A Brief Introduction

Truth to be told, I was excited at the prospect of reading this book as, being an avid reader, I have heard that it was supposedly “good reading material”. I read in it a single sitting. At the beginning, I thought it was quite a clever thriller. At the end, I sat down, thinking – a lot. It disturbs me why people would grab TDVC and let their beliefs waver without researching deeply into the book. I hope and pray that the article below (a compilation of sources that I have personally read through and summarized) will clear the air for those who read it. Happy thinking!

~ Any honest historian will admit that research often raises more questions than it answers, but The Da Vinci Code has holes you could drive a Mack truck through. ~

Fact or Fiction?

Yes, TDVC is only a book. Why then is there so much uproar about it and why has the book stayed on the top of the sales charts for over a year?

The answer in short is the marketing effort put into a book that is based on a religion that millions of people use to guide their day to day lives. Dan Brown made clear in interviews that this is the HIDDEN TRUTH and that he and his wife are art historians and have painstakingly researched every detail.

You can say that people should read this book and KNOW it is fiction, completely made up. But when you read a story written by an "expert" about something important - like the Titanic or the Native Americans or the Alamo - don't you want it based in truth? And don't you want to learn something about that world while you read? You know the "people in the stories" are false but you want to learn something about what it was really like to live during those times. So you want a "truthful environment". Say you read an Alamo story by the world expert on the Alamo, and he gets to the critical battle. Suddenly "a plane flies by overhead", distracting the Alamo troops, and this is why they died. Wouldn't it bother you? In The Da Vinci Code, we're not just talking about a ship or a fort. We're talking about a church that millions of people trust with their eternal soul. Therefore, most readers of the Da Vinci Code - especially because Dan Brown is going around claiming it's all true - are intensely interested in where the line between truth and lies is.

Think of it in this way. What if you were a Jewish person and this book said "No Jews were actually harmed in Nazi concentration camps. The images seen in the papers were made up on Hollywood sets in order to help Jews take over Israel". Wouldn't it upset you to learn Dan Brown just tossed this myth in to his book that he is claiming is "thoroughly researched and authentic" in its background? Not only is the information incorrect, but it spreads false assumptions against an entire group of REAL people. Now book readers might be angry at Jewish WW2 survivors they meet. This book says it's about revealing truths - but it actually perpetuates many stereotypes.

On the opening page, Dan Brown states:

“FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

Many of the things TDVC says are not new, e.g. Holy Blood Holy Grail claims similar things to TDVC. What is new, however, is that the errors of TDVC seem to be reaching a previously untapped audience, those who enjoy fictional content rather than theological or academic material.

I like how Lisa puts it:

Don’t believe the web. Don’t believe this website. Look through the questions people ask, and then find the answers from a REAL SOURCE – the actual source materials of the Bible, Leonardo’s writings and works. This site should merely provide you starting points to investigate.

Was Jesus Married To Mary Magdalene?

According to TDVC...

"The marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record." (Page 245)

"The Last Supper practically shouts at the viewer that Jesus and Magdalene were a pair." (Page 244)

""the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'" (Page 246, quote from the Gospel of Philip)

"as any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally mean spouse" (p. 246)

The Truth - EXPOSED!!!

Unlike other Jewish teachers of his day, Jesus had close relationships with women, many of whom were his followers (Luke 8:2-3) and learned from him (Luke 10:38-42). Several of these women are mentioned by name in the New Testament gospels, including, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, who together helped to support Jesus and his other disciples financially (Luke 8:2-3). But nothing in the New Testament suggests that Jesus was ever married to any of these women, or to any other woman, for that matter.

But, you might wonder, what about Mary Magdalene? Isn't there evidence that suggests she was in fact married to Jesus?

Brown correctly observes that few Jewish men of Jesus' day did not marry.

But why, then, did the apostle Paul, himself celibate, not mention Jesus and Mary when he argued that apostles could marry? For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 the apostle Paul defends his right to get married if he so chose to do so:

Don't we have the right to take
a believing wife along with us,
as do the other apostles
and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

~ 1 Corinthians 9:5 ~

Now, if Jesus had been married, surely the apostle Paul would have cited Jesus' marriage as the number-one precedent. The fact that he did not mention a wife of Jesus indicates that Jesus was not married.

Finally, nothing in the Bible even hints that Jesus was married, or, as some have suggested, that he had a sexual relationship with anyone outside of marriage.

Throughout the New Testament, there is NO mention of Jesus being married prior to the beginning of His three-year ministry. There is NO mention of Jesus being married during His three-year ministry. There is NO mention of Jesus being married at the crucifixion. There is NO mention of Jesus being married at His burial. There is NO mention of Jesus being married at His resurrection. In other words, there is NO mention of a wife anywhere! In fact, whenever the New Testament gospels refer to Jesus' natural relatives, they speak only of his father, mother, and siblings, but never of a wife or a lover.

In 1970, William E. Phipps published Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition. In this book Phipps argued that the silence of the New Testament about the marital status of Jesus indicates that Jesus was in fact married.

Some try to argue that it was expected of every Jewish man to get married because virtually every Jewish man in Jesus' day did marry, especially those who were considered to be Rabbis. Surely Jesus must have followed custom and gotten married!

Such an argument is unconvincing, because:

• A number of major prophets were never married - including the likes of Jeremiah and John the Baptist.
• There were whole communities of Jews which included non-married men - such as the Essene community at Qumran.
  
