Von Mastrict on Apographa

X. Isti autem utriusque Instrumenti libri, pro canonicis & authenticis non habentur, nisi in linguis suis primigeniis & authenticis: cum 1. Sint instrumenta publica, quae iis tantum linguis valent, quibus condita sunt. Ut apparet, in diplomatis Regum, in Testamentis aliisque: ubi, oborta controversia, solum exemplar originale, agnoscitur pro authentico. Cum 2. Soli Prophetae & Apostoli, quippe immediate & infallibili Spiritus S. duetu instructi 2 Pet. I. 21. Scripturam  θεόπνευστος & authenticam, edere potuerint 2 Tim. III. 16. Sed quaenam tandem sunt linguae istae authenticate? Vetus Testamentum, Ecclesiae Judicae particulari datum, lingua hebraea conditum, omnes agnoscunt nisiquod particulae ejus quaedam, in Esdra, Daniele, Esther, Jeremia, lingua prostent Chaldaea. Novum, Ecclesiae Christianae universali scriptum, sola lingua Graeca conscriptum agnoscitur. Proinde, istis solis linguis, Scripruram recipimus, pro canonica & authentica. Idque non in Autographis tantum, quas, multas ob causas, sapientissimo consilio, providentia divina, perire passa est: sed in Aprographis quoque. Et sie olim Ecclesia Israelitica, nullam, praeter Hebraam V. T. nee Christiana, praeter Gracam N. Test. Habuit pro authentica.

X. But these books of both Instruments are not considered canonical and authentic, except in their original and authentic languages: since 1. They are public instruments, which are valid only in those languages in which they were created. As appears, in the documents of Kings, in the Testaments, and others: where, when controversy arises, only the original copy is recognized as authentic. Since 2. Only the Prophets and Apostles, since instructed immediately and infallibly by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1. 21.) could publish Scripture θεόπνευστος and authentic (2 Tim. III. 16). But what are these languages in terms of authenticity? The Old Testament, given to the Jewish Church in particular, was written in the Hebrew language, and is acknowledged by all, except some parts of it in Ezra, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah, are written in the Chaldean language. The New Testament, written for the universal Christian Church, is acknowledged to have been written solely in the Greek language. Therefore, in these languages alone, we receive Scripture, as canonical and authentic. And this not only in the Autographs, which, for many reasons, by the wisest counsel and providence of God, suffered to perish: but in the Apographs also. And the ancient Israelitish Church had none, besides the Hebrew Old Testament, nor the Christian, besides the Greek New Testament, as authentic.

XI. Neque tamen, istis linguis, adeol est affiz Scriptura S. ut non prossit, & debeat etiam, in alias linguas transundi, ad commune usum Ecclesiae: quibus itidem linguis, pro authenticis habentur, omnes versions, quatenus fontes exprimunt, ad quos semper sunt exigendae.

Yet, Holy Scripture is not so attached to these languages that it is not desirable, and should also be, translated into other languages for the common use of the Church: in which languages, likewise, all versions are considered authentic, insofar as they express the sources, to which they must always be referred.

Petro Van Mastricht (Petrus van Mastricht 1630 –1706), Dutch Reformed theologian, Theoretico-Practica Theologia (Theoretical-Practical Theology), The Rhine: W. Van de Water, et al., 1724, pp. 20-21.

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura”

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura” “Nada Scriptura”

What is Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning “scripture alone.” It is a Christian bibliological doctrine. It means that the Bible is the sole source of authority (either explicitly or implicitly) for Christian faith and practice. If only the canonical Scriptures are completely inspired and the only encapsulation of all truth, then only the Scriptures are authoritative in a way nothing else is. “The scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice” has been a common way Baptists have stated their belief in the Bible.

On Facebook awhile back, Alexander Thomson wrote “there is a growing attempt to argue that ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not ‘Solo Scriptura; and that resort to Scripture-only proof is ‘Biblicism’.”

