Science in Christian Perspective
Which Books Belong in the Bible?
PAUL M. McKOWEN
Associate Minister
First Presbyterian Church Richmond, California 94805
From: JASA 26 (June 1974): 55-60.
Following an introduction and definition of basic terms (canon,
apocrypha, pseudep-igrapha)
the development of the Old Testament canon is treated, followed by an appraisal
of Old Testament apocrypha. The second section treats the congealing of the New
Testament canon, and the vast literature of New Testament apocrypha. The third
section considers modern day questions of canon and apocrypha, both
from the standpoint
of deleting Scriptural books as well as from the viewpoint of adding "new
scriptures" to the canon.
Introduction
A person who is not yet a believer may offer a challenge, "I heard that in
the 4th Century it was decided to leave some honks out of the New
Testament,"
Or, "Why did the Protestants decide to remove about a dozen hooks from the
Old Testament?" Or even worse, "You claim the Bible is the very Word
of God, and yet human beings decided which books should he in the Bible! Why 66
books? Why not 166 books, or why not just 26 books? It seems to be the word of
man just as much as the Word of God!"
We hope to answer these and other questions in this paper. We limit ourselves
to this particular topic: "Which hooks belong in the
Bible?" This means
we do not have latitude to explore another question of great interest, "By
what means did God's mind get communicated into the minds of the men who wrote
the Scriptures?" For our purposes, let us assume that God
succeeded in delivering
his word authentically and accurately through chosen men. Let us
assume the inspiration
of God's Word. The question now before us is: How was the distinction
made between
hooks given by the inspiration of God on the one hand, and on the
other hand the
honks that are hoaxes, forgeries,
or good human material but not meant to he included as Scripture?
Let us begin with two terms that are basic in a discussion of "Which books
belong in the Bible?"-
Canon:
A normative or regulative standard as to what should be included in
sacred writings;
straight (orthodox) teachings; the Scriptures viewed as a rule of
faith and conduct
(from the Greek kanon, from the phoenician gana', Hebrew ganeh, meaning a rod,
cane, or reed, usable for measuring).
Apocrypha:
Bunks rejected as unauthentic, of hidden origin, or uncanonical (from the Greek
apnkryphus, hidden away). Closely related is the term pseadepigrapha, referring
to hooks written under false (Greek pseudes) authorship (Greek epi +
graphe, to
write upon), such as Books of Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, etc.
A Consideration of the Old Testament
Some argue1 that the Old Testament books, 39 in the Protestant Bible,
were established
as a canon as early as 444-400 B.C., in the time of Ezra, contemporary of the
Persian King Artaxerxes (465-424 B.C.). This view is supported by the writings
of Flavius
Josephus (37-100? AD.), Jewish soldier, statesman, and historian, who
in his "Against
Apion" states "We have but twenty-two books . . . . From the days of
Artaxerxes to our own times every event has indeed been recorded; but
these recent
records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded
them , . ." (Those twenty-two books were the same as our
thirty-nine, since
the twelve minor prophets were on a single scroll, and thus counted
as one hook.
Ruth was attached to judges, and Lamentations tacked on to the Jeremiah scroll.
Likewise Ezra and Nehemiah were together. And each pair of Samuel,
Kings, Chronicles
were treated as one book. This arrangement is well-known and
well-accepted.)
This view, which may be oversimplified in dating the canon closed at 400 B.C.,
has value in that it shows how Josephus, a first century Jew, from a practical
point of view based on current usage, considered the canon "well-jelled"
by 400 B.C., after which Josephus considered prophetic inspiration to
have ceased.
A more precise study reveals that the Penteteuch (the law of Moses, the first
five books) was in use canonically as early as 400 B.C.; that the Prophets, a
second Jewish division of Scriptures, was closed canonically by 200 B.C.; and
that the third division, the Writings, was closed in 100 B.C.2 (This three-fold
division of Jewish Scripture is commonly known, and it has been designated by
the acronym tanak, which means torah (law), nabiim (prophets), and
Kethubim (writings).