• Note that Jewish leaders often granted exceptions to the general rule of marriage. It was certainly not an unbending requirement by law -either governmental or religious - to marry.
  

For now we must acknowledge that the main argument in favor of Jesus' marriage is at best weakly circumstantial. Moreover, it forces us to believe that the most reliable accounts of Jesus' life failed to mention one of the most salient aspects of that life. How unlikely!

Mary Magdalene in the New Testament

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town
and village to another, proclaiming the good news
of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him,
and also some women who had been cured of
evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene)
from whom seven demons had come out;
Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager
of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others.
These women were helping to support them
out of their own means.

~ Luke 8:1-3 ~

Nothing in this passage suggests that there was anything unusual about Mary's relationship with Jesus, other than the very unusual fact that she was included among Jesus' retinue. Jewish teachers in Jesus' day usually didn't teach women or include them as followers. In his inclusive practice Jesus was virtually unique, and his relationship with Mary and her female counterparts quite counter-cultural.

The next time we run into Mary Magdalene she is among the women who observe the crucifixion of Jesus.

Some women were watching from a distance.
Among them were Mary Magdalene,
Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,
and Salome.
~ Mark 15:40 ~

Then, on Easter morning she and a couple of female companions go to the tomb of Jesus, only to find it empty. Mary encounters Jesus near the tomb, and then goes to announce his resurrection to the other disciples (John 20:1-18). In a sense, she is the first Christian evangelist, the first person to pass on the good news of Easter.

This is all we know about Mary Magdalene from the biblical gospels. Several centuries after these texts were written, Mary became associated with the prostitute who bathed and anointed Jesus' feet (Luke 7:36-50). But there's nothing in Scripture that makes this connection. We have no reason to believe that Mary had ever been a prostitute.

There's also nothing whatsoever in the biblical material to suggest that Mary was Jesus' wife, What is exceptional about Mary, when understood in her own cultural setting, is that she was one of Jesus' closest followers. Moreover, she was the first witness to the risen Christ, a role of exceptional honor and privilege. Ironically, the efforts to turn Mary the disciple of Jesus into Mary the wife of Jesus *actually* minimize how truly extraordinary she was as a central follower, supporter, and witness of Jesus.

Because nothing in the New Testament suggests that Jesus and Mary were married, those who advocate this position claim to rely on the evidence of non-canonical "gospels."

Most people are not familiar with the non-canonical gospels. Thus when they hear that these writings reveal Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene, they are at a loss to evaluate this claim, and often accept it at face value. Many even assume that the non-canonical evidence for Jesus' marriage must be strong and ample since some writers get so excited about it. In fact the actual evidence is both weak and scanty, as we'll see.

A word of caution before we begin to look at the non-canonical evidence: Dating of the non-biblical gospels is perilous because we have so little solid evidence. Those who want to see these gospels as reliable historical sources often push their authorship as early as possible, sometimes even into the first century A.D. Most credible scholars date the writing of the non-canonical gospels in the second or third century A.D. These texts are, at any rate, later than the biblical gospels by a long shot (with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, which may have been written in the first century, though this is not at all certain). Several of the non-canonical gospels are named after one of the original disciples of Jesus, including Mary, but these disciples had nothing to do with the actual writing of the extra-biblical gospels.

Mary Magdalene in The Gospel of Thomas

Mary plays a tiny role in the Gospel of Thomas, asking Jesus a question about the disciples: "Whom are your disciples like?" (section 21, trans. Thomas O. Lambdin). This is the only place she speaks. She is mentioned at the end of this gospel in a most curious passage, which reads:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (section 114)

This passage does affirm what we already know from the canonical gospels: that Mary was included among Jesus' followers and that Jesus himself intentionally included women. Of course in the biblical record he valued them as women, not as beings that had eternal value if they became male. Maleness, in this text, should not be understood literally, but as a symbol of one's spiritual or divine nature.

So, one who is looking for evidence of a secret marriage between Jesus and Mary will be disappointed by the earliest of the non-canonical gospels. The Gospel of Thomas, in its peculiar way, simple underscores what we already know of Mary from the biblical gospels.

Mary Magdalene in The Gospel of Peter

The Gospel of Peter, written in the second century A.D., focuses only on the last hours in the life of Jesus. It is noteworthy for its view that Jesus felt no pain when crucified (section 10) and for its exoneration of Pontius Pilate for the death of Jesus (sections 1, 45-46). Mary Magdalene appears only on Easter morning, when she and her women friends come to the tomb of Jesus to weep for him. She is described as "a female disciple [Greek mathetria ] of the Lord" (section 50,). At the tomb, Mary and her friends see an angel who announces the resurrection of Jesus, and they run away frightened (section 56-57).

Once again, Mary is only portrayed as a female disciple of Jesus.

Mary Magdalene in The Dialogue of the Savior

The Dialogue of the Savior, also written in the second century A.D., is a dialogue between the Savior (never called Jesus or Christ) and some of his disciples, including Mary. The disciples ask questions about esoteric religious things, and Jesus gives equally esoteric answers. Although Mary is one of the frequent interrogators of the Savior, at one point she makes an observation. The text explains, "This word she spoke as a woman who knew the All" (Section 139, trans. Harold Attridge). In other words, Mary has special knowledge of spiritual reality.