A cadre of evangelical theologians today like to contrast “Sola Scriptura” with phrases such as “Solo Scriptura” and “Nuda Scriptura” – or draw a hard line between only and alone (which, of course, are English synonyms). Some of them may merely be trying to correct radical errors of individualism.[i] Others, however, are watering down the strength of Sola Scriptura.[ii]

Jeremy D. Myers, a former pastor who would like to redeem Christians from their biblical faith and practice, defines “Solo Scriptura” thusly: “‘Solo’ Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else.”

Marty Foord, a lecturer at the Evangelical Theological College in Singapore tells us that “sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only authority for believers.”

Canadian minister Lawson Murray expands the idea, claiming, “Protestant reformers made a distinction between the principles of ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone) and ‘nuda Scriptura’ (bare Scripture). ‘Sola Scriptura’ has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as the Christian’s supreme authority in all spiritual matters. ‘Nuda Scriptura’ is the idea that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological authority in all spiritual matters. The best transliteration for ‘nuda Scriptura today is ‘solo Scriptura’ (just me and my Bible).”[iii]

Greek Orthodox Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick (who doesn’t believe in either sola or solo) piles on against the “Protestants,” writing, “Solo scriptura, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything.” In the end he concludes, “this ‘sola’ vs. ‘solo’ business is really a distinction without a difference” and that “sola” is really “just a better-read version” of “solo.” I sort of agree, though I would change “better-read” to “more sophisticated.”[iv] After receiving a thoroughly “liberal” education, some want a more sophisticated way to explain Sola Scriptura. They elevate themselves above being so simple in belief as to receive the phrase from a children’s song, “the Bible tells me so.” (Cf. Matthew 18:1-4.)

Many “Protestants” now nuance the terminology. They may argue that the Bible is not the “only authority,” just the “supreme authority.” It is not the “sole authority,” but “an authority” (or “final authority”) above other “lesser” authorities.[v] 

We do not (and should not) reject the teaching of God’s people in his churches through the years, neither what someone has written in a commentary or theological book, nor how the Holy Spirit has led someone else to understand the passage – but we still stand on “Scripture alone,” “Only Scripture,” and/or any or whatever term means that the only authority for our faith and practice is found in the Bible. The book of Acts extols the virtues of the Bereans, who would not take the word of an apostle, if such word did not agree with Scripture (Acts 17:11). The Bible trumps every Roman pope and every little Baptist “pope.” It is above all of them, the one and only and final authority. We do not use the Scriptures as our “sole resource” – but it is the “sole recourse.” There is no higher court of appeal.

If we do not believe that the Scriptures, inspired by God, throughly furnishes us with all we need for every good work, including doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then we have gone over to the other side![vi]

Beware of the new nuancers. The nuancing of the term “Sola Scriptura” is an admission that the term is not “sufficient” and may even suggest that those nuancing the term do not really believe the Scriptures themselves are sufficient! In the end, the fight against “Sola Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura” may leave us with “Nada Scriptura.”[vii]

