It is sometimes suggested that the New Testament as we know it did not exist until centuries after Jesus, and that the books comprising the New Testament were not considered divine or authoritative until much later than the first century.

One problem with the theory that the books in our New Testament were not considered Scripture in the first century is that the authors of the New Testament books specifically refer to the other author’s books as being Scripture! Take a look at 2 Peter 3:15-16:

Bear 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. He 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.

Here Peter refers to the wisdom found in Paul’s letters. Note Peter’s wording: He says Paul’s letters contain things that are hard to understand just like the other Scriptures. Peter considered at least some of Paul’s letters to be Scripture, equal in authority to the Old Testament.

I came across another passage this week that seems to treat other New Testament books as Scripture, 1 Timothy 5:18:

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

The first quote is from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second is not found in the Old Testament, but it is found in the New Testament. Albert Barnes notes in his commentary that “This expression is found substantially in Matt 10:10, and Luke 10:7. It does not occur in so many words in the Old Testament, and yet the apostle adduces it evidently as a quotation from the Scriptures, and as authority in the case. It would seem probable, therefore, that he had seen the Gospel by Matthew or by Luke, and that he quoted this as a part of Scripture, and regarded the Book from which he made the quotation as of the same authority as the Old Testament. If so, then this may be regarded as an attestation of the apostle to the inspiration of the “Gospel” in which it was found.” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, via e-sword)

Kinda throws cold water on the whole “Constantine put together his own collection of scriptures” myth eh? (Sorry couldn’t help referencing The Da Vinci Code again!)

There’s an interesting book that I haven’t been able to finish reading yet called The First Edition of the New Testament by Dr David Trobisch, which posits the theory that the New Testament we know today was first compiled (in a form identical to or very similar to its present form) in the early 2nd century, not in the 4th century as it is often assumed. It’s an interesting but somewhat difficult read, probably in part because it’s been translated from its original German form. It’s also expensive ($45) considering it’s only 184 pages. I’ll finish reading it next semester when I’m back at the school library.

Okay, after writing for the Discuss Da Vinci Blog (a dozen or so posts plus several dozen replies in the comments, some of them to some real … uh, “characters” …) I’ve had pretty much enough of Dan “it’s true, absolutely all of it, errr, except when it’s proven wrong or inconvenient for me” Brown’s novel.

However, I had to post this. An excellent documentary called The Real Da Vinci Code (hosted by Tony Robinson and originally broadcast a year or so ago) is now available on DVD. I highly encourage anyone who’s interested in the issues raised by the book to watch this documentary. It’s both scholarly and entertaining. Buy it from Amazon.com ($13.99US) or from your local DVD store.

The entire thing is also available to watch online for free here: The Real Da Vinci Code on Google Video (1 hour 41 minutes). Of course, since they are now (finally) selling a legit DVD version, you should really buy the DVD in addition to watching it online. Besides, it loses something watching it on the blurry Google Video box, especially when they are showing the documents, beautiful architecture, etc.

Further reading:

• TheLife.com’s Da Vinci Code site - Many useful articles.
• Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code - Some of the criticisms of the book & movie (Wikipedia entry).
• Glad you asked that: A Da Vinci Code primer - Answers to common questions.

It’s the most controversial and shocking new interpretation of Leonardo’s work since The Da Vinci Code: It’s The Da Vinci Toad!

Expert art historian Teabing Saunière^* commented that “This novel new vision of Leonardo’s art easily equals Dan Brown’s novel in terms of historical accuracy. When you look closely at the Mona Lisa, you can clearly see a mostly dry looking, airy landscape, perfectly suited for toads. And what of Mona Lisa’s enigmatic smirk? Leonardo even mentions toads in his own notebooks! Based on this evidence, I think we can conclude that the Mona Lisa was really based on a toad.”

Further reading on The Da Vinci Code:

• TheLife.com’s Da Vinci Code site - Many useful articles
• CBN.com’s Da Vinci Code Response - Features an easy to read comparison of the novel versus reality
• Discuss Da Vinci - Blog covering many issues arising from The Da Vinci Code book & film

Someone posted a comment on the Discuss Da Vinci Blog recently in the “Ultimate Da Vinci Code Question: Who is Jesus?” thread, where they commented “Lighten up, it’s just a stupid (fictional!) book. Faith is a personal thing. If your faith is strong, it shouldn’t be threatened by some hack’s novel.” Of course this comment didn’t really have much to do with the content of the original post. I replied, noting that Dan Brown doesn’t think that The Da Vinci Code is “just a stupid (fictional!) book” (see the “Ultimate Question” article above). I then linked some articles about some of the things Brown got wrong in the book. The person’s next comment was succinct: “Like I said emmzee, lighten up. Don’t be hatin’!”

This kind of attitude annoys me. Where did the idea that disagreeing with someone is “hatin” come from? I don’t hate Dan Brown, he’s free to believe whatever incorrect theories he wants, but he’s still wrong. And while some may view the issues discussed in The Da Vinci Code as unimportant, I certainly don’t. So why shouldn’t I try to correct the gross errors present in the work? As stated before, tolerance is only possible when people disagree; it is, to use the dictionary definition, “capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others”. Tolerance presupposes disagreement, and stating facts, if done in a respectful manner, is not “hatin”.