Expert: John A. Tvedtnes - 2/5/2004

Question
Hi! My question is due to the doubt I have been experiencing as a result of reading the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. In this book, it is suggested that the Roman Emperor Constantine, originally a pagon, manipulated the bible in order to put women in a less positive light. Furthermore, it was suggested that the "holy grail" was in reality Mary Magdalene, but that this truth was either manipulated or misrepresented due to the selectivity of the council putting together the bible. I would like to know whether or not you think the New Testament was compiled with a bias that changed the foundation of Catholicism. I am writing a research report on the subject but am also personally interested because of the faith crisis it has pulled me into. If you could please respond I would be very greatful. I understand this is a difficult subject with perhaps no clear answer, but if you know sources that would help I would really appreciate those as well. Thank you so much for your time! Have a great day!
Allyson

Answer
A number of early Christian councils discussed which books should be accepted as authoritative, and the council of Nicea (A.D. 325), called by the emperor Constantine, was no exception.  But there were already a few lists of authoritative scriptural books in the first and second centuries.  A council of rabbis met in A.D. 90 at Yavneh (called Yamnia in Greek) to decide which books should go into the Jewish canon.  They eliminated all of the books that came to be called "Apocrypha" and also dismissed suggestions that they acknowledge writings of minority Jewish groups (which would have included Christianity).  The council was ready to throw out the Song of Solomon (also called the Song of Songs), an ancient pornographic work, until Rabbi Aikiba lent it his support.  They also wanted to reject the book of Ezekiel until Rabbi Hananiah sat up several nights to rewrite the book, modifying offending passages.

The earliest Christians read a wide variety of books and letters, many of them attributed to the apostles, but each book was on a separate scroll.  The first bound Bibles didn't appear until the mid-4th century A.D., and some of them have survived.  They include, in their New Testament, some books no longer in our Bibles, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Pastor of Hermas.  They did not include some of the books later placed in the Bible, such as 2 Peter, 2-3 John, and Revelation.

Even today, some of the eastern churches include in their canon books that were omitted from the list of the western churches, such as 1 Enoch.  The Roman Catholic Bible retains the twelve books of the Apocrypha, which used to be in Protestant Bibles as well (including the King James version), but were later omitted by most Protestant churches.  But you can still buy copies of the King James version of the Apocrypha, which Oxford and Cambridge Universities continue to print under separate cover.

The process of canonization is even more complex than what I've said here, but the simple fact is that it was men, not God, who determined which ancient texts they would accept and which they would reject.

Martin Luther also had questions about which books should be in the Bible.  He expressed serious doubts about the Apocrypha, which were ultimately excluded from the Bible.  He also had doubts about such Old Testament books as Ecclesiastes and Esther, the latter because it never mentions God.  He seriously questioned the value of 2 Peter, 2-3 John, and Revelation.  He also disliked the epistle of James, which he called "an epistle of straw."  The reason for this is that Luther had come to believe that one is saved by faith in Christ and grace alone, with no necessity to keep God's commandments, while James was clear that "faith without works is dead."  As it turned out, Luther didn't kept all of the books he questioned in his Bible translation.

I wouldn't lose faith, however.  And I wouldn't worry about books like The Da Vinci Code, which are based on a lot of speculation, especially speculation first raised in other books such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  For my part, I find the theories interesting, but they are only theories.  I have no problem with Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene or to the sisters of Lazarus, all of whom have been claimed at one time or another as ancestress to the European kings.  The genealogies are known from the 9th century, but there is no earlier documentation to support them.

What is happening with your crisis of faith is that you have believed what others have told you the Bible says rather than relying on what it really says.  The Bible is not inerrant and is not "complete."  God didn't suddenly stop talking two millenia ago.  He still cares about us and is willing to lead us.

If you have any specific concerns, please feel free to contact me at:

john_tvedtnes@byu.edu