---

[i] Radical individualism rejects the study and interpretation of the Bible from within the gathered church community and installs it in the “Lone Ranger” Christian – making such an one his own authority. Sola Scriptura includes interpreting the Scriptures in the church community as guided by the Holy Spirit. It does not make either the individual or the church supreme.
[ii] “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science.” I do not disagree with anything here by John McArthur, but I wonder why he found it necessary to write it. Which advocate of Sola Scriptura is arguing that we should go to the Bible to learn the rules of Chinese grammar, for example?
[iii] He did not cite any Reformer or Radical Reformer who used this term positively. I get the impression that it is primarily a new term to try to encapsulate an older idea. It does seem that Calvin may have at least once used “ex nudis scripturis” to describe depending on the scripture alone (Concerning Scandals, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 18). Anabaptist/Baptist leaders (if properly understood) might well be described as holding a sort of “Nuda Scriptura” view without appealing to such terminology (i.e., correctly understanding that “Sola Scriptura” demonstrates their belief). Additionally, the reason many of these teachers did not accept the traditions of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches is not because they totally rejected any continuity of teaching the Bible. Rather it was because they rejected the Catholic and Orthodox as being part of that continuity; that is, they are not true churches in the New Testament sense.
[iv] This may be seen in those who argue for replacing “sola” with “prima.” Are they not tacitly admitting they do not even believe “Sola Scriptura” – or at least that they think “sola” and “solo” are equivalent terms.
[v] If it is the “final authority” then it is the “sole authority” – other things called authorities are not authorities, merely servants or helps.
[vi] Many “highly educated” students are coming out of Baptist and Protestant seminaries with the idea that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. Consider the teaching and implications of these texts: Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19, do not add to or take away from God’s word; Psalm 119:89, God’s word is settled, forever; Isaiah 8:20, for truth and light, we must speak according to the word; Mark 7:6-9, the traditions of men vs. the commandments of God; Romans 10:17, the word is foundational to our faith; 1 Corinthians 4:6, do not think above what is written; Galatians 1:8, there is only one gospel, not many; Ephesians 6:17, the word of God is the sword of the Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we have the resource to prove all things and hold fast the truth; 2 Peter 1:3, we are given all things that pertain to life and godliness; Jude 3:5, the faith is once delivered; 1 John 4:1, the word necessary to try the spirits.
[vii] “Nothing Scripture,” that is, without any biblical authority. (Sorry for switching from Latin to Spanish. ... Not really.)

1 Timothy 5:18 | Luke 10:7

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Writing to Timothy, Paul refers to two things the scripture says – the first about not muzzling an ox treading out corn, and the second about a labourer being worthy of his reward. The first reference is easily identified as Deuteronomy 25:4 “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” If we look in the Old Testament, we cannot readily identify any text close to “The labourer is worthy of his reward.” In Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14-15 a similar concept exists, but the wording of these verses is not at all similar, and they are detailed, including a time element for making payment.

Why must we look in the Old Testament? Is not the New Testament scripture as well? Yes, of course it is. Perhaps we have too much “training” to think this way. (That is, to look in the Old Testament, but not the New.) Nevertheless, if we look in the New Testament, we find a verse of scripture that corresponds with 1 Timothy 5:18 – Luke 10:7.[i]

1 Timothy 5:18

• KJV: For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
• TR: λεγει γαρ η γραφη βουν αλοωντα ου φιμωσεις και αξιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου

Luke 10:7

• KJV: And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
• TR: εν αυτη δε τη οικια μενετε εσθιοντες και πινοντες τα παρ αυτων αξιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου εστιν μη μεταβαινετε εξ οικιας εις οικιαν

In the King James Bible, there is one word of difference – the synonyms “reward” versus “hire” (wages, hire, reward). In the Textus Receptus there is one word of difference – the conjunction και (and) versus the preposition γαρ (for). We have a scripture reference correspondence.

Without presuppositions to the contrary, it is easy to understand that the apostle is quoting the Gospel of Luke and referring to it as scripture. Paul uses this formula – For the scripture saith /λεγει γαρ η γραφη – elsewhere (e.g., Romans 9:17; 10:11). The New Testament elsewhere also refers to New Testament writings as scripture (e.g., 2 Peter 3:15-16).

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps we have been trained or conditioned to think that the writing of the inspired New Testament is late rather than earlier. Even scholars who are considered conservative are often careful to not allow these writings to occur too soon after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. However, the simplest conclusion for simple Bible-believers is that Luke wrote his Gospel before Paul wrote First Timothy, and that Paul refers to the writing of Luke as scripture. (We believe and do not deny that Luke is scripture.) If these writings are inspired by God, and penned by the apostles and apostolic men (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc.), then of necessity they were written in the lifetime of these men.

---

[i] Matthew 10:10 is worth noting as a passage similar to 1 Timothy 5:18 and Luke 10:7. nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. μη πηραν εις οδον μηδε δυο χιτωνας μηδε υποδηματα μηδε ραβδους αξιος γαρ ο εργατης της τροφης αυτου εστιν.