An important date is 90 A.D. when the Council of Jamnia convened under Johanan
hen Zakkai, officially congealing the Old Testament canon in its present form
of thirty-nine books without Apocrypha.3 Prior to this the canon had
been socially
closed by usage and practice, and discussions about Ezekiel, Daniel,
Song of Solomon,
Ecclesiastes, and Esther, for example, were academic and not of historical and
theological significance. (Such discussions even continued after the
formal closing
of the canon in 90 AD.) Perhaps the development of Christian literature, which
was coming to the fore, made it prudent for the rabbis to take official action
in closing their canon.
Old Testament Apocrypha
The Apocrypha (and Pseudepigrapha) were produced between 250 B.C. and the early
Christian centuries. The Apocryphal books, found in the Douay Version
(Roman Catholic),
can be roughly divided into three groups:
1. Books that are allegedly additions and completions of existing books of the Old Testament canon. (II Esdras adds apocalyptic
visions given to Ezra; "The Rest of Esther" seeks to show God's hand
in "Esther" in clearer focus; and three additions to
Daniel, the first
two of which are based on the lion's den setting: Song of the Three
Holy Children,
Bel and the Dragon, and History of Susanna, add to the heroic feats
of Daniel.)
2. Books that can be called "wisdom literature",
similar to job, Proverbs and Ecelesiastes. These are Wisdom of
Solomon and Ecclesiastices.
3. Books that treat historical narrative, sometimes with apparent
forthrightness,
as I and II Maccabees, which relate the Jews' warfare for liberty (175-130 B.C.) against the Syrians under the ambitious and outrageous
Antiochos Epiphanes;
on other occasions the historical narratives appear legendary (I
Esdras regarding
Zerubbabel), or infused with romantic love (Tobit and Judith), or
mere paraphrases
from other books (Baruch paraphrasing the prophets Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.).
What has been the fate of these assorted books? The rabbis did not
want to accept
them in the Old Testament canon because they appeared in Greek in the
Septuagint
translation in 150 B.C., and God's language is Hebrew! (Four were
originally written
in Hebrew.) It is important to emphasize that Jewish usage rejected these books
from their canon. They were definitely rejected at Jamnia in 90 A.D.
On April 8, 1546 The Council of Trent of the
Roman Catholic Church declared some of these abovementioned apocryphal books to
be canonical or deuterocanonical, offering an anathema against any who ventured
a different view. The books were Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of
Solomon, Ecclesiastes,
Baruch (with the Epistle of Jeremy as Chapter 6) and I and II
Maccabees. The Rest
of Esther was added to canonical Esther, and Daniel was expanded by The History
of Susanna, Song of the Three Holy Children, and Bel and the Dragon.
In the New English Bible the Apocrypha also includes I and II Esdras
and the Prayer
of Manasseh, which were rejected by the Council of Trent. It is
evident that this
Apocrypha is about equal in length to the New Testament.
Martin Luther, the German reformer, felt that some of these books favored papal
doctrines. He also rejected the Apocrypha. Probably he was
over-reacting, as these
hooks are not theologically radical and heretical. More important is
the principle
that these books were never part of the Jewish canon of the
Scriptures. They found
their way into the Bible via the Greek Septuagint version, and its translation
into Latin in the second century, and the Latin Vulgate which was completed in
405 A.D. by Jerome. Once included alongside canonical Scripture,
tradition tended
to canonize these apocryphal books also.
It is worth noting that Jesus is not recorded as having quoted from
these apocryphal
books. There is no explicit reference to them in the New Testament canon. They
are useful books in terms of understanding the life and thought of Judaism in
the intertestamental period, as a bridge between Old and New
Testaments. We should
not he threatened by these books or seek to burn them thinking they
are devilish
tools. But we do not see sufficient evidence for accepting them as
canon material.
