A correspondent writes:
I’m just in need of a helping hand from you, because I’m in the middle of a debate with a muslim friend.
While we’re in the middle of discussion, he happen to addressed me with a question that blew me away, because I don’t have any idea on how I could tackle his question.
This is what he said, “Could you also tell me that there are hundreds of Gospels, then how come only four made it through the New Testament?”
I know that the “Books or Gospels” contained in the New Testament are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I think there are much more broader explanation regarding this matter.
I hope you could give me a helping hand regarding this subject Sir. I would really appreciate it if you could give me at least a brief explanation and answer regarding this.
The correspondent is correct that the canonical gospels are inspired by the Holy Spirit and false gospels aren’t. The question is how the Holy Spirit guided the Church into a recognition of which were inspired and which weren’t.
Here’s how that happened . . .
I don’t know that there are literally hundreds of gospels (that would mean 200 or more), but there are a large number of purported gospels that were written between A.D. 100 and A.D. 400. There may have been hundreds written back then (and people continue to crank out false gospels even today, like the Aquarian Gospel of Levi), but only a few dozen survive from those centuries.
The reason that they are not in the New Testament is that they are all fakes. The Church recognized them as such because (1) they often theologically contradicted the canonical gospels that had been passed down from the apostles and their associates and (2) they showed up out of nowhere, with no history of having been read in the churches down through the years.
The canonical gospels, by contrast, all date from the first century, they were written by the apostles or their associates, they were given to the first churches to read, and the churches read them all the way down through history. Also, the doctrine contained in them agreed with the doctrine passed down by the apostles to the bishops and handed on by them.
The later-written “gospels” thus were spotted as phonies because they had not been passed down like the others and they contained bad doctrine.
Eventually, as a warning to the faithful who might be confused by the new gospels, some of the early Church councils—like Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 (among others)—published official canon lists naming the specific books of Scripture that had been handed down as sacred from the time of the apostles.
Incidentally, the image is Matthew 23:3-15 from an Arabic New Testament. (Note also that it reads from right to left.)
Hope this helps!
Comments
Post a Comment
my son recieved some unsolicited proselytizing from some moslem asking a lot of questions about his faith etc. One thing that struck me as a reoccuring major difference between Moslems and Christians (Catholic) is the nature of God. They don’t believe in the Trinity, the Son of God or Jesus as God. This person immediatly stated that why would God humilate himself and become a man and die for his creation? They just don t get it, that God is so great that he did just that, humiliate himself for all mankind, including them. Unfathomable to the baser appeal of man-made religions.
Jimmy – An inquiring Muslim might also want to know why The Holy Koran is not part of the Christian canon. After all, Jesus is revered in The Holy Koran. And, by Muslims. While Jesus is persona non grata among the Jews, whose Talmund we do incorporate into our Christian canon. For Christianity to be complete it must look back, at The Talmund and associated Jewish writings, and, also, look forward towards the Holy Koran. Only then, only by acknowledging The Talmund, on the one side, and The Holy Koran, on the other, can the life and work of Jesus influence the Jews and the Muslims. As long as we have a one-sided view of Christianity, its Jewish side only, we will not be successful in preaching Christ unto the nations [Matthew 4:14]. The writer is a cradle Catholic, who has lived lo these 70 summers with and among Muslims [and Hindus, and Buddhists, and Sikhs, and Jains, and many other religious traditions] in India, in England, and, here, in the US. It is this experience of being born Catholic in Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist/Sikh/Jain/etc/ India, and being educated a Catholic, that has brought this catholic perspective to my views on Evangelization.
“This person immediatly stated that why would God humilate himself and become a man and die for his creation”.
I had this problem with a Muslim acquaintance as welll, but for us Christians, we don’t doubt that God is capable of coming as a human being with a double nature…. I do not put into question God’s capacity ever !
I do not need to see in order to believe as Saint Thomas once had to go through that…..
As well, Muslims ought to understand that Islam comes from Christianity, in the sense that Mohamed got all the things he liked in the Gospel and in the Old Testament and created his own version, the Koran….
