Feed me

[Jagg]

Hi, i have just read and seen the Da Vinci Code story/movie and what really fascinates my mind is that the author claimed all the accounts he wrote was accurate based on his research. So, is Constantine really was a pagan worshipper? Did he re-make the Bible?

[Timothy Leary]

Constantine was a pagan.

Did he rewrite the New Testament? That's something I doubt can be proven false or true.

[Soyeong]

There was a time when I could hardly move without seeing another article debunking the Da Vinci Code. There are plenty of articles out there, even some on this site, so it should not be too hard to find one.

[Amazing Rando]

Hi, i have just read and seen the Da Vinci Code story/movie and what really fascinates my mind is that the author claimed all the accounts he wrote was accurate based on his research. So, is Constantine really was a pagan worshipper? Did he re-make the Bible?

Constantine, while professing Christianity, remained the Pontifex Maximus of the pagan cult of the Unconquered Sun until his death- although he was given a Christian baptism on his deathbed, if that counts for anything.

But the major books of the New Testament (i.e. the gospels, Acts, and Pauline epistles) were set and agreed upon as canon long before Constantine.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .what really fascinates my mind is that the author claimed all the accounts he wrote was accurate based on his research. . .

Hi Jagg, and welcome to Tweb. I did quite a bit of research & whatnot a while back on the DVC. One of the points overlooked by many of the refutations concerned the appalling lack of quality research by Dan Brown. This was one of the major features of the court case when the writers of Holy Blood Holy Grail took Brown to court for plagarism. The court case findings are available online, in particular you want to read the judge's summing up. You should be able to find links from here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,923-2085827,00.html#

Several others here have done quite extensive research into the DVC. Feel free to PM me, or ask further questions you may have in this thread. I'll look out for them.

Cheers

:johnny:

[James Peter]

Constantine, while professing Christianity, remained the Pontifex Maximus of the pagan cult of the Unconquered Sun until his death- although he was given a Christian baptism on his deathbed, if that counts for anything.

But the major books of the New Testament (i.e. the gospels, Acts, and Pauline epistles) were set and agreed upon as canon long before Constantine.

I wouldn't say 'as canon' but the four gospels, for example, were certainly accepted in 90%+ of Churches by the time of Constantine. Same with quite a few other NT books.

I'd suggest that while there was 'deliberate corruption' of a number of texts that probably happened prior to Constantine in proto-Orthodox circles.

The main point though is that, in the time of Constantine, there wasn't a bible to rewrite so it would be pretty hard to rewrite it!

[DesertBerean]

Wow, the DVC has some life left in it.

Dan Brown's claims on the accuracy of his research has been soundly trounced by scholars and knowledgeable people of all stripes. I understand some of the nonsense was revised in the movie - I haven't seen the movie and I still don't know if I should bother - I understand the changes had to do with the very false claim that the divinity of Jesus was decided by a close vote - a far cry from what actually happened at Nicea.

Like Soyeong said, there was a time one couldn't go anywhere without tripping over something debunking Brown's claims. If you're really interested, do just let us know and I'm sure you'll get a lot of lists to read.

[Amazing Rando]

I wouldn't say 'as canon' but the four gospels, for example, were certainly accepted in 90%+ of Churches by the time of Constantine. Same with quite a few other NT books.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Eusebius' discussion of the canon in his Ecclesiastical History gives a pretty good picture of where things were as far as canonization at the time of Constantine- there were books that were definitely in, such as the gospels and most of Paul's letters, books that were questionable, and books that were definitely out. From what I've read in Eusebius, there was a deliberate process underway to try and reach agreement on an established canon, though that process certainly wasn't completed until a few decades after Eusebius.

[James Peter]

Yeah but Eusebius' view of history is...shall we say... three parts theological opinion on what should have happened and one part selective use of facts. Honestly, simply trusting Eusebius for any aspect of Church History is a bad idea.

[robto]

After Constantine accepted Christianity as the official religion of the Empire he had 50 copies of the Scriptures made to be distributed to the major churches. The canon was certainly NOT settled at that time, as Eusebius's remarks make clear. So the question was, what books should these Bibles include?

It's not clear what books were included in these bibles. No one knows if any of the 50 copies survived, but some scholars think that the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus may be part of the 50. (It is interesting to note that Siniaiticus includes the letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas as part of the New Testament - again showing that the canon wasn't yet settled in the 4th century AD.)

Certainly these "official" Bibles must have been influential on other churches who had their own Bibles made. But it's pretty silly to claim that Constantine "remade" the NT. As far as I know, there's no evidence that he insisted on including certain books or excluding others. He called on Eusebius, one of the great Christian scholars of his time, to oversee the process.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Eusebius' discussion of the canon in his Ecclesiastical History gives a pretty good picture of where things were as far as canonization at the time of Constantine- there were books that were definitely in, such as the gospels and most of Paul's letters, books that were questionable, and books that were definitely out. From what I've read in Eusebius, there was a deliberate process underway to try and reach agreement on an established canon, though that process certainly wasn't completed until a few decades after Eusebius.

I don't see how you can claim there was a "deliberate process". Eusebius lists many of our modern NT books as "disputed", but doesn't indicate that there was any official process for resolving disputes. The church councils didn't make any pronouncements on the NT canon until the late 4th century.

[Cynic Sage]

Hi, i have just read and seen the Da Vinci Code story/movie and what really fascinates my mind is that the author claimed all the accounts he wrote was accurate based on his research. So, is Constantine really was a pagan worshipper? Did he re-make the Bible?

If you're looking for an good contra-code argument, here's a good place to start:

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm (http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm)

[Amazing Rando]

Yeah but Eusebius' view of history is...shall we say... three parts theological opinion on what should have happened and one part selective use of facts. Honestly, simply trusting Eusebius for any aspect of Church History is a bad idea.

But as a snapshot of ecclesiastical thought in the mid 4th century, he's pretty much unparalleled. I think he offers a fair and balanced summary of the state of the development of the canon at the time he wrote.

[Amazing Rando]

I don't see how you can claim there was a "deliberate process". Eusebius lists many of our modern NT books as "disputed", but doesn't indicate that there was any official process for resolving disputes. The church councils didn't make any pronouncements on the NT canon until the late 4th century.

I meant that the "deliberate process" was that at the time Eusebius was writing, effors were under way to finalize the canon. They were attempting to set the canonical limits of the New testament, although this was not completed ultil several decades after Eusebius.

[James Peter]

But as a snapshot of ecclesiastical thought in the mid 4th century, he's pretty much unparalleled. I think he offers a fair and balanced summary of the state of the development of the canon at the time he wrote.

Oh yeah, Eusebius is great if you want to learn about Eusebius and his views on his peers. Its just not great if you want to use his Church History to learn about Church History...