Likewise historical investigations show the pseudepigraphal documents
to be unauthentic
and unacceptable.
Representative reading samples from the Apocrypha
are offered as an introduction: (1) Additions and
Completions, see Daniel's vindication of Susanna's innocence, in
History of Susanna
49-64. (2) Wisdom Literature, see Wisdom of Solomon 14:23-26 for
rituals of evil,
and a passage to arouse Women's Lib, Ecclesiasticus 25:19-26. Also 26:9-12 on
the loose woman. (3) Historical Narrative, see I Maccabees 1:10, 20-24, 41-64
on the outrages of "that wicked man, Antiochus Epiphanes" who set up
the "abomination of desolation" on the altar of the temple
(175 B.C.).
A Consideration of the New Testament
The Old Testament canon jelled between 400-100 B.C. (first the Law in 400 B.C.,
then the prophets in 200 B.C. and finally the Writings in 100 B.C.)
with a final
definitive decision being made at the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. In
like manner
the New Testament canon jelled, between about 75 A.D. and 400 A.D.
Again we observe
three stages of development in the New Testament canon, culminating
in its congealing
at the synods of Hippo Regius (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397, 419 AD.).4
(1) In the period of the apostolic church there were hints and allusions that
make us suspect that authoritative Christian writings were in the making. For
instance, Jesus Christ was a person of authority who spoke with
authority, e.g.,
"You have heard that it was said . . . but I say . . .".
One would expect
that sooner or later such sayings would be recorded, along with his memorable
parables, and narratives of his mighty deeds. Paul the apostle claimed, in his
letter to the Galatians, to have received instructions directly from the risen
and ascended Christ concerning the breadth of the gospel for both Jew
and Gentile,
and concerning all men being made right with God by faith; one would
expect these
apostolic revelations to be written. Indeed, Paul did develop his concepts in
letters, and instructions were given to Christian churches to circulate these
letters and read them. Peter referred to Paul's writings in his
letters, comparing
them with "other scriptures" (II Peter 3:16). Paul, in his
first letter
to Timothy, quotes the words of Jesus and refers to his source as
"scripture".
All this gives a feeling that there is developing a Christian canon,
even as there
was a Jewish canon.
As new false teachers arose here and there, Christian leaders in the generation
following the apostles wrote letters to combat these wrong ways and encourage
the Christians. In so doing, from 95 A.D. to 150 A.D. we find Clement of Rome
quoting from half a dozen sources that we presently have in our New Testament
canon. In like fashion the letters of Polycarp and Ignatius, the
Didache, Papias,
the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Tatian all quote freely
from authoritative
sources that they had (although the New Testament canon was far from
being jelled),
and their sources read the same as they do in our New Testaments.
Two of the false movements are worthy of special note.5 The heretic
Mareion (about
140 AD.) challenged the church with an assorted set of Christian writings which
he put forth as a canon. They included his own mutilated arrangement
of Luke and
ten of the letters of Paul. Needless to say, this made the church
ponder, as early
as 140 A.D., just what should be the correct limits for a New Testament canon.
The church responded with a larger canon close to our 27 New Testament books.
In the second place, we call attention to the school of the Montanists, who had
exaggerated claims of inspiration in their own utterances, making
necessary written
teachings from the apostolic era, closer to the time of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
By the time of 180-200, things had jelled to a degree that a
"New Testament"
was clearly and definitely present. The church was conscious that it possessed
documents from the apostolic age, and these documents were regarded
as canonical
and of apostolic authority. Evidence for this comes from three great
How was the distinction made between books given by the inspiration of God on the one hand, and the books that are hoaxes, forgeries, or good human material but not meant to be included as Scripture?
writers of the period, Irenaeus (of Asia Minor and Gaul), Tertullian (of North
Africa), and Clement (of Alexandria, Egypt). There was discussion about whether
Hebrews and Jude belonged in the canon, and also about the status of James, II
Peter, II and III John, and Revelation.