There is no hint in The Dialogue of the Savior of a marriage between Jesus and Mary (or the Savior and Mary). She is seen, once again, as central among the disciples of the Savior, and as a person with special insight.

Mary Magdalene in The Sophia of Jesus Christ

The Sophia of Jesus Christ is a post-resurrection dialogue between the risen Christ and some of his followers, including Mary. It may have been written as early as the middle of the second century A.D. Twice in this gospel Mary asks questions of Christ, such as "Holy Lord, where did your disciples come from, and where are they going, and (what) should they do here?" (section 114, trans. Douglas M. Parrott). Mary is not singled out further, nor is there a suggestion of a marriage to Jesus.

Mary Magdalene in The Pistis Sophia

The Pistis Sophia is a Gnostic gospel written sometime during the third century A.D. It is a revelation of Christ in which Mary plays a prominent role, asking the majority of the questions about all measure of esoteric matters.

Mary is praised in The Pistis Sophia as one "whose heart is more directed to the Kingdom of Heaven than all [her] brothers" (Chapter 17, trans. Carl Schmidt and Violet MacDermott). Jesus says that she is "blessed beyond all women upon the earth, because [she shall be] the pleroma of all Pleromas and the completion of all completions" (section 19). In other words, Mary will have the fullness of knowledge and therefore spiritual life within her. So impressed is Jesus with Mary's spiritual excellence that he promises not to conceal anything from her, but to reveal everything to her "with certainty and openly" (section 25). She is the blessed one who will "inherit the whole Kingdom of the Light" (section 61).

From The Pistis Sophia we see the growing interest in Mary among Gnostic Christians, who valued knowledge (gnosis in Greek) above all. She has come to be regarded as a source of hidden revelation because of her intimate relationship with Jesus. Nothing in this gospel suggests a marriage between them, however.

Mary Magdalene in The Gospel of Mary

The Gospel of Mary, written in the second century, goes even further than The Pistis Sophia in portraying Mary as a source of secret revelation because of her close relationship to the Savior. At one point Peter asks, "Sister, We know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember--which you know but we do not nor have we heard them" (section 10, trans. George W. MacRae and R. McL. Wilson). So Mary reveals what the Lord made known to her in a vision, the content of which seems like mumbo-jumbo to anyone other than a second-century Gnostic.

The Gospel of Mary reports that several of the disciples were none too impressed by Mary's purported insights into heavenly things. Andrew responded to her revelation by saying "I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas" (section 17). Then Peter asked, "Did he really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" But Levi speaks up for Mary, "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us" (section 18).

Ah, at last, here's fuel for the fire of a secret marriage between Mary and Jesus. She is the recipient of his secret revelations and private speeches. The Savior, who is not called Jesus in The Gospel of Mary, even preferred Mary to the other disciples, loving her more than them. Mary's relationship with Jesus has clearly entered a new dimension we have not seen before.

But there is nothing here to suggest that Jesus and Mary were married. Jesus' love for Mary leads him to reveal special truth to her, not to take her as his wife. Nothing in The Gospel of Mary points to a sexual or spousal relationship between Jesus and Mary.

Mary Magdalene in The Gospel of Philip

Finally (!!!) we come to The Gospel of Philip, the last of the extra-biblical gospels to mention Mary Magdalene, and the one that excites proponents of her marriage to Jesus more than any other ancient document.

The actual document of The Gospel of Philip (which is a Gnostic Gospel) is very fragmentary. The Gospel of Philip is one of the latest of the non-canonical gospels, written well into the third-century. It is not a gospel in any ordinary sense, but rather a collection of theological observations written from a Gnostic point of view. Some but not all of these observations mention Jesus. Two passages refer to Mary Magdalene, who plays a tiny role in this gospel.

The first of these passages reads, "There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion" (section 59). Much has been insinuated about the word "companion", which, in the Greek original is koinonos. But, contrary to the wishful thinking of some, this word doesn't mean spouse or sexual consort. It means "partner", and is used several times in the New Testament with this ordinary meaning (for example, when Paul refers to himself as Philemon's koinonos in the Philemon 1:17).

The second passage in The Gospel of Philip that concerns Mary is the most suggestive:

"And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' The Savior answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her?' When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness" (sections 63-64; the words in bold are missing in the original text, and have been supplied by the translator, Wesley Isenberg. The manuscript is broken at this point, so it could just as easily have been forehead, hand or cheek. Most translators have added the word 'mouth').

But what about the kissing? Surely this suggests something more than partnership in ministry.

Nothing suggests that this was anything more than a kiss of fellowship as practiced in the early church.

Greet one another with a holy kiss.
All the churches of Christ send greetings.
~ Romans 16:16 ~ All the brothers here send you greetings.
Greet one another with a holy kiss.
~ 1 Corinthians 16:20 ~

In actual fact, earlier in the Gospel of Philip kissing is a symbol of shared revelation, not sexual intimacy (sections 58-59). Thus when the Gospel of Philip speaks of the Savior kissing Mary, this could refer in context to His revealing secrets to her, not literally kissing her.

Notice that the Savior doesn't explain His love for Mary by referring to His marriage to her. Instead, his love for Mary has to do with her ability to receive knowledge ("see the light"). She is His companion in matters of gnosis (knowledge), not sex or marriage.

