Davinci Code Debunked: The Roman Councils DID NOT Give Us The New Testament


#1

Davinci Code Debunked: The Roman Councils DID NOT Give Us The New Testament

youtube.com/watch?v=yQuINgvI68Y

I have noticed that there is serious confusion on this forum regarding the development of the New Testament.

Dan Brown, the author of the Davinci Code, and others have attempted to promote the claim that that New Testament books were not decided upon until the 4th century under the Roman councils.

Does this claim have any merit at all?

Well, for starters, Dan Brown is not a religious expert at all. In fact, Dan Brown admitted on the stand that his wife did most of the research for the Davinci Code:

guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/mar/12/books.danbrown

The reality is that the Davinci Code is interesting fiction, but the facts about the New Testament tell an entirely different story:

Fact #1) Paul’s letters were already considered scripture in the mid 1st century. Take a look at how the apostle Peter himself called them Scripture:

2 Peter 3:14-16

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Fact #2) The apostle Paul, writing between A.D. 62 and A.D. 65, quoted Luke 10:7 and called it Scripture:

Luke 10:7

7Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.

Now look at how Paul quoted Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18…

18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

So we can clearly see that the apostle Paul himself considered the gospel of Luke to be Holy Scripture in the middle of the 1st century.

Fact #3) Irenaeus, writing about 170, tells us that the 4 fold gospel was already a rock solid fact by then:

But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the “pillar and ground” of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner [demiourgos] of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit. (Against Heresies 3.11.8)

Fact #4) The fact of the four-fold gospel is also stated in the “Muratorian Fragment” which was written about the same time (around 170 A.D.) that Irenaeus was writing. The Muratorian Fragment lists for us basically the whole New Testament canon and it shows us once again that the four-fold gospel was an established fact by then.

Fact #5) We have approximately 50 manuscripts of the New Testament that PRE-DATE the Roman takeover of the established church in the 4th century.

Fact #6) We have more than 32 THOUSAND New Testament quotations from the early church writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In fact, we could recreate virtually the entire New Testament just from the quotes of the early church writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. We can be QUITE certain that the New Testament we have today has come down to us just as it was from the earliest days, and we can be QUITE certain what they considered to be Scripture.

Yes, the Romans came in to the church in the 4th century and corrupted it and paganized the institutional church. There were many Christians who resisted this, and they were persecuted brutally. However, Christianity and the Bible were doing JUST FINE before Rome ever came on the scene.

After viewing this shocking YouTube clip you will never look at the New Testament the same way again:

youtube.com/watch?v=yQuINgvI68Y


#2

Whats Messianic?


#3

The fact that two people wrote the same idea down using the same words doesn’t necessarily mean one wrote it first and the other is quoting the first’s writings. I can communicate an idea to you verbally in a particularly memorable way, and we might both go and write it down using that same memorable way on our own without necessarily “quoting” each other.

This is especially plausible because of the relationship between Luke and Paul. How do we know that Paul didn’t communicate this idea to Luke in these terms, leading to them separately writing it down in those terms?


#4

Yes. You are absolutely correct that all of the books in our New Testament were known widely and known early. No problem there.

But as late as 325 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea notes that 7 books now included in the NT canon were still in dispute: Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

The quotation from Timothy (and Luke) about muzzling the ox that treads the grain, is from Deuteronomy.

Rome did not “take over the Church” in the 4th Century. There was a church at Rome from the time of Peter and Paul. The Councils that laid out the canon of Scripture were held in Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 398 A.D., approved by the Bishop of Rome and again ratified in the early 5th Century. There was no “Roman” Church apart from the rest of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church because the Church had not yet divided.

Also, the word “scripture” as used in Scripture had not at that time acquired the full weight we give it today. The word means “writings” and in the religious context it means “sacred writings” or even “inspired sacred writings” but not until the canon was set did the word Scripture attain to the plenitude of gravity it enjoys today.

And what of the hundreds of other writings in circulation in the fourth century: The Gospel of Thomas, of Mary Magdalene, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Protoevangelion of James, the Gospel of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and so forth? Why are these NOT in the canon? Why were Ignatius of Antioch’s epistles excluded? Because the councils of the Church developed the criteria by which the writings would be included in the canon.


#5

More anti-Catholic fiction from a completely unreliable source.