Louis Gaussen on Preservation

(6.) Last, by a new assemblage of other facts, not less striking and incontestable, all of which attest, with equal force, the same continued agency of the Most High for the preservation of the New Testament.

422. This doctrine, we affirm, is already proved, for every one who believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures, by the simple consideration of the divine wisdom and veracity.

This is almost a question of the plainest common sense. Only suppose that a clever watchmaker, by a wonderful exertion of his abilities, prepares and finishes, at great expense, all the parts of a perfect chronometer, which is intended for the use of his beloved son in his travels to foreign parts; shall we not admit, as we would an axiom, that, having thus made it, he would not intentionally leave it out of doors exposed to all the accidents of the weather, or to injuries of passers-by? And who, then can admit that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would cause His only Son to come down from heaven for His chosen people, without guaranteeing for them the record of His life and teachings? or that He would have commissioned His apostles to write their books by the Holy Spirit, without taking care to preserve in aftertime so precious a deposit? that He watched over these books while they were being written, and ceased to watch over them when once they were given to the world? that He cared no more about them when the churches had received them from the hands of the apostles? and that, in consequence, they have been transmitted from age to age, from country to country, from one generation to another, abandoned henceforward, like any common book to all the hazards of eighteen centuries? Would such negligence be in harmony with the principles of His government; with the care which He takes of the Church to the end of time; with His declarations of the value of the Scriptures, and the permanent certainty of their declarations; with His denunciations against the crime of adding anything to them, or taking anything from them? He numbers the hairs of our head, and would He not number the books of His oracles? He does not allow a sparrow to fall to the ground without His permission, and would He allow the Scriptures to fall from heaven to the ground, which have been given by Himself for the universal gathering together of His elect? What good to give them divinely inspired, unless He transmit them divinely guarded? Why preserve them from all error, if not preserved afterwards from all dangers? He who said, “Every word of God is pure, .... add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,” will He not keep a jealous eye upon it? And if, by the mouth of Paul, He pronounced an anathema against any who should preach “any other gospel than what His apostles preached,” would He afterwards permit this condemnation to fall on the entire collection of their oracles, by allowing inspired writings to be lost from it, or forged writings to be admitted into it? This is not possible. And we must all admit that, the inspiration of the Scriptures being recognised, our doctrine is already proved by the simplest knowledge of the wisdom and veracity of God.

Francois Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen in Le Canon des saintes ecritures au double point de vue de la science et de la foi (The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the Double Point of View of Science and Faith) 1860, pp. 430-432.

Since Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, ‘created all things in heaven and earth, and by him all things subsist,’ (Col. i. 16) I said to myself, how could I doubt that He has taken care of His own revelations, whether in giving them at the first, or in their subsequent preservation and transmission? Our only business, was to study them for the purpose of regulating each one’s faith, and conscience, and life.

Francois Samuel Robert Louis Gaussen in Le Canon des saintes ecritures au double point de vue de la science et de la foi (The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the Double Point of View of Science and Faith), p. viii.

Peter’s authorship of the 2nd epistle

“A strong case can be made for Peter’s authorship of the second epistle attributed to him. Yet such arguments are for the most part ignored in modern discussions and one may be permitted to wonder how many minds are influenced less by the evidence against Petrine authorship than by the fact that the opinio communis of modern scholarship regards the evidence against it as decisive.” 

“Internal Criticism as a Criterion for Authorship in the New Testament,” Gary B. Ferngren, in Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 134 #536 (October–December 1977). John F. Walvoord, Editor, Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, p. 341.

Text critical “re”verses

In the spirit of irony, Bible verse “translations” consistent with modern text critical views of the preservation of Scripture. (Select the blue links to see what the scriptures really say.)

Matthew 21:42 - Jesus saith unto them, I know ye never read in the scriptures, since ye only have copies with errors instead of the autographs.

Matthew 22:29 - Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not having the scriptures, nor even perfect copies thereof.

Mark 15:28 - And the scripture might have been fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors (that is, if the copy that recordest those words be accurate).

