Now we move to the first subject of central significance: the trustworthiness of the Bible.  Remember again that Mr. Brown claims his depictions of documents to be accurate.  We'll investigate this issue in three parts: the creation of the biblical canon (the list of books to be included), the trustworthiness of the Bible we possess today, and the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic gospels.

The creation of the canon

Historian Teabing calls the creation of the Bible "The fundamental irony of Christianity!" and asserts, "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great" (p. 231).  If this is true, the Bible we have today was produced by a process which occurred around AD 325.  Let's look at the actual facts.

The Old Testament canon was finalized by two councils held at the city of Jamnia, one in AD 90 and the other in AD 118.  The actual books which compose our Old Testament were in wide use for centuries before, and in fact had been translated into Greek 200 years before these councils met.  They in no sense "created" the Old Testament.  And they completed their work two centuries before Constantine.

Perhaps Teabing means the canonical process of the New Testament.  Here the facts are just as damaging to his case.

The early Christians quickly developed four criteria for accepting a book as Scripture.  First, it must have been written by an apostle or based on his eyewitness testimony.  Second, the book must possess merit and authority in its use.  For instance, The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ tells of a man who is changed into a mule by a bewitching spell but converted back to manhood when the infant Christ is put on his back for a ride (7:5-27).  In the same book, the boy Jesus causes clay birds and animals to come to life (ch. 15), stretches a throne his father had made too small (ch. 16), and takes the lives of boys who oppose him (19.19-24).  It was easy to dismiss such fiction.

Third, a book must come to be accepted by the entire church, not just a single congregation or area.  And last, a book must be approved by the decision of the larger church, not just a few advocates.

Here is how this process unfolded.  In the first century, a number of books were soon produced in response to the ministry of Jesus.  As an example, Peter told his readers, "[Paul] 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 to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).  Thus Peter considered Paul's writings to be "Scripture."

Other less reputable books began to appear as well.  Among them was the Protoevangelion, purporting to supply details of the birth of Christ; two books on the infancy of Christ, one claiming to be written by Thomas; and the Gospel of Nicodemus, sometimes called the Acts of Pontius Pilate.  However, by the mid-second century only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted universally by the church.  The other "gospels" simply did not meet the four criteria for acceptance set out above.

Note that this process was completed two centuries before Contantine.  For example, in AD 115 Ignatius referred to the four gospels of our New Testament as "the gospel"; in AD 170, Tatian made a "harmony of the gospels" using only these four; around AD 180, Irenaeus referred to the four gospels as firmly established in the church.

The Muratorian Canon was established around AD 200, representing the usage of the church at Rome at that time.  The list omitted James, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John, and Hebrews (all due to authorship questions), though these were soon included in later canons.  It excluded all gospels but the four in our Bible today.  And it did so more than a century before Constantine.

The New Testament list we use today was set forth by Athanasius in A.D. 367.  His list was approved by church councils meeting at Hippo Regius in 393 and Carthage in 397.  Again, these decisions did not create the New Testament.  They simply recognized what the Church had viewed as Scripture for generations.  And Constantine had nothing to do with these decisions.  I checked several histories on the Council of Nicaea, where Teabing says the emperor created the Bible, and could find no connection whatever.

F. F. Bruce was one of the world's foremost authorities on the creation of the Bible canon.  His opinion should be considered: "One thing must be emphatically stated.  The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. . . . what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."

The trustworthiness of the Bible

Next we turn to the trustworthiness and authenticity of the Bible as we have it today.  "Historian" Teabing claims, "Because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man.  To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke.  From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. . . . 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" (p. 234, emphasis his).  Remember what we have already noted--that Constantine had nothing to do with a "new Bible."

Teabing's assertions grow even more damaging to orthodox Christianity: "The Bible is a product of man, my dear.  Not of God.  The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds.  Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions.  History has never had a definitive version of the book" (p. 231, emphasis his).  Later he adds with a chuckle that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible (p. 256).

What are the facts behind his assertions?

Note what the Bible claims about itself.  Jesus said, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jn 10.35).  The author of Hebrews adds, "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" (Heb 4:12).  And Paul concludes, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16).

But we might expect the Bible to claim to be the trustworthy word of God.  Is there objective historical evidence for or against this assertion?

Consider first the manuscript evidence (known as the "bibliographic" test by scholars).  No original manuscripts exist for any ancient book.  Writing materials were too fragile to stand the passage of centuries.  This is the case for Aristotle, Plato, Julius Caesar, the writings of Buddha and the Koran just as much as it is for the Old and New Testaments. 

