Myths About the New Testament
Book Review: Who Chose the Books of the New Testament?
Introduction
Creative stories are enjoyed by many who read them. For most, it is more than just entertainment. History aids one in making conclusions about the present and the future and if retold as a story, one can better make sense of their role in the grand story. Many popular narratives and creative stories are told today regarding the origins of Christianity. These stories pertain to who chose the books of the New Testament and whether future generations should trust the claims of Christianity.
In its continuous interaction with the surrounding culture, “authentic” Christianity has now taken the seat of the accused. Furthermore, modern scholars such as Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, and David Dungan occupy the stand and popularize narratives about the New Testament. Are these stories about who chose the books of the New Testament true?
Charles E. Hill addresses these questions in his book, Who Chose the Books of the New Testament? Hill argues that there are many myths propagated by the current culture that seek to account for its “one-time fascination with an increasingly discredited religion.” (7) To invalidate these myths and defend New Testament fidelity, he takes a two-pronged approach: he debunks popular tales concerning New Testament book selection, then he offers proof for the authenticity of the twenty-seven books received by the church.
Summary
Hill begins with the myth that political pressure gave rise to the selection of the New Testament. Many say Constantine, the Roman Emperor, chose the New Testament books. Furthermore, others say it was the group with the biggest army. Some say it wasn’t until 367AD that Athanasius of Alexandria wrote a letter listing the 27 New Testament books in the Bible today; it was then that the so-called “New Testament” floating around “out there” finally congealed. Hill encapsulates the modern mindset: “The Bible was put together after Christianity had become wedded to the state, and people, societies, and civilizations have been struggling to extract themselves from the perceived entanglements with Christianity and its politically constructed Bible ever since” (8). Hill contends that serious scholars know these things are false. They are seen mainly in popular culture, housed in movies and books, and should be considered fiction.
One of Hill’s responses is, “So what?” In other words, this is a non-sequitur. If this is how the New Testament was compiled, and God is sovereign, it doesn’t follow that Christianity is illegitimate. Just as Joseph said to his brothers, one can say, “Constantine and his army may have meant it for evil, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should hear the life-giving voice of Jesus in the books that made it into the New Testament.” (11) The real question is whether or not this story is true. Hill states that this political myth is not valid.
The second myth Hill deals with is the “alleged development of certain criteria of canonicity applied to the books available.” (22) He interacts with a scholar named Lee McDonald and his claims that the churches used several criteria to determine the contents of their New Testament. The primary test among others to determine the canonicity of certain books, according to McDonald, was their usefulness. Surely the church picked what was most useful for prayer, worship, and edification. Hill argues that the problem with this is that “there is no evidence that the books used as Scripture by the church had first been subjected to a list of qualifying criteria before they were used and acknowledged as Scripture.” (23) Nobody finds churches determining what is useful, but only using certain books that they deemed authoritative and apostolic. Hill argues that this “praxis” approach ignores transcendent or divine properties of the books and God’s disruptive, correcting voice in the church that extends beyond changing needs (24). Since this doesn’t satisfy scholars and cure their view of the early church, he adds one final argument.
Modern scholars still see inconsistencies in the early church when they cite and use non-canonical writings. If they did have criteria that governed the process, they weren’t even consistent in applying their own criteria because “non-canonical” books made it into the list of books used by Christians. Thus, this is a problem for the canon. Rather, Hill concludes, what is wrong here is not the early church, but the method of modern scholars. By citing sources such as the author of the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180AD) he shows that certain books were used and valued for edification and catechetical training but not to be regarded as scripture. This last argument sets him up for his final point which is the proof of the authenticity of the New Testament.
The entirety of the proof he offers rests on this foundation: New Testament scriptures are self-authenticating and self-demonstrating; not chosen, but inherited. He acknowledges the problem with the view that the early church (by the late 4th century) chose books to be included: “How can we place ultimate confidence in a list of books chosen by the church, unless the church too is infallible, at least on par with Scripture or above it in authority?” (27) Rather than a collective act of the church choosing books, the process was to be viewed as the recognizing or receiving of the New Testament. This is how the church has spoken of the books of the New Testament since the patristic era.