Luke 16:29 - Abraham said to the rich man, I know that thy brothers do not have Moses and the prophets, since the autographs have not been kept pure in all ages. However, they do have manuscript copies, which they can accept as mostly correct, since Moses and the prophets are probably scattered in these various manuscripts. They can check that out.

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, and had to explain, because they were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, but have not been accurately preserved until this time in history.

John 5:39 - Search for the scriptures; for ye think ye have them: but ye have them not. Ye have only inaccurate copies.

John 7:42 - Hath not the scripture said? (We really dost not know, since the inspired autographs have not been preserved.)

Acts 8:35 - Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and showed the eunuch he could not be sure what Isaiah wrote or meant, since there were variants in all the copies.

Acts 17:11 - These acted differently than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all sorts of questions in their minds, and searched the manuscripts daily, whether they had the word of God or no.

Romans 4:3 - For what saith the scripture? Without the autographs we cannot be sure, but we think that maybe Abraham believed God, and hope that it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Romans 15:4 - For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning. However, since God didst not preserve them pure in all ages, we through the scriptures do not know how much hope to have, or whether we have hope.

2 Timothy 3:15 - And that from a child thou hast thought thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are really only inaccurate copies and poor translations, unable to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture was given by inspiration of God, and would be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, hadst God chosen to preserve them pure in all ages.

James 4:5 - Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? Yea, probably so, since thou canst never be sure it was copied accurately.

Wow! What a difference in how Jesus and the apostles described the scriptures versus how the modern text critics and the scholars and teachers who depend on them describe the scriptures!

This little exercise in irony is intended to stress that the old approach to the scriptures as true is wildly different from the new approach to the scriptures as uncertain. Jesus, his apostles, and the inspired writers neither criticized nor corrected Scripture (even though they had copies and did not possess the original autographs, i.e., those written in the hands of the original authors). The focus is always “the scriptures say this,” “the scriptures are true,” “believe what the scriptures say.” We need to drink from the pure well of Jesus and the apostles, not the poisoned well of modern textual criticism.

The Word of God. Matthew 27:50-54.

Matthew 27:50-54

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

According to Houston Baptist professor Craig Evans, Matthew 27:51b–53 is not inspired, not canonical, does not belong in the Bible. He believes it is a “tradition” without “any claim to authenticity.” He speaks of it as a legend, an embellishment, and a scribal gloss.

“The story of the opening of the tombs and the emergence of dead saints may represent an early scribal supplement, probably inspired by Matt 28:2 and perhaps also by the aforementioned Ezek 37:7-14, Dan 12:2, and Zech 14:4-5 (cf. Did. 16:7), as well as Christian belief that the resurrection of Jesus was but the ‘first fruits’ of those who ‘sleep’ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20). Indeed, it has been suggested that vv. 52-53 constitute a fulfillment of sorts of Jesus’ promise in Matt 16:18 in that he will build his church and ‘the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ That is, by raising the saints at the moment of death, the gates of Hades have been breached.”

“The peculiar vv. 52-53 are not cited and evidently not alluded to in the writings of the church fathers prior to the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. The quotation in the longer form of one of the letters of Ignatius is almost certainly a later interpolation. Moreover, the suggestion that the Akhmîm Gospel fragment (assumed by most to be the Gospel of Peter) alludes to Matt 27:52 (cf. Gos. Peter 41: ‘Have preached to them that sleep?’) is not convincing. Peter alludes to Christ’s preaching to the saints when he descended into hell. Indeed, the story of the raised saints in Matthew, perhaps inspired by the tradition of Christ’s harrowing of hell (cf. Acts of Pilate 20–26), is probably no earlier than late second century.”

“That this story is probably a post-Matthean gloss is also suggested by the chronological awkwardness created by vv. 52-53.” Craig A. Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 466

Evans lists a few reasons he believes this. 