The very interaction between the Savior and the other disciples shows the folly of interpreting the Gospel of Philip as if the Savior and Mary were married. If this were the case, then the disciples' question, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" makes no sense whatsoever. Surely if Jesus had been married to Mary then his special affection for her wouldn't have been an offense. And surely Jesus could have satisfied the disciples' question by explaining that Mary was his wife. But he doesn't do this. Instead he explains his special affection for Mary by pointing to her ability to see the light, that is, to have knowledge. In the Gospel of Philip, neither the Savior nor His disciples believe that he and Mary are husband and wife. She is His companion in the sense that He has revealed special truth to her. This is the sum total of her uniqueness among the disciples. Of course in Gnostic circles, this makes Mary truly special indeed, since Gnostics prized knowledge above all else and minimized or denigrated physical life.

Even if we suppose that this passage, which appears in no other document, and which dates to about 275 A.D., several hundred years after the canonical gospels, conveys historically accurate information, the passage itself seems to disprove Jesus' marriage to Mary.

Moreover, the Gospel of Philip nowhere states that Jesus was married. Moreover, this gospel was written not in Aramaic, as Brown claims, but in Greek!!! Still further, the manuscript for the Gospel of Philip is not whole. There is nothing in the context that demands that Jesus kissed Mary on the mouth. Finally, the Gospel of Philip portrays the disciples of Jesus criticizing Mary because Jesus is said to love her more than all the disciples. However, logically, if Jesus was really married, no disciple would criticize Mary. The Gospel of Philip thus provides no hard proof that Jesus was married.

That's it. That's the best non-canonical evidence for the marriage of Jesus and Mary: a passage which, even if taken at face value as a historically accurate account, which one would be silly to do, seems to contradict the hypothetical marriage. The only way to find this marriage in the non-canonical gospels is to interject it there yourself.

One who has read The Da Vinci Code and been persuaded to accept its fictional history as fact will no doubt object at this point: "But you don't understand. Jesus' marriage to Mary was a secret. These texts only give tiny clues. The real truth of Jesus' marriage was hidden, and that's why the non-canonical gospels say so little about it."

Of course this could be true, theoretically speaking. But I'd argue that we have much more evidence for Jesus having been an alien from outer space than the husband of Mary Magdalene. After all, he is transfigured on a mountain with glowing beings (Mark 9:2-8) and he ascends to heaven in a cloud (Acts 1:9).

One can make up all sorts of theories about Jesus, but the only way to evaluate these theories is with the facts of the ancient texts we have. And these texts simply do not support the theory of Jesus' marriage.

Further, we must note that Jesus' marriage is yet future. He will one day marry the "bride of Christ," which is the church. The Bible tells us:

Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear."
Then the angel said to me, "Write:
'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'"
And he added, "These are the true words of God."

~ Revelation 19:7-9 ~

(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)

"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around
him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!
Whoever does God's will is my brother
and sister and mother."

~ Mark 3:33-35 ~

Husbands, love your wives,
just as Christ loved the church
and gave himself up for her to make her holy,
cleansing her by the washing with
water through the word,
and to present her to himself as a radiant church,
without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish,
but holy and blameless.

~ Ephesians 5:25-27 ~

The Deity of Christ

According to TDVC...

The doctrine of Christ being God was invented by the Church through the emperor Constantine, at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.

“Constantine attempted to eradicate ‘the earlier’ gospels (Gnostic Gospels) but some survived. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950’s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And of course the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi.” (page 234)

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

The Deity of Jesus was discussed at the council of Nicea, but it was not invented or fabricated.

A variety of New Testament passages written in the first century affirm the absolute and full deity of Christ:

“within Him dwells all the fullness of being God in bodily form”
Colossians 2:9

“calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God”
John 5:18

“my Lord and my God”
John 20:28

“our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”
Titus 2:13

“God over all, blessed forever”
Romans 9:5

(For further evidence of the belief for Jesus as God, check this out.)

There are also a number of other early non-biblical historical sources that demonstrate that the early Christians worshipped Jesus as God well before the 4th century. One example:

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, wrote to the Emperor Trajan observing that the Christians sang hymns to Christ "as to a god":

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting
on a certain fixed day before it was light,
when they sang in alternate verses
a hymn to Christ, as to a god..."

(For further examples from early non-biblical sources, click here.)

Leonardo da Vinci and The Last Supper

According to TDVC...

Yet another evidence Dan Brown sets forth for Jesus' alleged marriage is Leonardo Da Vinci's painting of The Last Supper. To Jesus' right, we are told, is Mary Magdalene, not John.

TDVC- EXPOSED!!!

This painting depicts the very moment that Jesus has said to His disciples.

When evening came, Jesus was reclining
at the table with the Twelve.
And while they were eating, he said,
"I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."
They were very sad and began to say to him
one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"
Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand
into the bowl with me will betray me.

~ Matthew 26:20-23 ~

Part of why Leonardo’s version was so famous immediately was that he had chosen a very unusual way to portray the scene. Pretty much every painting of the Last Supper up until now had involved Jesus blessing the bread and wine - a nice, serene scene. Judas was always shown off in a corner, sulking, away from the rest of the disciples. This is what the Dominicans thought they were getting. When they instead got this "violent" version with the disciples all screaming and yelling, the monks were not exactly pleased. It created a lot of publicity. The disciples are all reacting in horror to the thought that someone at that table would betray their master.