I am not a nun or a priest, but as far as I know, the other Gospels were written by primitive Christian communities according to their own understanding of Jesus and his metaphysical nature, whereas the Four Cannons were written based on primary sources from people who lived or had contacts with the Virgin Mary and wrote down her accounts and stories…..this is why they make the Four Gospels of John, Mark, Luke and Matthew
The Jewish Bible (The Old Testament) tells of a vengeful God who is to be feared, the wholesale slaughter of enemies, looting, and so on. (Read Samuel.)
Radically, the New Testament speaks of love of neighbour, and everyone is our neighbour, not just members of our tribe. And more: Jesus tells us to love our enemies, including those who do not share our faith. The Gospels speak of of peace and reconciliation.
Curiously, the Koran comes 600 years later, yet renews the violence of the Old Testament:
1. Sura 8:12: “... you smite [unbelievers] above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them.”
2. Sura 9:29: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah ... until they pay the [special tax] and feel themselves subdued.”
3. Sura 4:56: “Those who reject our signs, we shall soon cast into the fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, we shall change them for fresh skins that they may taste the penalty…
4. Sura 4:89: “...But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them…”
Ok,
Can any one explain this rising “evangelization” interest from Muslims in the first place? I admit I have a suspicious personality - but this strikes me as odd. I have never known the Muslim students in the Catholic girls h.s. where I teach to be the least bit interested in Christianity.
Therese – The fact that the Muslim students in the Catholic girls High School where you teach are not the least bit interested in Christianity should not be disconcerting. First, the very fact that they are attending Catholic school means that their parents believe in Catholic values. Secondly, the Catholic faith, like all values, is assimilated by osmosis – by being in contact with people who practice those values. I know of a very devout Muslim girl who went to a Convent, who knows the Gospels as well as anybody, and who is caught singing loudly, and often – “I know that my Redeemer liveth…..” You may read about her on Monday July 14th at washingtonhotwire.com where an account of her – Christian? Muslim?—behavior is presented. She is married to a Christian.
Just point him to the source of the Church. Plenty of stuff to read from it. We individual do everything we can but it’s always not in fullness of explaining things. As you know, people looking out for answer but they tend to ask individual, for me - if I am going to find out what myself would like to know of other religions, I would just go to their main official resources! Otherwise you just going round and round…
We include the Torah (along with the rest of the Old Testament) in the Christian scriptures, not the Talmud. (The Talmud isn’t part of the Jewish Bible, either.)
I wonder what exactly the problem was supposed to be. Why would it be a problem or a scandal that there were other so-called gospels besides the ones in the NT? Perhaps the insinuation was that the other gospels might somehow discredit the canonical ones.
http://chrysologus.blogspot.com
Therese – Sorry, I conveyed the wrong date in my previous response. You will find the account of the devout Muslim girl, who knows the Gospels, and who sings loudly, and often – “I know that my Redeemer liveth…..” posted on washingtonhotwire.com on Monday June 14th [not July 14th].
Will – Thank you for pointing out, in so gracious a manner, the errors in my post of Sunday, Jun 13, 2010 12:32 PM (EST). You are right – “We include the Torah (along with the rest of the Old Testament) in the Christian scriptures, not the Talmud. (The Talmud isn’t part of the Jewish Bible, either.)”
The corrected post should read—An inquiring Muslim might also want to know why The Holy Koran is not part of the Christian canon. After all, Jesus is revered in The Holy Koran. And, by Muslims. While Jesus is persona non grata among the Jews, whose Torah we do incorporate into our Christian canon. For Christianity to be complete it must look back, at The Torah and associated Jewish writings, and, also, look forward towards the Holy Koran. Only then, only by acknowledging The Torah, on the one side, and The Holy Koran, on the other, can the life and work of Jesus influence the Jews and the Muslims. As long as we have a one-sided view of Christianity, its Jewish side only, we will not be successful in preaching Christ unto the nations [Matthew 4:14].