(2) During the years 200-325 A.D. discussion about "fringe
books" continued.
Origen of Alexandria faced all the literature that claimed to be apostolic and
classified it "genuine", "doubtful", and
"rejected".
The canon was beginning to solidify. Eusehius, leader from Caesarea
and an historian,
followed Origen, and in 330 A.D. wrote that seven doubtful books had
been accepted
(Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and Revelation).
Other literature,
such as The Epistles of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the
Didache, which
had been fringebooks, were accepted as useful but not included in the canon. By
now the canon was becoming well-shaped, twentyseven books in all, just as our
New Testament.
(3) From 325-400 A.D. we see the church taking an official position
on the canon.
Christianity was no longer persecuted, for Emperor Constantine had embraced the
Christian gospel. It is reasonable to imagine that leaders could breathe more
easily. Furthermore, communication was opened more freely, making it possible
for church leaders to appreciate why certain letters had been
directed to churches
in distant areas. Authoritative pronouncements on the canon began on
local levels,
by bishops of provincial churches. Later councils and synods endorsed the canon
on a larger geographical basis. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter
Letter of 367 AD. listed our twentyseven books as canonical. Then at the synods
of Hippo Regius (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D. and 419 AD.) the
same twenty-seven
books were accepted. (This canon was supported by Augustine (354-430
A.D.), bishop
of Hippo, one of the great Latin church fathers.) The canon issue of
the New Testament
was thus settled.
Let us note these conclusions about the New Testament canon.
(1) In making its choices, the early church was greatly influenced by
"apostolic
authority". They accepted the scriptures clearly attributed to apostles.
They screened out forgeries supposedly written by apostles. They
accepted literature
from sources that had apostolic authority by approval or inference,
such as Luke's
writings.
(2) Although the collection of twenty-seven books into one volume was slow, the
belief in a written rule of faith came very early. Furthermore the
time span gave
the church ample opportunity to sift out the possibilities. It is
perhaps better
that we do not rely on a hastilymade decision of one solitary church council,
say, from 100 A.D.
(3) The proof on which we should accept the books today is historical evidence. We need not accept blindly those
church councils'
decisions of 393-419 A.D. Modern scholarship has been applied to the
New Testament
canon, and these twenty-seven books fare very well as authentic, when subjected
to scientific inquiry.
(4) This scholarship which promotes our assent to the credibility of the canon
is added to our personal certitude that Almighty Cod has been faithful and not
left himself without accurate witness. The certitude of our faith in
God is more
important than our assent to careful scholarship.
New Testament Apocrypha
No Christian Bibles of today (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) include
New Testament apocryphal writings. Pastoral experience indicates that
laymen are
less knowledgable about New Testament Apocrypha than they are about
the Old Testament
Apocrypha. Yet the collection of such writings is huge, comprised of
false gospels,
false Acts of the Apostles, false epistles, and false Revelations. Its content
quickly appears to be vastly inferior to the tone of the twentyseven books of
the New Testament.
An admirable collection of these documents has been published by the
Oxford Press,
under the direction of Montague Rhodes James, editor and translator.6 Here
are some excerpts.
The Gospel of Thomas reports that the boy Jesus went with his mother
to the house
of a dyer. Various pieces of cloth were here and there, brought by
sundry customers,
waiting to he dyed different colors. The boy Jesus plunged them all
into the black
dye. This "sore vexed" the craftsman and irritated Jesus' mother who
had to "amend that which" the boy Jesus had done. But
"the beautiful
child Jesus" pulled out the fabrics, and each was dyed a different color.
(Page 67).
In the same Gospel of Thomas the boy Jesus changed a group of
children into goats
for a short time, and made this ethnocentric statement to the amazed
women onlookers:
Verily the children of Israel are like unto the black
folk among the natives, for the black ones seize the
outer side of the flock, etc. (Page 68)
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew has Jesus get off his mother's lap to be
worshipped
and adored by dragons, lions, leopards, and wolves, once fearsome but
now doeilized.
