In this recent volume, Dr. Hill seeks to finally set the record straight concerning certain urban myths about the recognition of the four canonical Gospels by the church, and those Gospels' putative competitors. In fact, Hill does more than set the record straight. He exposes the lies, hyperbole, and exaggerations of contemporary popular theories of the formulation of the canon of the New Testament. If you have ever been disturbed by anyone from Dan Brown to Bart Ehrman and their outrageous claims about (against?) the Bible, then this book is for you.
In chapter 1, Dr. Hill addresses the Ehrman argument that there was no orthodoxy before the 4th century. It was not until a majority of bishops got together, Ehrman argues, who were able to squeeze out a victory against the opposing side that there was anything "orthodox." Before that point, you only had equally valid competing views - and Gospels. But after the orthodox victory, the winners silenced the minority and destroyed their books. However, Hill cites numerous evidence from the excavation site in Egypt (the home of early Christian heterodoxy, orthodoxy being in the minority) called Oxyrhynchus (the place of a massive garbage heap) where there have been over 500,000 bits and pieces of manuscripts, the majority of which are from three of the four Gospels and date to the second century. Hill finds it interesting - and odd - that "orthodox" manuscripts would be found in a garbage dump if it were actually the orthodox groups that were covering up the "heterodox" documents in some grand conspiracy (p. 23). Kinda puts the kibosh on the Dan Brown conspiracy theories of the sneering, mean, ignorant Bishops who hid truth for the sake of building up their own power and influence!
Chapter 2 is nothing less than brilliant. What about Ireaneus' comments about the the church being given only four Gospels? Well, this issue is somewhat complicated by the fact that Ireneaus gives somewhat of a spurious reason for these four only. Namely, because of the the four corners of the Earth and the four pillars of the truth of the church. Throw into the mix a questionable application from Revelation 4 and Ezekiel 37, and one may doubt that the ancient church father should be given any credibility. However, Hill masterfully cuts through the issues and rightly points out that the value of Ireneaus' comments - despite his allegorizing - lie in the fact that they testify to the fact that the four canonical Gospels were, by the second century, already well established as received and reliable witnesses to the person and work of Jesus Christ (pp. 37-41).
In chapter 3, Hill addresses the issue of "the ugly Irenaeus." What are we to make of his sharp polemic and overdone rhetoric against his opponents. He seems so cold, ruthless, and intolerant of his opponents. Can such a rude character be taken seriously as a source of what is and what is not canonical? Hill points up the fact that such rhetoric and emotionally charged polemics was the order of the day, even and especially among Irenaeus' own opponents. But there is one thing that interestingly sets Irenaeus apart from his opponents: he prays for them (p. 55). Yet, given the nature of their difference, one can hardly blame Irenaeus for setting himself over and against his opponents. Their views were not simple matters of peripheral differences, but were substantial. It wasn't that the gnostic opponents of Irenaeus possessed merely a different form of Christianity or of monotheistic religion. In fact, Hill shows that their beliefs were so radically different from both the Jewish and Christian religions that his opponents had a whole different religion altogether. What about the charge of Elaine Pagels that Irenaeus ordered the destruction of heretical books? This charge, Hill points out, is simply untrue. Nowhere in his writings do we find such an inquisitional order!
So, was Irenaeus all alone in his holding to the four canonical Gospels as authoritative in the church? Not at all. In chapter 4 he shows that Ireneaus is joined by Clement of Alexandria, Serapion the bishop of Antioch, and the Muratorian Fragment. With reference to Clement, some have argued that since he quotes from other non-canonical Gospels that he is open to other writings outside the four. However, Hill helpfully surveys the citations and shows that while the canonical Gospels are quoted 1672 times by Clement, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Traditions of Matthias together are quoted only 14 times. And no where does he quote them with the authority of the four. We find similar patterns throughout the other sources. So, the question is, why are these non-canonical works referred to at all? Hill gives us a helpful way to think about these things, as obvious as it may sound. After all, early church Christians read other things other than the Bible. Christian preachers, theologians, and authors today often site none biblical authors and lay Christians often read non-canonical books. It ought not surprise us if we see non-canonical writings cited by early church authorities.