“1) This might be a desperate attempt to offer an answer to Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18 when he said, ‘I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.’ 2) Not cited explicitly or implicitly by any church father till after the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. 3) Its sequential awkwardness as how can Jesus be the first fruits if they are already raised? 4)The position that the Akhmîm Gospel fragment, which Evans dates in the second century, might allude to Matthew when it says in the gospel of Peter 41 ‘have preached to them that sleep’ is a stretch so that information for the gospel of Peter did not come from Matthew but from somewhere else.” As summarized in Craig Evans, Robert Stewart, and Matthew 27:52-53

Evans’s idea exhibits the stretch of “The Academy” to find something wrong with the Bible. Not content with variants he can find, Evans finds one that does not exist. Notice that his argument is that Matthew 27:51b–53 was never part of the original inspired text. This assertion is extraordinarily exotic – because there are no extant texts of Matthew that do not have that statement. Craig Evans has trouble believing that passage, so Matthew must not have written it!

Contra Evans, Joseph Benson writes,

“Thus, as the rending the veil of the temple intimated that the entrance into the most holy place, the type of heaven, was now laid open to all nations, so the resurrection of a number of saints from the dead demonstrated that the power of death and the grave was broken; that the sting was taken from death, and the victory wrested from the grave; and if they ascended with him too, it was thus shown that the Lord’s conquest over the enemies of mankind was complete, and not only an earnest given of a general resurrection of the dead, but of the kingdom of heaven being opened to all believers.” [Bold emphasis mine]

Believing in the power and truthfulness of God, there is no reason to reject this passage as odd, spurious, or impossible. Jesus rose. Jesus rose from the dead. Of what greater power need we speak!

Notice as follows:

• Verse 50 – The voluntary, substitutionary death of Christ, which he laid down and no man took from him. John 10:17-18
• Verse 51 – The rending of the veil of the temple (Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45; Hebrews 6:19-20) and the rending of the earth.
• Verse 52a – The rending of the earth opened graves.
• Verses 52b-53a – The saints came bodily out of those graves after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was bodily, not “spiritual” or imaginary. They were dead, asleep, in their graves (cf. Psalm 13:3; John 11:11-13).[i] Though not necessarily required by the statement, it is possible that these had only recently died. If so, they would have been well known and recognized when they went to Jerusalem.[ii]
• Verse 53b – The raised saints went into the “holy city” (Jerusalem, Matthew 4:5) and, as a witness of our Lord’s victory over death, “appeared unto many.” The witness was “unto many” not a few. Jesus is not just the victor over death for himself, but also for the saints that sleep.
• Verse 54 – A centurion and the soldiers with him saw the crucifixion, the earthquake, the victorious death of Jesus Christ, therefore feared God and recognized his deity. His divine power demonstrated him to be the divine person he said he was.

“…the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” The brevity, simplicity, and normalcy of this entry testifies of its veracity, separating it from myths and legends.

May we look to the Bible for truth. Let us not be of the spirit of those who reject what they cannot by nature receive. May we receive God’s word as truth.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

[See also ΜΕΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΕΓΕΡΣΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΥ: A Scribal Interpolation in Matthew 27:53?]

---

[i] The death of saints is often called sleep. Daniel 12:2; 1 Corinthians 15:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:15.
[ii] Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.

The Four Gospels in the canon of Scripture

By the end of the second century, there is clear evidence of a fourfold collection of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Christians, by and large, accepted these four as a completed canon of the life and work of Jesus Christ.

These gospels carried apostolic authority.

 “So then ‘let us serve him with fear and all reverence,’ as he himself commanded us, and as did the Apostles, who brought us the Gospel...” Polycarp of Smyrna, (circa AD 110-140) Letter to the Philippians, 6:3

 “...the words of the Saviour...possess a terrible power in themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded those who make a diligent practice of them.” Justin Martyr (circa AD 150-160), Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 8

Tatian created a “Harmony of the Gospels” known as the Diatessaron (Latin, “harmony of four” or Greek “through four”) around AD 170. He used Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The Muratorian Fragment or Muratorian Canon (circa AD 170) speaks of four gospels. The beginning of it is missing, so that it starts with the end of a sentence probably about the Gospel of Mark. Then it continues, “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke...The fourth of the Gospels is that of John...”