The theory that Leonardo DaVinci included Mary Magdalene in his painting The Last Supper is not accepted by art historians, who say that the “feminine” looking figure seated next to Jesus is the boyish Apostle John as he is normally depicted in artwork of the period.

Art writer, Elizabeth Lev, says:

"Brown capitalizes on Leonardo's soft-featured, beardless depiction of John to offer his fantastic claim that we are dealing with a woman. Of course, if St. John were really Mary Magdalene, we may well ask which of the apostles excused himself at the critical moment.

But the real problem stems from our lack of familiarity with "types." In his Treatise on Painting, Leonardo explains that each figure should be painted according to his station and age. A wise man has certain characteristics, an old woman others, and children others still.

A classic type, common to many Renaissance paintings, is the "student." A favored follower, a protégé or disciple, is always portrayed as very youthful, long-haired and clean-shaven; the idea being that he has not yet matured to the point where he must find his own way.

Throughout the Renaissance, artists portray St. John in this fashion. He is the "disciple Jesus loved" — the only one who will be at the foot of the cross. He is the ideal student. To the Renaissance artist the only way to show St. John was as a beardless youth, with none of the hard, determined physiognomy of men. The "Last Supper" of Ghirlandaio and Andrea del Castagno show a similarly soft, young John."

Mary Magdalene wasn't listed among those at the table in any of the four Gospels. The Bible just says that the 12 disciples were at the table. If the figure at Jesus’ side was Mary Magdalene then where was the apostle John in the painting? It is inconceivable that this disciple would not have been present during such a significant event.

[Here’s an interesting fact: TDVC said that this painting is a Fresco when in actual fact, it is a tempera.]

[Here’s another interesting fact: Luke 22:14 says “When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.” Chairs weren’t supposed to be in the picture, be it have been a true, accurate account of what really happened.]

According to TDVC...

TDVC says that there is not one chalice but rather 13 chalices in the painting, a historical inaccuracy that Leonardo purposefully intended in order to symbolically indicate the “real meaning” of the Holy Grail.

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

There are only 12 wine glasses on the table. Don't believe it? Count for yourself and see! Leonardo painted a simple short cup by Jesus’ left hand.

According to TDVC...

Leonardo Da Vinci was part of a secret organization that knew about Jesus’ relationship with Mary Madalene and His ancestors, and left clues of this in some of his paintings, e.g. The Last Supper.

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

Leonardo wasn’t even around during that time, so he was relying on third-hand information to paint his masterpiece. How then can we be sure that all he paints is vital “hidden” information?

Here is more stuff about Leonardo’s paintings as depicted in TDVC:
Madonna of the Rocks
Mona Lisa

The Priory of Sion: A Hoax

According to TDVC...

"The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victory Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci."
This organization is said to guard the secret of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene. It is claimed to have been founded in Jerusalem in 1099 by a French King. The organization is believed to be watching over Jesus and Mary's descendants, and waiting for the perfect time to reveal its secret to the world. Because of constant threat of danger from the Roman Catholic Church, the organization has allegedly hidden its message in literature, paintings, and even architecture such that only learned people can decipher the meanings.

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

Brown obtained much of his information on the Priory of Sion from a book entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. In this book we find a dependency on the above-mentioned parchments which allegedly prove that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had a baby named Sarah, and, following Jesus' death on the cross, Mary relocated to a Jewish community in France. Their descendants were French allegedly royalty.

Now, here is the big problem with all this. These parchments are completely bogus. Historically, in 1953, a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard spent time in jail for fraud. In 1954 he founded a small social club named the Priory of Sion. The purpose of the club was to call for low-income housing in France. The organization dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Plantard put together a number of bogus documents which "proved" the Jesus-Mary Magdalene theory, with French royalty being their descendants. Plantard claimed that he himself was one of the descendents of this couple.

Some time later, a friend of the French president found himself in legal trouble and Plantard ended up being called to testify in the case. While under oath, the judge asked him about these documents about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and he admitted he made the whole thing up. An associate of Plantard's also conceded that Plantard made the whole thing up. All this has been thoroughly documented by several French books and a BBC special. [Documented in James Garlow and Peter Jones, CRACKING DA VINCI'S CODE (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook Communications, 2004), p. 112]

What all this means for THE DA VINCI CODE is that the Priory of Sion - and the accompanying Jesus-Mary Magdalene theory - is based on bogus information with a capital B. Hence, Dan Brown's claim that his book is based on historical secret societies is flat wrong.

Is the Bible an Unreliable Document?

According to TDVC...

"The Bible is a product of man,... not of God." (Page 231)

"The New Testament is false testimony." (Page 345)

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

What the Bible has got to say for itself:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work.

~ 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ~

The Bible is not the product of man but is rather God- inspired. Inspiration does not mean the biblical writer just felt enthusiastic, like the composer of the "Star Spangled Banner." Nor does it mean the writings are necessarily inspiring to read, like an uplifting poem. The biblical Greek word for inspiration literally means "God-breathed." Because Scripture is breathed out by God - because it originates from Him - it is true and inerrant.

Biblical inspiration may be defined as God's superintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities - and even their writing styles - they composed and recorded without error His revelation to humankind in the words of the original autographs.

In other words, the original documents of the Bible were written by men, who, though permitted to exercise their own personalities and literary talents, wrote under the control and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the result being a perfect and errorless recording of the exact message God desired to give to man.