#6

MandM should be thrilled to pieces that the “Roman” Church “took over” and canonized the New Testament for him. Otherwise he could be readng the Gospel of Judas as the inspired and inerrant word of God. :bigyikes:


#7

I wonder how well MandM would get along with the subject of this thread.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=235115


#8

well… we all know that if it is put on youtube, it must be true…

by the way… did you guys check out this video… it proves UFOs are real

youtube.com/watch?v=lDd2I8fr06Y&feature=related

In Christ


#9

The Muratorian Fragment does list as “received by the Catholic Church” and to be “read publicly to the people in church” most of the books of our present New Testament, 22 of the 27 books, but it does not list all of them and it lists other books that are not in our present New Testament. It is lacking Hebrews, a letter of John, the letter of James, and the two letters of Peter. It includes Peter’s Apocalypse as received by the Church but some did not want it read in church. It also includes Wisdom, which Catholics include as part of the Old Testament but which Protestants reject. It also includes Hermas’ The Shepherd as received by the Church but as not to be read in church.

Although there is much agreement between the two, the fact that the list of books in the Muratorian Fragment is not exactly the same as those books found in our present New Testament is problematic for your cause. In this case, because there are differences, both cannot be correct. It proves either the canon of the New Testament was mostly but not yet entirely settled in the Catholic Church at the time the fragment was written or our present New Testament is wrong. The mention that Peter’s Apocalypse was received but that some did now want it read in church is an indication that the canon was not yet entirely settled at that time. This supports the claim that the canon of the New Testament was only entirely settled by the decrees of later “Roman” Church Councils. In other words, the Muratorian Fragment supports the claim that, in a sense, later “Roman” Church Councils gave us our present New Testament.


#10

MandM << I have noticed that there is serious confusion on this forum regarding the development of the New Testament. Dan Brown, the author of the Davinci Code, and others have attempted to promote the claim that that New Testament books were not decided upon until the 4th century under the Roman councils. Does this claim have any merit at all? >>

I will watch your dumb video :stuck_out_tongue: but the way you word this shows you don’t understand even what The Da Vinci Code says. Brown and DVC says that Constantine and the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) was responsible for the New Testament canon. The correct answer is the New Testament canon was fully acknowledged LATER than this (something Brown doesn’t tell you), at the late fourth century local Catholic councils of Hippo/Carthage. From my awesome article on The Da Vinci Code that blows away your dumb YouTube movie: :stuck_out_tongue:

The first major Church historian Eusebius (c. 260-340), writing at the time of emperor Constantine, distinguishes three categories of New Testament Scriptures: (1) universally acknowledged, (2) disputed, and (3) spurious (or simply “uncanonical”). In category (1) as universally acknowledged he places the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the Acts of the Apostles (Acts), the epistles of Paul (which are 14 including Hebrews), the first epistle of John (1 John), the first epistle of Peter (1 Peter), and “should it seem right, John’s Apocalypse” (book of Revelation). In category (2) as “disputed, but recognized by the majority” he places the epistles of James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John. In category (3) as non-canonical he includes the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles (or Didache), the “Gospel According to the Hebrews,” and Revelation “should it seem right” since “some reject it, while others count it among the acknowledged books” (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 198-199).

Therefore, the only books that were ever doubted by a few were James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, sometimes Hebrews and Revelation. The rest were universally acknowledged. The 27-book NT canon became explicit with St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (Festal Letter 39, c. 367 AD), the local or regional Councils of Rome (under Pope Damasus, c. 380 AD), the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), and Carthage (397 / 419 AD), and Popes Boniface I, Innocent I, and Gelasius confirmed this same canon (see F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, page 232-235).

The Da Vinci Code Fraud: Cracked by the Critics (see sections on Bible and Constantine)

So you are partially right, but mostly wrong in how to answer this. It was indeed Catholic bishops (like St. Athanasius) and local Catholic councils who recognized our official 27-book New Testament canon. Books were disputed into the fourth century, but the Gospels and most of the New Testament was not disputed. However, it was indeed the Catholic Church (or if you prefer, the Roman Catholic Church :stuck_out_tongue: ) that gives us that fully complete canon of the Bible.

Phil P


#11

MandM << Yes, the Romans came in to the church in the 4th century and corrupted it and paganized the institutional church. There were many Christians who resisted this, and they were persecuted brutally. However, Christianity and the Bible were doing JUST FINE before Rome ever came on the scene. >>

What do you do, post a link to your dumb YouTube video and play hit and run? Stick around and we’ll debate just what that “Christianity” was in the 2nd and 3rd century before the “Roman takeover and corruption” in the fourth century. I’m sorry there were no “Christians who resisted this” who were “persecuted brutally.” Name them from the 4th to the 15th century. And please don’t say the Waldenses. You can also throw out the Montanists, Novatians, Paulicians, Bogomils, and especially Albigenses. :thumbsup:

MandM << After viewing this shocking YouTube clip you will never look at the New Testament the same way again >>

And after viewing these series of videos you may never look at the Roman takeover and corruption of the fourth century the same way again. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P


#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.