However, we possess today some 5,000 ancient Greek copies of the New Testament, and 10,000 copies in other ancient languages.  Latin and Coptic copies go back to the second century; fragments of papyrus documents go back to AD 130.  Quotations in the writings of early church fathers date to A.D. 100.  Complete versions of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters and Hebrews date to the early part of the third century; Revelation to the latter half.  Complete volumes of the New Testament date to the 4th century.  Note that each predates Constantine.

Now compare these manuscripts with other ancient documents.  Of Caesar's Gallic Wars, we have today only nine or ten good manuscripts, none copied earlier than 900 years after Caesar.  For the Histories of Tacitus, we have only 4½ of his 14 original books, none copied earlier than the 10th century A.D.  For Aristotle's works, we possess only five manuscripts of any one volume, none copied earlier than A.D. 1100 (14 centuries after the original).

Manuscript evidence for the New Testament is remarkable, far surpassing that which exists for any other ancient book.  And those who work with these ancient copies (called "textual critics") are convinced that they have been able to recover a Greek New Testament which is virtually identical to the original.  Quoting F.F. Bruce again, "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."

This evidence does not prove that the Bible is the word of God.  But it does demonstrate conclusively that the Bible you have is the same which was first written by its authors.  When Teabing asserts, "History has never had a definitive version of the book" and claims that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible, he's simply wrong.

Let's look next at the evidence of archaeology.  Such findings continue to confirm the geographical and historical veracity of the biblical texts.  For instance, the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2ff) was once dismissed as historical fiction.  Now archaeologists locate it in the northeast quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.  I've seen it.

Researchers have identified the remains of Caiaphas, the high priest of Jesus' trial and crucifixion.  They have discovered the skeleton of Yohanan, a crucifixion victim from AD 70, and note that these remains confirm the details of Jesus' crucifixion as it is described in the gospels.  Archaeological evidence strongly supports the trustworthiness of the biblical narratives.

Last, consider the evidence of fulfilled prophecy.  At least 48 major Messianic prophecies can be identified in the Old Testament.  Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled each one.  Endeavoring to determine the odds of such a phenomenon, mathematician Peter Stoner isolated eight of these 48 prophecies.  He then calculated the odds that any one person might have fulfilled them all.

Stoner determined those odds to be one in 10 to the 17th power (one followed by 17 zeroes).  Visualize the number this way: take this number in silver dollars and lay them across the state of Texas.  They will cover the entire state, two feet deep.  Now mark one of those silver dollars.  Blindfold a man and tell him he can travel as far as he likes, but he must pick up one silver dollar.  What are the chances he will pick the one you marked?  the same The same odds that the prophets would have had of writing those eight prophecies and having them all fulfilled in one person.

Of course, billions of people across 20 centuries can attest to the fact that the teachings of the Bible have been proven true and authoritative in their personal lives.  But even such overwhelming subjective evidence to the side, there is still outstanding evidential reason to believe that the Bible is the trustworthy word of God.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic gospels

Let's consider one last area within the subject of biblical transmission and authority.  Listen again to Mr. Teabing: "Fortunately for historians . . . some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert.  And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi.  In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms. . . . The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda--to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base" (p. 234).  Teabing later calls the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls "the earliest Christian records" (p. 245).

The Dead Sea Scrolls were actually found in 1947-56, and contain only the Old Testament.  There is absolutely no New Testament document among them.  They have nothing to do with any agenda to "promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ."  No one can figure out why Mr. Brown included them in "the earliest Christian records."

The Coptic Scrolls at Nag Hammadi are not "the earliest Christian records," either.  We possess quotations and biblical copies which are much older than them.  And these are decidedly not "Christian" records.

Gnostic philosophy in brief centered in gnosis ("knowledge") is the means of salvation, particularly a kind of esoteric knowledge which was thought to purify the soul.  According to this worldview, the physical is evil but the spiritual is good.  The man Jesus took on the divine Christ principle at his baptism, and lost it at his crucifixion.  This mystery knowledge is the basis for salvation.

Paul wrote Colossians to combat a very early version of this heresy.  The documents which describe its beliefs do not give us the "earliest Christian records," but records of heretical philosophy.  Mr. Brown uses these "Christian" records to promote his thesis that Jesus was a man, and that he and Mary Magdalene were married.  We'll discuss these assertions when we come to the section dealing with this topic.

In conclusion

The DaVinci Code claims its depictions of documents to be accurate.  However, its assertions regarding the creation of the biblical canon, the trustworthiness of the Bible, and early "Christian" records cannot stand the scrutiny of historical investigation.  By contrast, theologian J. I. Packer calls the Bible, "God preaching."  Augustine described it as "love letters from home."  The more we know about the facts behind the biblical text, the more we see that the Bible is what it claims to be: the written word of God.