Egbert, I don’t think it’s necessary to accept the Koran as true in order to preach Christ to all nations. To say that is to say we must accept the Book of Mormon as true to preach Christ to them, or any other sect that might turn up.
The Koran, while containing some truth, is not Truth like that contained in the Bible. If you’re saying that we can recognize the truths in the Koran (like God is one and God is love) to help us evangelize to the Muslims, then I’d agree. But the Koran isn’t complete Truth.
Correct analogies when discussing these matters
Primary Revelation: for Christians = God Incarnate, Muslims = Quran.
Secondary Revelation: for Christians = 4 canonical gospels, Muslims = Sahih Hadith.
Jesus IS the Good News (Gospel), in that sense there is only one Gospel.
Just as many Hadith (stories of the life and teaching of Muhammad) exist and only a minority of these were selected by people like Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daoud; these Hadith collections were later recognized as ‘sahih’ authentic by the Umma (Muslim community). The various stories of the life and teaching of Jesus were selected by the gospel writers and then these books themselves were recognized by the Church (Christian community) as authentic.
Muslims will usually accept that even Sahih Hadith might contradict in details yet still be relaible cf differences amongst gospels eg who got to the Tomb first? How did Judas die?
The 4 ‘Sahih’ canonical gospels were written during the lifetime of eye witnesses ie 50-90AD, Jesus’ public ministry ended c 30AD. The canonical gospels started to be quoted by church fathers from 100AD. Thousands of canonical gospel mss exist from before the time of Muhammad (d630AD).
The Hadith started to be collected from about 200 years after the death of Muhammad. This is why the isnad (chain of witnesses) is essential. No chain of witnesses is necessary while eye-witnesses are around. Most Muslims will dismiss the 4 gospels as corrupted, yet uncritically accept the Sahih Hadith as historical. Consider World War 2 or the Partition of India/PAkistan, there are eye witnesses around as well as oral traditions within families about Uncle Bob at D-Day. But how many families have a reliable oral tradition from 200 years ago? eg of the Napoleonic Wars and a chain of witnesses? Can an isnad of 200 years be reliable? why accept hadith accounts written 200 years after the events yet reject the 4 gospels accounts written 20-50 years after the events?
For Christians the ultimate revelation of God to humans is God becoming a human, for Muslims the ultimate revelation of God to humans is a book. A king who comes personally 9or sends his son) has given a more authoritative message than a king who sends a letter.
Your friend is probably trying to convert you. Answers to most Muslim questions are here
http://www.answering-islam.org/
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/
A counter-question to your Muslim friend is to ask them to give an example of one of these excluded gospels and see how old the oldest manuscript is and how most scholars date it. Then compare it with the canonical ones. cf assessing excluding Hadith.
The best they will be able to do is the Gospel of Thomas which most scholars date as being written after John, although a minority date it as being written before Mark (generally regarded as being the earliest gospel).
Ask their opinion of verse 114 of the Gospel of Thomas:
‘Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary [Magdalen] leave us, for females don’t deserve life.”
Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.” ‘
“This person immediatly stated that why would God humilate himself and become a man and die for his creation.”
Because He is not the Proud and Dignified but the Merciful and Compassionate.
Much has been written about the sources of many so called lost “gospels” and the church fathers have addressed and settled that matter. Jimmy Akin responded to that briefly. The real question I have of why Muslims raise this issue is the intent. In the Quran (Islam’s book of worship)several refernces are made to Jesus infancy and His mother Maryam. They attribute certain miracles to the child Jesus that were mentioned in some of these fake books. Since these books are not recognized by the church yet mentioned in the Quran only then that in itself casts a shadow of doubt on the Quran sources and the credibility of that book as well. That does not sit well with Muslims and it has always offended them especially the scholars. Not all muslims are true readers of the Quran. Many Muslims are not Arabic speaking. They may be able to recite the Quran in Arabic but very few understand the hidden interpretations and intent of its words and admonitions.
I suggest that you should always dig deeper into the intent of the question and realise that much of the Quran references about Jesus and Mary are based on the fake gospels and that has been a thorn in the side of the muslim scholars and interpreters of the Quran.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.