The writers of Scripture were not mere writing machines. God did not use them like keys on a typewriter to mechanically reproduce His message. Nor did He dictate the words, page by page. The biblical evidence makes it clear that each writer had a style of his own. (Isaiah had a powerful literary style; Jeremiah had a mournful tone; Luke's style had medical overtones; and John was very simple in his approach.) The Holy Spirit infallibly worked through each of these writers, through their individual styles, to inerrantly communicate His message to humankind.

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man,
but men spoke from God as they were
carried along by the Holy Spirit.

~ 2 Peter 1:21 ~

The phrase "carried along" in this verse literally means "forcefully borne along." Even though human beings were used in the process of writing down God's Word, they were all literally "borne along" by the Holy Spirit. The human wills of the authors were not the originators of God's message. God did not permit the will of sinful human beings to misdirect or erroneously record His message. Rather, God moved and the prophet mouthed these truths; God revealed and man recorded His word.

Interestingly, the Greek word for "carried along" in 2 Peter 1:21 is the same as that found in Acts 27:15-17. In this passage the experienced sailors could not navigate the ship because the wind was so strong. The ship was being driven, directed, and carried along by the wind.

This is similar to the Spirit's driving, directing, and carrying the human authors of the Bible as He wished. The word is a strong one, indicating the Spirit's complete superintendence of the human authors. Yet, just as the sailors were active on the ship (though the wind, not the sailors, ultimately controlled the ship's movement), so the human authors were active in writing as the Spirit directed.

This is what we speak,
not in words taught us by human wisdom
but in words taught by the Spirit,
expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

~ 1 Corinthians 2:13 ~

In this passage Paul (who wrote over half the New Testament) affirmed that his words were authoritative because they were rooted not in fallible men but infallible God (the Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth who was promised to the apostles to teach and guide them into all the truth.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes,
he will guide you into all truth.
He will not speak on his own;
he will speak only what he hears,
and he will tell you what is yet to come.

~ John 16:13 ~

And we also thank God continually because,
when you received the word of God,
which you heard from us,
you accepted it not as the word of men,
but as it actually is, the word of God,
which is at work in you who believe.

~ 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ~

The reason why Paul's words were authoritative is that they were rooted in God, not in man. God used Paul as His instrument to communicate His word to man.

According to TDVC...

"The New Testament is based on fabrications." (Page 341)

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

The New Testament is not made up of fairytales but is rather based on eyewitness testimony.

We did not follow cleverly invented stories
when we told you about the power
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

~ 2 Peter 1:16 ~

That which was from the beginning,
which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked at
and our hands have touched -
this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."

~ 1 John 1:1 ~

So convinced were these and other eyewitnesses that they ended up giving their lives in defense of what they knew to be true.

According to TDVC...

"The Bible... has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book." (Page 231)

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

Dan Brown can only argue this way by ignoring well-established facts.

First, while there have been numerous translations of the Bible into a variety of languages, each such translation utilizes the same basic set of Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies of the original writings of the Bible. There are more than 5,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now. Following are some highlights:

* The Chester Beatty papyrus (P45) dates to the 3rd century A.D., and contains the four Gospels and the Book of Acts (chapters 4-17). (P = papyrus.)

* The Chester Beatty papyrus (P46) dates to about A.D. 200, and contains ten Pauline epistles (all but the Pastorals) and the Book of Hebrews.

* The Chester Beatty papyrus (P47) dates to the 3rd century A.D., and contains Revelation 9:10-17:2.

* The Bodmer Papyrus (P66) dates to about A.D. 200, and contains the Gospel of John.

* The Bodmer Papyrus (P75) dates to the early 3rd century, and contains Luke and John.

* The Sinaiticus uncial manuscript dates to the 4th century, and contains the entire New Testament.

* The Vaticanus uncial manuscript dates to the 4th century, and contains most of the New Testament except Hebrews 9:14ff., the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Revelation.

* The Washingtonianus uncial manuscript dates to the early 5th century, and contains the Gospels.

* The Alexandrinus uncial manuscript dates to the 5th century, and contains most of the New Testament.

* The Ephraemi Rescriptus uncial manuscript dates to the 5th century, and contains portions of every book except 2 Thessalonians and 2 John.

* The Bezae/Cantabrigiensis uncial manuscript dates to the 5th century, and contains the Gospels and Acts.

* The Claromontanus uncial manuscript dates to the 6th century and contains the Pauline epistles and Hebrews.

* The Itala version (versions were prepared for missionary purposes) dates to the 3rd century.

* The Vulgate version dates to the 4th century and later.

* The Syriac version dates to the 2nd to 6th centuries.

* The Coptic version dates to the 3rd and 4th centuries.

* The Armenian version dates to the 5th century.

* The Georgian version dates to the 5th century.

There are also some 86,000 quotations of the New Testament from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

In fact, there are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single manuscript copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

What about the variants that exist among the biblical manuscripts?

It is true to say that in the thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 200,000 "variants." This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind, but to people who study the issue, the numbers of variants are not so damning as it may initially appear. Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.

To begin, I must emphasize that out of these 200,000 variants, over 99% hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words. When all the facts are put on the table, only about 40 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them. For more than 99% of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have 5 manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies is different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:

Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #4: Jesus is Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the wrld.

Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 200,000 variants are solved by the above methodology. By comparing the various manuscripts, most of which contain relatively minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Let's talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls. In these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts previously in our possession (which dated to A.D. 980). The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes. The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.

The copy of the Book of Isaiah discovered at Qumran illustrates this accuracy. Dr. Gleason Archer, who personally examined both the A.D. 980 and 150 B.C. copies of Isaiah, comments:

"Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work. These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word. Hence they went to incredible lengths to insure that no error crept into their work. The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to guarantee accuracy.

Scholar L. Bevan Jones writes:

"The Massoretes... numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. They enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them; and so on. These trivialities, as we might rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot or tittle - not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter - of the Law should pass away or be lost."

Regarding Brown's claim that the New Testament has gone through numerous revisions, as if changes have been made century by century:

* Within the first few centuries of Christianity, there were thousands of copies of the Bible dispersed over a large part of the world. To successfully revise or make a change in the Bible, all these copies would have to be meticulously gathered (assuming people around the world would be willing to surrender them, an impossible-to-believe scenario), and then the changes made.

* Another scenario is that thousands of Bible-owning people from around the world met together and colluded to make the changes. But since most of these people were true believers, is it likely they would tamper with a book upon which they were basing their eternal salvation? Would such collusion even be physically possible?

* Within the first few centuries of Christianity, the Bible was translated into a number of languages. Are we to believe these various translations were identically altered all over the world so they would have a uniform revision?

* Scholar William J. Saal raises the point that if Christians corrupted the New Testament, wouldn't unflattering episodes about Christians have been removed from the New Testament (like Peter denying Christ three times, and the disciples scattering like a bunch of faithless cowards when Christ was arrested)? One would think so.

In my view, the almighty God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture. Further, God's preservational work is illustrated in the very text of the Bible. By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament (keeping in mind that Jesus did not have in His possession the original books penned by the Old Testament writers, but possessed only copies), we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Bible scholar Greg Bahnsen writes:

"Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first- century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given. Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative."

The respect Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is an expression of their confidence that God providentially preserved these copies and translations so that they were substantially identical with the inspired originals. We can deduce that the same is true regarding the New Testament and God's preservation of the entire Bible through history.

"I warn everyone who hears the words
of the prophecy of this book:
If anyone adds anything to them,
God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes words away
from this book of prophecy,
God will take away from him his share
in the tree of life and in the holy city,
which are described in this book."

~ Revelation 22:18 -19 ~

The Jews were also given similar commands in the Old Testament.

"Do not add to what I command you
and do not subtract from it,
but keep the commands of the LORD your God
that I give you."

~ Deuteronomy 4:2 ~

"See that you do all I command you;
do not add to it or take away from it."

~ Deuteronomy 12:32 ~

"Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

~ Proverbs 30:5-6 ~

In view of such verses, one must ask how feasible it is to suggest that Bible-believing Christians would choose to corrupt and change God's Word? Such individuals would not only be damning themselves before God, but also misleading all their descendants (their children and their children's children) who would read the very Scriptures they corrupted. How likely is that?

Were There 80 Gospels Competing for Inclusion in the New Testament?

According to TDVC...

"More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." (Page 231)

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

Such a view is absolute nonsense. Aside from the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), history reveals there were only twelve other gospels in circulation during this general time, and these were clearly not "inspired Scripture". And there are only about 40 known gospels for which full copies remain, or parts of their text exist, or references have been made in other surviving writings. There were also Gnostic gospels that emerged later, but these are too late to be counted.

The four gospels in our present Bible were chosen for good reason. First, early in church history, four centers of Christianity emerged: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexander, and Rome. These centers of Christianity used the four gospels in our present Bible.

Christian leaders who lived between A.D. 95 and 170 consistently point to the reliability of the New Testament Gospels. Following is a sampling.

1. CLEMENT. Clement was a leading elder in the church at Rome. In his epistle to the Corinthians (c. A.D. 95), he cites portions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and introduces them as the actual words of Jesus.8

2. PAPIAS. Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia and author of Exposition of Oracles of the Lord (c. A.D. 130), cites the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, presumably as canonical. He specifically refers to John's Gospel as containing the words of Jesus.9

3. JUSTIN MARTYR. Justin Martyr, foremost apologist of the second century (A.D. 140), considered all four Gospels to be Scripture.10

4. THE DIDACHE. The Didache, an ancient manual of Christianity that dates between the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century, cites portions of the three synoptic Gospels and refers to them as the words of Jesus. This manual quotes extensively from Matthew's gospel.11

5. POLYCARP. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, quotes portions of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and refers to them as the words of Jesus (c. A.D. 150).12

6. IRENAEUS. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp (c. A.D. 170), quoted from twenty-three of the twenty-seven New Testament books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John.13

7. The Muratorian Fragment dates to about A.D. 175, and lists the four canonical gospels. Indeed, it lists 23 of the 27 books in the New Testament.

8. Papyrus 45, dated around A.D. 200, has all four canonical gospels together.

Clearly, there are many early sources dating between A.D. 95 and 150 that refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as containing the actual words of Christ. History is therefore on the side of the New Testament Gospels.

Did Constantine Choose What Books Belong in the Bible for Political Purposes?

According to TDVC...

"The modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda ... to solidify their own power base." (Page 234)

"Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned." (Page 234)

"The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore, any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus' life had to be omitted from the Bible." (Page 244)

TDVC - EXPOSED!!!