On the third day Jesus caused a very tall palm tree to bend down to give Mary
fruit; when it rose again a spring issued from its roots. (Pages 74, 75)
When Jesus was four he was playing by the Jordan and arranged seven
pools. Another
lad messed up the pools. He "was struck dead", but when his parents
complained Jesus resurrected him. But when the son of Annas the priest broke up
the pools with a stick, one word from the four year old Jesus
sufficed to wither
the bully, who was not raised up. From the pools he also made clay
sparrows, "clapped
his hands", and twelve feathered birds took flight. (Page 76)
At age eight be crossed the Jordan River whose waters parted, in company with
a group of docilized lions, saying ". . . the beasts know me and are tame,
while men know me not". (Page 76)
Concluding the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, we make reference to Jesus' stretching
a cut beam of wood to a correct length, after it had been cut too short by a lad working
for Joseph
who had a contract for a bed nine feet long. Then in school, on his second day,
the teacher demanded: "Say Alpha". Jesus replied that the
teacher must
first tell him what Beta was, and then Jesus would explain Alpha.
When the teacher
struck Jesus, the teacher died. (Page 78)
The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy relates how Jesus, when placed on the back of
a mule, restored the mule into a man. Later Jesus carried water in
his cloak when
his earthen jug had been broken. And the account of the boy Jesus in the temple
is enlarged to specify his having been questioned about law,
astronomy, and philosophy,
answering all questions perfectly. (Pages 81, 82)
Passing now to spurious Acts accounts, we refer to The Acts of John
for a narrative
in which beautiful Drusiana, who had no sexual relations with her
husband Andronieus,
due to John's directives, was almost seduced by a man named
Callimaehus. In sorrow
she died. While John was trying to console the relatives, evil Callimachus was
attempting to have intercourse with the corpse of Drusiana.
Fortunately a serpent
appeared and slew him. Later John and the unfortunate widower went to the tomb.
First John raised the seducer Callimachus from the dead. Then he
raised the wife
Drusiana. Callimaehus instantly became a believer and Drusiana
forgave him. Another
man, incidental to the plot, was also raised from the dead by John, but he said
he did not want to be raised, and after John had prayed this man was bitten by
a snake, had blood poisoning, died, and the corpse turned black.
(Pages 243-250)
In the Acts of Andrew, this apostle healed one Maximilla of a fever and the was
raised up and converted. Andrew instructed her to abstain from relations with
her husband, with whom she had lived and borne children. Andrew told her that
marriage is a "foul and polluted way of life", and he encouraged her
to resist the "artful flatteries" of her husband. For this Andrew was
imprisoned, scourged, and crucified. He hung on the cross for three
days preaching.
When he died, Maximilla embalmed his corpse and buried it. (Pages 349, 352)
Of course a more extensive perusal of these apocryphal New Testament narratives
will fill in the contexts of the selected passages listed above. However, even
in context these events appear fanciful, even absurd and often
purposeless, quite
different qualitatively from the blending of miracle and teaching in the Gospel
of John, or from the skillful composition of the Gospel of Luke. One
is not surprised
to know these accounts were rejected by the early church.
Some Review Questions and Answers
In drawing some modest conclusions, we return to our original
question, "Which
books belong in the Bible?" Let us evaluate our understanding by
a few review
questions and answers.
1. Did humanity receive the Old and New Testaments, bound
in sixty-six books, directly from God in a once-and-forever package, as when a
phone directory is brought to our door by a company representative?
(Answer: No.)
2. Are Biblical teachings and our understanding of God distorted more seriously by the Old Testament Apocrypha or by the New
Testament Apocrypha?
(Answer: The New Testament Apocrypha.)
3. What were the dates when the Old Testament canon was
firmed up? (Answer: Penteteuch 400 B.C., Prophets 200 B.C., Writings 100 B.C.
