Da Vinci Code

Perhaps you noticed a headline on the front page of the San Antonio Express News a few weeks back. It said the “Gospel of Judas” was calling Christian teaching into question. These Gnostic Gospels have been in the news lately … probably because of interest stirred by The Da Vince Code.

Last time I went to my medical doctor, he wanted to know what I thought about all that. I was glad I’d been researching the topic and had an answer to give! I was able to explain to him that the Gnostic Gospels were written well AFTER the books of the New Testament. Besides that, an early church historian (a man named Eusebius) states that the church rejected Gnostic writings as soon as they appeared. (The top 10 errors found in The Da Vince Code by Alex McFarland)

This brings us to an important topic: How DID books make it into the New Testament? The books that make up the Bible is called the “canon.” The church used 3 criteria when including a book in the canon of the New Testament: apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, and universal acceptance.

Apostolic Authorship means it was written by an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle (which, or course, means it was written in the 1st century)

Orthodoxy means it conforms to the doctrines of other books that were written by apostles.

Universal Acceptance means it was accepted as authentic by a majority of churches

When the Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD, 21 of our New Testament books were in the canon. The remaining 6 books were still being debated. Early Christian leaders were very cautious about accepting a book for the canon. It was hard to make the cut. The 27 books we now use were first listed as a canon about 30 years AFTER the Council of Nicaea. Even then, the canon was not officially “closed.” The reason more books were never added to the New Testament is simply because no other books could meet the strict criteria that was required.

Despite the claims of Sir Teabing, neither the Emperor Constantine --- nor anyone else --- ever threw any gospels out of the New Testament. There’s simply no historical evidence for any of those claims. But it gets worse. The “Da Vinci Code” not only attacks the reliability of the Bible, it also denigrates the central person of the Bible.

2. Jesus was only Human

Here’s an excerpt --- again from good old Sir Teabing:

"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . A great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."

"Not the Son of God?" [said Sophie]

"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus’ establishment as ’the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."

"Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”

"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. (TDC 233-234)

It’s hard to know where to start with all that. It is true that some of Jesus’ followers thought he was just a “mortal prophet” for a while. But it didn’t take 300 years and a vote at the Council of Nicaea to change their minds. They changed their minds 3 days after Jesus was crucified --- when he rose from the dead!