal Acts cannot be put on a level with the Lucan work...The knowledge that our New Testament contains the best sources for the history of Jesus is the most valuable knowledge that can be obtained from study of the early history of the canon." (Bruce Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], 167, 173-174, 180, 287)
"[Irenaeus gives us] historical arguments which must be taken seriously....At the same time, according to all our historical knowledge and an impartial, sober comparison between the apocryphal Jesus traditions and the four Gospels, indeed the New Testament generally, the church of the second century could hardly have made a better choice....To emphasize the point once again: in its selection and ordering the church of the second century showed historical and theological understanding. I would like to repeat emphatically here the remark made above (33): the church really could not have made a better choice." (Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], 33, 115, 140)
No comments:
Post a Comment