In chapter 5 Hill speaks about the witnesses of the harmonies of the Gospels in the early church. In particular he discusses the evidence of Tatian's Diatessaron and how this work brings together the four Gospels in a single harmonization. Some scholars have tried to discredit this work arguing that it is actually an "assault" on the idea of four individual Gospels, trying to bring them all into one. But, as Hill points out (p. 107), even if this is an assault (which he later argues it is not, necessarily) it proves at least one thing to us - there had to be a pre-existing and widely accepted four-Gospel canon for Tatian to assault. Further evidence that the canonical Gospels are already accepted and authoritative from very early on.
In chapters 6 and 7 Hill discusses the evidence from Justin Martyr and and his "co-conspirators." As Hill continues to push the testimony to the authority of the four canonical Gospels further and further back into the second century, he shows that Justin was not alone in his use and dependence upon the Gospels, including and especially the fourth Gospel. It is from a most unlikely place that we find evidence of the canonical Gospels: from Justin's opponents, including Trypho, Crescens, and Celsus. Not to mention the evidence which is present in the recently published "competitor" of the canonical four, The Gospel of Judas.
Things become even more interesting in chapter 8. Here Hill studies three texts, The Apocryphon of James, The Epistle of the Apostles, and writings from Aristides of Athens. What makes these texts so relevant here is that they all date from before 150, only a little more than fifty years after the publication of the last of the New testament books. Hill is prudent here, however, to note that the evidence remains less certain and clear than that found in Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment. We do not get with these explicit canons, nor do we get four-and-only-four arguments. But we do get evidence that these writers were knowledgeable of the Gospels which we know today as the canonical four. This shows that Justin and Irenaeus were not alone in regarding what they did as authentic and authoritative.
But there's more! The Apostolic Fathers also give us information concerning the status of the Gospels in the early church. And this is the subject of chapter 9. Taking his cue from the 2005 two volume edition of the Oxford study of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Hill explores citations and allusions in the Fathers to the New Testament. He carefully, albeit briefly, navigates the reader through the thorny issues of how to determine what is a quotation or an allusion to a written NT text, as opposed to a quotation or allusion to an oral or source tradition. He survey's the Epistle to Diognetus (possibly written by Polycarp of Smyrna), a document probably written between 140-150 AD. There is also the Letter of Barnabus (perhaps written between 90-130 AD), the letter of Polycarp to the Philippian church (110 AD), Ignatius of Antioch's seven letters, The Didache, and 1 Clement (90's AD). From these sources he concludes rather boldly: "The religious apparatus, so to speak, the view of the rightful location and transmission of religious authority which made the reception of the four Gospels, as well as the rest of the New testament, possible (if not inevitable), was in place already in the late first century." (204).
But now, Hill has saved the best for last! He traces an endorsement of the four Gospels from a reference in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History to Papias of Hierapolis and his Exposition of the Lord's Oracles, written between 110-130 AD. This reference makes mention of John the Elder as well as John the Apostle. Its reported that the latter "welcomed," "received," and "testified" to the truth of the other three Gospels. Hill concludes that "this would make the aged apostle John the earliest 'chooser,' endorser, or 'canonizer' of the four Gospels." (p. 224). But there is even more! Hill reasons that it appears as if the church in no way sat in judgment over the Gospels. Rather, it seems, the Gospels "imposed" themselves on the church. Hill says, "we have no evidence that the church ever sat down collectively or as individual churches and composed criteria for judging which Gospels it thought best suited its needs," so that "the church essentially did not believe it had a choice in the matter" (231). This means that the church recognized or received the Gospels, and did not sit in judgment over them, thus evincing that the Gospels possessed a kind of self-authenticating nature.
Read more ›