He quotes John Calvin (who popularized this idea during the time of the Reformation) who simply was saying what early Christians such as Justin Martyr (c. 100AD) were saying. Calvin memorably wrote, “Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do of their taste. Those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning” (28). Hill also believes in reasoning and natural proofs for the canon. Still, he emphasizes the primacy of the undeniable divine quality of the New Testament for all those who know the voice of the divine Author.
Critical Evaluation
Hill carefully evaluates History and current culture throughout this book. This is what provides strength to his argument against the “political” myth. He gets beneath the surface of the argumentation which is a strength of the book. For instance, Hill points to the current culture's fascination with diversity as the root cause of these myths. Modern scholars believe there wasn’t unanimity on core doctrine in early Christianity so there was no such thing as “orthodoxy” until much later. The adage, “It’s the winners who write the histories” is a lens that is imposed upon the historical evidence. This colors everything these scholars see which causes them to have a hermeneutic of suspicion because, after all, the stronger group utilized political power to select books. He also carefully interacts with the so-called “evidence” given for such claims.
Elaine Pagels suggests that some early Church fathers (such as Irenaeus) advocated for the destruction of illegitimate writings, thus, we see a victorious Christian group turning up the political pressure. Other scholars suggest that political power struggles ended in excluding certain books and adding books like the Gospel of John that are political through and through. Hill reveals that this is a dubious claim: “Like Irenaeus’s campaign of literary destruction, this agreement, though historically certain in the minds of many scholars today, is nowhere found in the annals of recorded history” (13). Though these modern critiques are not devoid of proof, Hill argues that their so-called “proof” should be subject to examination.
The main evidence Hill gives to combat this narrative is the early Papyri that house the gospel writings we have today and the non-canonical gospels rejected by the Church. Because of numerous archeological discoveries of other so-called “gospels” such as the Gospel of Judas, modern scholars suggest that there’s no way of differentiating between these writings and what we have today, which proves there were many “Christianities,” not just one orthodoxy. Therefore, what is known as “orthodoxy” today cannot be trusted. Hill comes against this by suggesting two simple things: First, the manuscript evidence– the alternative gospels were not copied and were not circulating in the church nearly as much as the other four gospels. Second, the basic physical form of the four canonical gospels makes clear the way early Christians cared for and copied these writings– they revered them as Holy scripture.
With all the claims about political power struggles and alternative gospels, one would expect that these other documents outnumber the canonical gospels. But Hill concludes, “The fact that heterodox gospels do not even come close to doing so… that they are in fact currently outnumbered four to one, and that most of them have distinctively different physical properties from the canonical Gospels are, I think, ponderous problems for the political interpretation” (21). He brings these historical facts to the fore allowing the reader to conclude that these modern critiques are historical inaccuracies.
One wonders whether the main proof of this book stands up against the winds of critical scholarship. Some objections could be, “The only way this would be proof is if one assumed God already exists.” Or, “this is circular reasoning and one simply has to rely on blind faith.” Some might consider John Calvin’s argument for self-authentication as lazy or irresponsible. Two things can be said in Hill’s defense.
First, Hill's approach serves to undercut arguments from scholars who generally have a spiritual worldview. They may not believe in the God of Christianity or the deity of Jesus but based on the nature of their writings, they don’t operate from a purely atheistic worldview. Thus, the argument for the self-authenticating canon is the best place to start. Second, no matter who he tries to refute, this is the best foundation for establishing the canon. There are dangers in trying to apply modern (Enlightenment) methods of reason to determine whether the Bible is true. Hill sees reason and traditional apologetic arguments as important and he uses them well, but the necessary foundation is the fact that those who have the Holy Spirit indwelling them can recognize the voice of the divine author and see the New Testament as the self-attesting word of God. That’s why the language of “recognizing” and “receiving” when speaking of what has been handed down is proper language. Those who were only a few links away from the apostles believed their words: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16).
Conclusion
Many students, pastors, and laypersons will benefit greatly from this short treatment of the canon. He debunks the modern cultural political myths with great clarity and in such a way that displays his prowess as a historian. He then provides compelling proof for the canon that both informs the mind and strengthens the faith of believers. In a day when the truth of Christianity is constantly challenged, a book such as this is much needed. For years to come, those who read this work will run to their Bibles with great confidence in what has been delivered by the Apostles.