Irenaeus accepted four in number, which he names as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (11:8).

“So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavours to establish his own peculiar doctrine…These things being so, all who destroy the form of the Gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I mean,] who represent the aspects of the Gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer.” Irenaeus of Lyons (circa AD 175-185), Against Heresies, Book III, 11:7,9.

Clement accepted four gospels as what had been handed down.

In replying to the arguments of Julius Casinos, Clement speaks of “the four Gospels that have been handed down to us” pitting them against “the Gospel according to the Egyptians” which Julius was using. “In the first place we have not got the saying in the four Gospels that have been handed down to us, but in the Gospel according to the Egyptians.” Clement of Alexandria (circa AD 182-202), Stromata, Book III XIII.93

Tertullian accepted the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authoritative.

“We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.” Tertullian (circa AD 197-220), Against Maricion, Book 4, Chapter 2

In these four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ have heard and do yet hear the voice of their Shepherd (John 10:27).

The New Testament Canon

In the last three or four years Michael Kruger of Reformed Theological Seminary, Luke Wayne, a writer-researcher for CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry), Matthew Ervin of Tyndale Theological Seminary, and others have called attention to a reference to the entire canon of the New Testament in a homily (sermon) on Joshua by the early Christian theologian Origen. Origen died circa AD 254, and the sermon is usually dated a few years before that (circa 250). Below is the Latin text from Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Volume 12, Origen (pp. 857-858), followed by two English translations.

(Homily on Joshua, No. 7)

Veniens vero Dominus noster Jesus Christus, cujus ille prior filius Nave designabat adventum, mittit sacerdotes apostolos suos portantes tubas ductiles, prædicationis magnificam cœlestemque doctrinam. Sacerdotali tuba primus in Evangelio suo Matthæus increpuit. Marcus quoque, Lucas et Joannes suis singulis tubis sacerdotalibus cecinerunt. Petrus etiam duabus Epistolarom suarum personat tubis. Jacobus quoque el Judas. Addit nihilominus adhuc et Joannes tuba canere per Epistolas suas et Apocalypsim,[i] et Lucas apostolorum gesta describens. Novissime autem ille veniens, qui dixit : puto autem nos Deus novissimos apostolos ostendit,  et in quatuordecim epistolarum suarun fulminans tubis, muros Jericho, et omnes idololatriæ machinas, et philosophorum dogmata usque ad fundamenta dejecit.[ii]

But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of Nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing “trumpets hammered thin,” the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel; Mark also; Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets. Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles; also James and Jude. In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles and Revelation, and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles. And now that last one comes, the one who said, “I think God displays us apostles last,” and in fourteen of his epistles, thundering with trumpets, he casts down the walls of Jericho and all the devices of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers, all the way to the foundations.[iii]

So too our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun, when he came sent his apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his epistles; and so also James and Jude. Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his epistles and Apocalypse; and Luke while describing the acts of the apostles. Lastly however came he who said, I think that God hath set forth us Apostles last of all, [1 Cor. 4:9] and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his epistles threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers.

In addition to this sermon, Origen names the eight authors of these 27 New Testament books in his allegorical Homily No. XIII from Genesis on the wells that Isaac dug.[iv]

Isaac, therefore, digs also new wells, nay rather Isaac’s servants dig them. Isaac’s servants are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; his servants are Peter, James, Jude; the apostle Paul is his servant. These all dig the wells of the New Testament.

---

[i] The words et Apocalypsim are missing from some manuscripts of this homily. The words “his epistles” [of John] are sufficient to cover the three general epistles and the epistle to the seven churches of Asia, even if the words et Apocalypsim are not original and merely added as explanatory.

[ii] See also On the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and on the Apocrypha by Christopher Wordsworth (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848, in Appendix A)

[iii] Homilies on Joshua pp. 74-75

[iv] Homilies on Genesis and Exodus (Homily on Genesis, No. 13, p. 188