Anastasios
Objection 1: When the group of the texts that were to be included in the “canon” (accepted texts) was formed, it was already late (4th or 5th century) and that was the outcome of power struggles.
Objection 2: Among the four Gospels there are differences.
Objection 3: The canon was decided by the emperor Constantine.
On the contrary, in John 6 (60-69) it says: “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’ Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, ‘Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.’ Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.’ As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, ‘Do you also want to leave?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.’”
I answer that the words of John that we have just read are also very useful for us to understand that there is no other way of salvation than Jesus: to whom shall we go? His words are the words of eternal life. In a beautiful article of Mario A Iannacone (from which we are selecting material for this article), he says that the canon, the books in the Bible that are considered accepted, “is composed of 27 books that are considered inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so part of the Revelation, and that were for the most part identified in the second century and, through a Council, in the fourth century.”
Reply to objection 1: Already the Apostolic Fathers (first century of the Christian era) considered as canonical most of the writings that are today a part of the Bible, in the New Testament. There were collections of the sayings of Jesus, this is confirmed also by the evangelists. Having said that, what was done by the evangelists was to put an order in all this material with the intention of offering to the Christian community a reliable and verifiable document of Jesus’ mission. The Church has never refrained to deepen her knowledge of the Gospels, as witnessed by Pope Pius XII, in his 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu: “As in our age, indeed new questions and new difficulties are multiplied, so, by God’s favor, new means and aids to exegesis are also provided. Among these it is worthy of special mention that Catholic theologians, following the teaching of the Holy Fathers and especially of the Angelic and Common Doctor, have examined and explained the nature and effects of biblical inspiration more exactly and more fully than was wont to be done in previous ages. For having begun by expounding minutely the principle that the inspired writer, in composing the sacred book, is the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit, they rightly observe that, impelled by the divine motion, he so uses his faculties and powers, that from the book composed by him all may easily infer ‘the special character of each one and, as it were, his personal traits.’” So the Church has never feared scientific enquiry, it was indeed within the Church the science has grown to the extent it is today.
Reply to objection 2: Yes, there are differences that are due mostly to the different writers, their personalities and their way of presenting the material. Ed Stetzer, in Christianity Today, in an article called “Differences in the Gospels, a Closer Look,” explains it like this: “The Gospel writers arranged much of their material on topical and logical grounds rather than chronological. The earliest reference to any Gospel was made by Papias, a church father who in the first decade of the second century stated that Mark wrote accurately but not in chronological order the traditions he learned from Peter. Thus early readers noticed the differences between the Gospels, understood some of the basic causes of the differences, and did not regard them as problematic. Another reason for differences involves the literary style of individual evangelists. In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 we have two accounts of Jesus healing a centurion’s servant. In Luke the conversation takes place between Jesus and Jewish elders who speak on behalf of the centurion. In Matthew the conversation is directly between Jesus and the centurion. There is no conflict in these accounts when we realize that Matthew has abbreviated the story (103 words compared to 186 words in Luke). Matthew omitted material unessential to the story, and the elders (serving as go-betweens) are the least important element in the story. Thus, just as modern-day journalists report on meetings between heads of state without mentioning the go-betweens, Matthew makes no mention of the elders. Furthermore, the evangelists understood themselves to be inspired interpreters, not mere stenographers of Jesus’ acts and teachings. They felt free to clarify and add explanatory comments to the traditions they were recording”.
Reply to objection 3: Already Origen (I century) verified that the great part of the texts were accepted in the Christian community well before the time of Constantine and of the Nicaea Council (325).
Follow