All the thirtynine hooks at the Council of Jamnia, officially, in 90 A.D.)
4. Did the Roman Catholics invent and add the Old Testament Apocrypha
to our Bibles
about 1546? (Answer: No, the Old Testament Apocrypha found their way into the
Scriptures as a caboose attachment by means of early translations
into Greek and
Latin, about 150 B.C. and 150 A.D., long before lines of disagreement
were drawn
between Catholics and Protestants.)
Do the Jews recognize the Old Testament Apocrypha as canonical books? (Answer:
No.)
6. Did the Christian church have a definite New Testament of twenty-seven books
at the time of Paul's life and ministry? (Answer: No.)
7. The New Testament canon was firm at twenty-seven books, the same
books as are
found in our New Testaments, by the year 325 A.D. (Answer: True.)
8. It can be argued that the fixing of the canon over long periods of hundreds
of years helped careful evaluation and helped avoid hasty and
dogmatic determination.
(Answer: True.)
9. The authenticity of New Testament books is based on a two-fold
approach involving
(1) apostolic authorship or apostolic approval, and (2) historical scholarship
which determines if writings are genuine or forged. (Answer: True)
10. 10. Do we have
certitude that God has given to the world a
reliable written record of his actions in history, and that this
record is a rule
of faith and life?
Modern Opinions and Modern Apocrypha
Here are some practical issues today.
(1) How do you evaluate a contemporary claim that ecstatic words spoken under
the anointing of the Holy Spirit are directly the words of God
himself, and thus
by implication, equal in authority to the Bible's words?
(2) How do you evaluate the books of Mormon, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy,
or the scriptures of Bahai, for example, in their claim to he
authoritative rules
from God, intended to be added to the historic canon?
(3) How do you weigh the claims of a modern scholar to the effect
that the Gospel
of John should be removed from the Bible, for certain reasons expressed, such
as its difference from Matthew, Luke, and Mark, etc.?
(4) How do you react on reading a newspaper claim that the Epistle to Laodicea,
mentioned by Paul in Colossians 4:16, has been found in a cave in
Palestine (not
far from where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found)? This discovery is sensational,
because no one has ever seen this letter. The newspaper says it may date from
earlier than 200 A.D. It is not known if it is a copy or the original.
(5) How would you respond to a friend who quotes to you from "The Aquarian
Gospel of Jesus Christ"? What questions would you ask?
These vital questions are worthy of thought and discussion. Light is
shed on their
solutions from the foregoing data on how the books of the Bible were chosen and
why the apocryphal hooks were rejected.
Rejection of Biblical Books
From the sixteenth century, during the Reformation,
a most interesting situation presents itself involving the great
German reformer,
Martin Luther, to whom we owe an enormous debt. Luther's method will interest
the scientist because a principle was established as an axiomatic foundation,
from which all interpretation of Scriptures proceeded. Thus he studied more by
deduction than by induction, more like our classical study of
Euclidean geometry
than like the modern.
The collection of New Testament Apocrypha is huge) comprised of false gospels) false Acts of the Apostles) false epistles) and false Revelations.
physicist's gathering of bits and pieces of data.
We are uneasy when theologians assert that they have a "key", a basic
center for interpreting Scripture. For if one chooses his basic
premise slightly
off center, the whole system will wobble. We regard with appreciable
tentativeness
such alleged keys as Darby's dispensations, Bultmann's demythologizing, or Van
Til's philosophical argument for the inerrancy of the original
Biblical documents
even in matters of astronomy, botany, mathematics, historical numbers, etc. Our
approach by inductive study frees us for fresh discovery.
Yet who can fault Martin Luther for his choice of the key principle? Just as we
are guided in our Bible study by a profound underlying certitude of
faith in the
God who revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ, and we admit that this causes
us to see the Scriptures through the converted sensors of our new nature, even
so Luther chose as his great premise the gracious, redeeming,
justifying Christ.