Such a view is nonsense! History is quite clear regarding the activities of Constantine, and one thing he had virtually nothing to do with was the canon of Scripture. The books of the Bible were accepted as divinely-inspired Scripture and circulated and read by the church long before the emperor Constantine.

A number of the New Testament books were recognized as belonging in the canon right there in New Testament times, far before Constantine was even born.

For the Scripture says,
"Do not muzzle the ox
while it is treading out the grain,"[a]
and "The worker deserves his wages."[b]

~ 1 Timothy 5:18 ~

[a] Deut. 25:4
[b] Luke 10:7

In this verse, the apostle Paul joined an Old Testament reference and a New Testament reference and called them both (collectively) "Scripture" (Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). It would not have been unusual in the context of first-century Judaism for an Old Testament passage to be called "Scripture." But for a New Testament book to be called "Scripture" so soon after it was written says volumes about Paul's view of the authority of contemporary New Testament books.

More specifically, only 3 years had elapsed between the writing of Luke's Gospel and the writing of 1 Timothy (Luke was written around A.D. 60; 1 Timothy was written around A.D. 63). Yet, despite this, Paul (himself a Jew - a "Hebrew of Hebrews") does not hesitate to place Luke on the same level of authority as the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy.

Later, when the heretic Marcion emerged on the scene (who came up with his own false canon), it became necessary for the church to formally put in concrete a list of canonical books. When the church made this formal pronouncement, it simply affirmed the books that had already been accepted as canonical by the church at large.

It was like a final "stamp of approval".

The basic rules that guided recognition of the canon are as follows, listed in question format:

1. Was the book written or backed by a prophet or apostle of God?

This is the single most important test. The reasoning here is that the Word of God which is inspired by the Spirit of God for the people of God must be communicated through a man of God. Only a prophet of God will speak the Word of God.

I will raise up for them a prophet like you
from among their brothers;
I will put my words in his mouth,
and he will tell them everything I command him.

~ Deuteronomy 18:18 ~

Above all, you must understand that
no prophecy of Scripture came about
by the prophet's own interpretation.
For prophecy never had its origin
in the will of man,
but men spoke from God as they were
carried along by the Holy Spirit.

~ 2 Peter 1:20-21 ~

In Galatians 1:1-24 the apostle Paul argued support for the Book of Galatians by appealing to the fact that he was an authorized messenger of God, an apostle.

2. Is the book authoritative?

In other words, can it be said of this book as it was said of Jesus, "The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law" (Mark 1:22). Put another way, does this book ring with the sense of, "Thus saith the Lord"?

3. Does the book tell the truth about God and doctrine as it is already known by previous revelation?

The Bereans searched the OT Scriptures to see whether Paul's teaching was true.

Now the Bereans were of more
noble character than the Thessalonians,
for they received the message
with great eagerness
and examined the Scriptures every day
to see if what Paul said was true.

~ Acts 17:11 ~

They knew that if Paul's teaching did not accord with the Old Testament canon, it could not be of God. Agreement with all earlier revelation is essential (Gal. 1:8).

But even if we or an angel from heaven
should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to you,
let him be eternally condemned!

~ Galatians 1:8 ~

4. Does the book give evidence of having the power of God?

Any writing that does not exhibit the transforming power of God in the lives of its readers could not have come from God.

For the word of God is living and active.
Sharper than any double-edged sword,
it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit,
joints and marrow;
it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

~ Hebrews 4:12 ~

If the book in question did not have the power to change a life, then, the book could not have come from God.

5. Was the book accepted by the people of God?

In Old Testament times, Moses's scrolls were placed immediately into the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). Joshua's writings were added in the same fashion (Joshua 24:26). In the New Testament, Paul thanked the Thessalonians for receiving the apostle's message as the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Paul's letters were circulated among the churches (Colossians 4: 16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). It is the norm that God's people - that is, the majority of them and not simply a faction - will initially receive God's Word as such.

In the interest of accuracy, there were some books that were doubted for a time, but not for long. The books that were doubted for a time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Hebrews was doubted because the author of the book was unknown. However, the book eventually came to be viewed as having apostolic authority, if not apostolic authorship.

James was doubted because of its apparent conflict with Paul's teaching about salvation by faith alone. The conflict was resolved by seeing the works James speaks of as an outgrowth of real faith.

2nd Peter was doubted because the style of this book differs from that of 1st Peter. It seems clear, however, that Peter used a scribe to write 1 Peter (see 1 Peter 5:12). So a style conflict is not really a problem.

2nd and 3rd John were doubted because the author of these books is called "elder," not "apostle." However, Peter (an apostle) is also called "elder" in 1 Peter 5:1. So it seems clear that the same person can be both an elder and an apostle.

Jude was doubted because it refers to two noncanonical books - the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. This objection was eventually overcome because even Paul quoted from pagan poets (see Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12). Moreover, Jude enjoyed early acceptance by most of the early believers.

The Book of Revelation was doubted because it teaches a thousand-year reign of Christ. Since there was a local contemporary cult that taught the same, it was reasoned that Revelation must not be true Scripture. However, because many of the earliest church fathers believed in a thousand-year reign of Christ too, this objection was eventually seen as being without merit.

One thing is certain. The biblical canon was firmly established long before Constantine's time. Hence, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is woefully inaccurate on this issue.

(For more info, click here.)