Bright Wings

Because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and with Ah! Bright Wings.

January 12, 2009

Luke and Authenticity

One of the questions that arises from our text (Luke 2:41-52) would be the question of authenticity. This question comes up for a variety of reasons.
First, we should always have a case for the authenticity and historicity of the Scriptures at every point. It is important, even urgent, that believers who deliver a biblical gospel that is a matter of life and death to be able to stand for it’s truthfulness and authenticity. It will be easy for a seeker to dismiss the call to repentance if they can easily dismiss the source from which this call came. Let’s not make it easy for this to happen with our laziness in apologetics.
Second, it is the clear command of Scripture for us to defend the faith. Peter says, “be always ready to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15).
Third, there is the reality that we have no other biblical source to validate Luke’s narrative regarding Jesus’ childhood. So, we might legitimately ask, at the very least, why does Luke focus on this while the Bible is totally silent on it everywhere else. Some biblical critics use this sort of argumentation in rejecting portions of text and we need to answer such arguments.
Fourth, and last (at least for now), there is the fact that there are what we call apocryphal (apocrypha meaning ‘things hidden’ or hidden away, in this case rejected or set aside due to doubtful authenticity) gospel narratives. These so called gospels are nothing new to the church. Competing accounts of Christ’s life, along with apocryphal histories and epistles, have been in circulation in some way throughout the history of the church. In the case of the infancy and childhood of Christ we find several apocryphal compilations that the historic church (and, for that matter most serious scholars) has rejected and mythical and bearing very little historical value. The most famous ‘gospel’ being the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ found in the ‘40’s at Nag Hammadi. Others include the Arabic Infancy gospel, and the Gospel of Joseph, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.

Here are a couple of accounts that I presented in my sermon yesterday:

The Infancy Gospel Of Pseudo-Matthew:
“. . . they went into a temple which was called the Capital of Egypt. And in this temple there had been set up three hundred and fifty-five idols, to each of which on its own day divine honours and sacred rites were paid. For the Egyptians belonging to the same city entered the Capital, in which the priests told them how many sacrifices were offered each day, according to the honour in which the god was held. . . . “And it came to pass, when the most blessed Mary went into the temple with the little child, that all the idols prostrated themselves on the ground, so that all of them were lying on their faces shattered and broken to pieces; and thus they plainly showed that they were nothing. Then was fulfilled that which was said by the prophet Isaiah: Behold, the Lord will come upon a swift cloud, and will enter Egypt, and all the handiwork of the Egyptians shall be moved at his presence.”
Again, from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew:
“And behold, suddenly, many dragons came out of the cave.  When the boys saw them in front of them they shouted with great fear.  Then Jesus got down from his mother’s lap, and stood on his feet before the dragons.  They, however, worshipped him, and, while they worshipped, they backed away.  Then what was said through the prophet David was fulfilled: ‘You dragons of the earth, praise the Lord, you dragons and all creatures of the abyss.’”
From The Gospel of Thomas:
When this boy Jesus was five years old he was playing at the ford of a brook, and he gathered together into pools the water that flowed by, and made it at once clean, and commanded it by his word alone. But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and (with it) dispersed the water which Jesus had gathered together. When Jesus saw what he had done, he was enraged and said to him: “You insolent, godless dunderhead, what harm did the pools and the water do to you? See, now you also shall wither like a tree and shall bear neither leaves nor root nor fruit.” And immediately that lad withered up completely; and Jesus departed and went into Joseph’s house. But the parents of him that was withered took him away, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph and reproached him: “What a child you have who does such things.” After this again he went through the village, and a lad ran and knocked against his shoulder. Jesus was exasperated and said to him: “You shall not go further on your way,” and the child immediately fell down and died. But some, who saw what took place, said: “From where does this child spring, since every word is an accomplished deed?”

So, how is it that we reject such accounts as apocryphal and others, such as Luke’s, as canonical - or part of the Christian Scriptures? Well, this could be a much longer blog if we addressed all the issues so I’ll just bring up a few.

1. We must first assert that the claim of Scripture- which is called ‘self attestation’- of itself is that it is true and ultimate. We see this in 1 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:21 among others. This is a difficult argument because it is circular. Someone asks, “Why do you say the bible is our ultimate authority?” and you reply, “Because it said so.” The problem is fundamentally this - any claim to ultimate authority is inherently circular. Pointing to any other source for validation above the Scriptures (such as human reasoning alone, or some other historical text) would remove its claim to ultimate authority. The reality is that we believe that because the Scriptures are the word of God and are true- then there will be many proofs validating such a claim. There will be a cumulative case of many valid proofs buttressing such a lofty claim. So we have to ask if there is a cumulative case through a variety of proofs and pointers to the truthfulness of this or that text. Ultimately, the apocryphal gospels fail to provide such proofs and validation at a variety of levels.

2. We read in Luke 1:1-4 that Luke was intent on compiling a narrative that was truthful, validated by eyewitnesses, and based upon his own research as one who ‘has followed all things closely for some time’. We know that Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul and traveled throughout Palestine and Asia Minor and was well acquainted with many eye witnesses. His agenda is stated plainly in his introduction, and he stays true to his Word. In the first century as people received his gospel- it could have been easily verified by many eyewitnesses. In Luke 2:51 it seems he anticipates the question of authenticity and is pointing to Mary as an eyewitness.

3. The relatively un-fantastic account provided by Luke seems to speak for its authenticity. Not that something being fantastic, from our perspective, automatically discredits it. The canonical gospels are full of supernatural and fantastic events. But the questions of purpose and intent, along with the questions of authenticity naturally become more urgent when one is claiming this or that supernatural event as true. If I came in to the house and told my wife that a blue van just drove by, she would not naturally question this as true. If I came inside and told her that a blue van just flew by in the talons of a giant dragon, well- at that point she would begin to seek out a cumulative case for my report’s authenticity. The apocryphal gospel stories are full of some wildly fantastic claims, which also clearly compete with the canonical gospel’s portrait of Christ, and have little to no historical evidence to support them. They also are often written with a very distinct theological bent. This is certainly true of the so-called ‘gnostic’ gospels which seem to emphasize the human nature of Christ.

4. We also trust the historic witness of the church in these matters. From the earliest points the church began in earnest to steward the Scriptures and challenge competing worldviews and accounts. The Church took seriously for centuries to need to preserve textual witnesses to the Scriptures and reject writings that were deceptive, untruthful, full of historic inaccuracy, etc. We stand on the shoulders of giants in our reception of the Scriptures, and we have reason to trust the sovereign providence of God in preserving his Word for us.

5. The last two centuries have seen volume after volume committed to parsing out and deconstructing the Scriptures through various critical means. I could spend pages on this point, but I will simply say this: there has yet to be one compelling critical challenge to the authenticity of the Scriptures that cannot be answered honestly and openly. I read much critical analysis of the passages we study weekly and have never found a strong and compelling challenge to the historicity and authenticity of the Scriptures.

Enjoy your time in the Word this week to the glory of God!

Tags: Sermon Notes

posted by Erik Braun