How could anything have possibly gone wrong?
The result was that Luther was not concerned to stress the total range of the
canon. He wanted the world to hear the heart-beat of Jesus Christ. He expected
that all Scriptures should be rejudged according to whether or not
they magnified
the gracious, redeeming and justifying Christ. While this may appear admirable
and defensible, let us pause to remember that this also means that
Luther expected
his own principle to evaluate the authenticity of the canon.
One would expect that Luther might have thrown out the hooks of Proverbs, Song
of Solomon, Esther, among others, from the Old Testament, But he left the Old
Testament alone. It was in the New Testament that he seriously questioned four
books. He discounted Hebrews because it appeared to refuse a second forgiveness
to apostates, James because it seemed to teach salvation by works rather than
by faith, Jude because it appeared to give no clear-cut witness to Jesus Christ
but merely to paraphrase some of II Peter, and Revelation because it
was so enigmatic
and presented what were apparently bizarre pictures of Jesus Christ.
He placed these four books at the end of the New Testament in his
German translation.
First he listed his twenty-three acceptable hooks in the Table of
Contents, numbering
them from one to twenty-three. Then there was a blank space followed
by "Hebrews",
"James", "Jude", and "Revelation",
unnumbered, and
apparently excluded as second-class documents. This was the outcome of Martin
Luther's postulate of a "key to interpretation". It is ironical that
he appeared to remove something from the canon when the Roman
Catholic institution
was busily putting too much in (that is, along the lines of
ecclesiastical traditions
and non-canonical authoritarianism)! In the sovereignty of the God of history,
who is also the God of the church and the God of the canon, the
church has adhered
to a New Testament canon of twenty-seven hooks, while at the same
time appreciating
Martin Luther and the intensity of the struggles of his day.
Addition of Nonbiblical Books
1. 1926-Newspaper accounts of the "Unknown Life
This twentieth century hoax is one of sixteen modern apocryphal (hidden) hooks
that have sprung up rather recently. This genre of uncanonical
writings specifically
includes attempted additions to the canon. They are described in a slim volume,
Modern Apocrypha, by Edgar J. Coodspeed, in which the noted scholar, translator
of the "Goodspeed translation" (over one million copies sold) and the
first scholar to translate the Old Testament Apocrypha directly from Greek to
English, turns detective to expose these sensational hooks that have attracted
a lot of attention.7
The Unknown Life of Christ was sensationalized and popularized by newspapermen
in 1926 in this country. It sold like hotcakes. It originated from the travels
of a Russian war correspondent, Nicolas Notovich, in 1887, to India and Tibet.
Notovich claimed he was laid up with a broken leg in a monastery in Tibet. The
chief lama was persuaded to read him the "Life of Saint Issa, Best of the
Sons of Man", which Notovitch published in fourteen chapters of 244 short
paragraphs.
The most fanciful part deals with the "silent years" of Jesus' life,
ages 13-30. It is claimed that at age thirteen, instead of taking a wife, the
divine youth took a trip. He went with a caravan of merchants to India to study
the laws of the Buddhas. He spent six years with the Brahmins and six
years with
the Buddhists in India. He also visited Persia and preached to the Zoroastrians
before returning to Palestine at twenty-nine.
How did this "Unknown Life of Christ" fare under scrutiny? The chief
lama indignantly repudiated Notovitch's visit. The existence of the manuscript
in the monastery was described by the lama as "Lies, lies, lies, nothing
but lies." No one could find the manuscript claimed by Notovitch, either
in the monastery or in the Vatican library, where Notovitch claimed the account
was included here and there in sixty-three Oriental manuscripts
referring to this
matter. The great Orientalist Friedrich Max Muller took an interest in exposing
this hoax, but claimed little credit for the exposé, since it was never
taken seriously by scholars of Buddhism, Sanskrit, or Pali.
