A Christian Response to The Da Vinci Code

Nashotah House Theological Seminary, 2006

 

Lecture 4 (21 February 2006):  Dr. Nicholas Perrin, Wheaton College

 

The Gospel Canon: Four-fold or Four-score?

 

1.   CLAIM:  “More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament and yet only a relatively few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them.” (The Da Vinci Code, p. 231, emphasis original)

 

      FACT:  No evidence exists for the existence of more than two dozen non-canonical gospels in the first four centuries of Church history.

 

2.   Other “gospels” have been known to exist from earliest Christian commentary.  Examples include:

  1. The “Gospel of Q”:  A hypothetical source used by Matthew and Luke, in addition to their reliance on Mark.

§         “Q” stands for “quelle” (German for “source”), and was hypothesized to exist by the nineteenth century German Biblical scholar, H. Holtzmann.

§         “Q,”  if it existed, would have been dated in the mid-first century, given the known dating of Matthew and Luke.

                                             i.            “Q” is not necessary to explain textual similarities between Matthew and Luke, if one posits a common reliance on Mark, and Luke then relying on Matthew.

 

3.   Other “gospels,” as dated by mainstream Biblical scholars also include:

  1. The Gospel of Thomas:  A.D. 40–185 [no consensus on dating]
  2. The Gospel of Peter:  A.D. ca. 150?
  3. The Gospel of Philip:  A.D. 175–250?
  4. The Gospel of the Ebionites:  A.D. 150?
  5. The Gospel According to the Hebrews:  A.D. 150?
  6. The Gospel of Mary:  A.D. 175?

 

4.   No gospels outside of the four-fold canon were ever seriously considered for inclusion in the canon of Scripture.  Many scholars date the four Gospels as follows:

  1. Matthew:  A.D. 40–100
  2. Mark:  A.D. 40–85
  3. Luke:  A.D. 62–110
  4. John:  A.D. 80–120

 

5.   Early Christian testimony describes the knowledge and acceptance of four Gospels, and the rejection of the later Gnostic gospels:

  1. St. Irenaeus of Lyons testified to this ca. A.D. 180 stating:

 

“So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine. For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel only, are confuted out of this very same, making false suppositions with regard to the Lord. But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains. Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.”

 

--Adv. Haer. 3.11.7 [emphases supplied]

 

“The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men.”

 

--Adv. Haer. 3.11.18

 

  1. St. Clement of Rome (1st century) and St. Justin Martyr (2nd century) both quote from Matthew and Luke, without having to identify the authors of their sources.
  2. The “Muratorian Fragment,” a list of scriptural writings compiled in Rome in the late 2nd century, lists the four canonical Gospels, and no others.

 

7.   What criteria were used by the Church in deciding which books to include in the canon of the New Testament?

  1. Apostolicity:  Is there an apostolic source for the book?
  2. Age:  Has the book been known to Christians for a long time?
  3. Historical likelihood of the contents:  E.g., are inherently implausible events described (as in The Gospel of Peter, wherein the Cross speaks)?
  4. Orthodoxy:  Do the contents of the book reflect orthodox belief?
  5. Agreement with the Old Testament: Lack of continuity is OK, but not lack of agreement.
  6. Edifying nature:  Are the contents instructive in the faith, leading to better living?
  7. Catholicity:  Has the book been used throughout the whole of the Church?
  8. Clarity:  Are the contents coherent?
  9. Public use:  Have the contents of the writing been used in public worship?

 

8.   Were there really 80 “gospels” considered for inclusion in the New Testament?  NO!