Furthermore, students
of early Christian literature passed it by because it did not stand the test of
literary and textual criticism: its own internal content was
obviously fraudulent.
A lesson here is to hold all newspaper accounts of sensational discoveries in
abeyance, and patiently to allow a few years of serious scholarship to evaluate
things. The Dead Sea Scrolls, from Jordan, and the Oxyrhynchus papyri
from Egypt,
for example, have been scientifically studied and evaluated. They
have stood the
tests, both externally and internally, and have been accepted as genuine.
2. 1911 - The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
This "gospel" is of interest to us because of the way Dr.
Levi H. Dowling
obtained it. Unlike Nicolas Notovitch's claim to some remote and
mysterious original
document, Dr. Dowling claims to have received his gospel by revelation. Here in
California Dr. Dowling (1844-1911), chaplain, doctor, and Sunday School worker,
in the 'quiet hours" between two and six in the morning, by
meditation came
into harmony with the rhythms and vibrations of truth preserved in the Supreme
Intelligence or Universal Mind, the "Akashic Records," the imperishable records of life.
The material is called "The Aquarian Gospel" from an
astrological teaching
that with the life of Christ the sun entered the sign Pisces and that it is now
entering the sign Aquarius. This is a new gospel for the Aquarian
age. First published
in Los Angeles in 1911, it was in its twentyfirst printing in 1954, and today
it should be selling just fine.
In this "gospel", Mary and Elizabeth get lessons in the
history of religions,
relating to Tao, Brahm, Zarathustra, and Buddha, the entire content
being flavored
strongly of Christian Science. John the Baptist is educated by an
Egyptian priest
for eighteen years. Jesus first studies with the great Jewish teacher Hillel.
Then he goes to India, where he spends years among the Brahmins and
the Buddhists.
Then to Tibet where he meets Meng-ste, the greatest wise man of the far East.
Then to Persia to meet the Magi. Then to Assyria and Babylonia,
everywhere learning
sacred books and talking to sages. Then to Greece, first to Athens, then to the
Delphic oracle who declares its day is done. Then to Egypt where he joins the
sacred brotherhood at Heliopolis. Finally a council of the seven wisest men of
the world is held at Alexandria. They formulate seven great religious
postulates
and ordain Jesus for his work. At the end of his life and after his
resurrection
Jesus appears in a fully materialized body to friends in India,
Persia, Jerusalem,
Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Galilee. He declares himself to have been
"transmuted
to the image of the AM".
Externally, this fanciful account turns out to be an historical
heresy, unsubstantiated
by the customary evidence of history demanded by scholars.
Internally, potentially
profound confrontations with eastern religions are artlessly treated, theosophy
flavoring everything, and as Dr. Goodspeed says, "The principal impression
is one of literary and religious commonplace". Its origin,
having to do with
astrology and vibrations, cannot he placed in the same ballpark with
the documents
of the Biblical canon and their God who works in history.
With these two modern attempts to add books to the Bible we close
this introduction
to a fascinating area of study, the Biblical canon, or "Which books belong
in the Bible?", and we quote an appropriate passage from an
appropriate book,
the book of Jude:
Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common
salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend
for the faith
which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)
May the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, bless his people and keep before them
the written Word of God, in its purest possible form, until the living Word of
God, Jesus Christ, comes again. This is our prayer and hope, and it is also our
certitude and confidence.
REFERENCES
1For example, see Henry H. Halley, Pocket Bible Handbook,
Henry H. Halley, Chicago, 111. 1948 pp. 356-357
2John D. Davis and Henry Snyder Gehman, The Westminster
Dictionary of the Bible, Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1944 pp. 90-92
3Ibid.
4lbid.
5Floyd V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible?,
Westminster Press,
Philadelphia 1962 pp. 120-121
6Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament,
Oxford Clarendon 1955 594 pp.
7Rodgar J. Goodspeed. Modern Apocrypha, Beacon Press, Boston 1956 124 pp.