The
Da Vinci Code versus the Facts
By Steve Morrison
Over the past few years, would you believe that Martians have landed innumerable times, Jesus Christ has returned at least ten times, wild rhinoceroses terrified horses in Minnesota the 19th century until they were lured to Canada, Einstein created a “Franck-Einstein Monster”, or that you can get psychic readings in 7 minutes that have never failed? You might if you believed everything in tabloids such as the Weekly World News and The National Enquirer. Would this kind of writing be more believable in book form?
Many see Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, as only a little more accurate than the above examples. But why shouldn’t we give his book a break, since after all, it is in the fiction section. The danger here, however, is Dan Brown said, in an interview, that if he were writing a non-fiction book, we would not change any of the historical assertions of the novel.
While I am not aware of Dan Brown ever writing for tabloids, you have to give him credit that his talltale strategy has been successful; it has sold over 40 million copies, and he has an estimated worth of around $56 million. Part of his book’s success is due to its outrageous claims such as:
X Until 325 A.D., Jesus was viewed as a mortal prophet, not the Son of God. p.233
X More than 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament p.231
X Today’s Bible was collated by
X Nag Hammadi Gnostics deserve to be called other Christianities p.234
X “Jesus’ establishment of Jesus as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea. – A relatively close vote at that,” p.233
X Original Christianity had a feminine goddess, and sexuality is divine, etc. p.237-239,434,444-446
There are other similar claims too.
These are easy to refute, and many scholars have already refuted this book on a point-by-point basis. Some of these books and web sites are in the appendix.
The focus of this article is different. Rather than asking why Dan Brown selectively ignored history, or asking why he wrote a book like this, (which made millions of dollars) my emphasis is on the question of why so many could think that the history presented in this book might be true.
In fact a survey in the Ottawa Citizen 6/24/2005 said that 16% of Canadians read the book, and of those, 1/3 really believed some of the claims. I think there are three reasons why some people are gullible here.
1. Abject ignorance of what early Christianity taught
2. Deception by writers claiming Gnostics were Christians too
3. Some freedom from morality
Once we are educated about these three things, then Brown’s errors become very obvious.
1. What Early Christianity Taught
To refute The Da Vinci Code, remember “64 or more”.
More than 64 Early Christian Writers: We have preserved writings from more than 64 early Christians, many of whom were bishops or famous among Christians in their time, sort of like Charles Spurgeon, D.L. Moody, Josh McDowell, or Lee Strobel of modern times. You can read a little about each of them at www.HistoryCart/EarlyChristianWriters.htm
64 Bible Books named or quoted: As they wrote on various Christian topics, most of them loved to quote Scripture: in fact they mentioned by name and/or quoted from 64 of the books of the Bible (only the short books of Obadiah and 3 John excepted). You can see a grid of some of the writers and which books they named, or quoted at www.HistoryCart.com/EarlyChristianNTReferences.htm
More than 64 Christian Doctrines: Just like Christian authors today they were not perfect, but then they did not claim to be scripture either. Sometimes they disagreed with each other on secondary points, or difficult issues such as what to do about people who left the faith and sacrificed to Roman gods, but later repented. However, they were united in teaching at least 64 doctrines of faith, experience, and practice. For doctrines attested by at least three Christian writers, and denied by none, see www.HistoryCart.com/EarlyChristianDoctrines.htm Now there are not really any surprises here. Conservative Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians have all said these things.
In addition, not only did Christians write that Jesus was God, but non-Christians wrote that Christians believed Jesus was God.
Lucian of Samosata, (also called Lucian the Greek) second century satirist, wrote about Christ, “…the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world….Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.” (The Passing Peregrinus 11-13)
Pliny the Younger was a governor of
At least 24 early Christian writers, New Testament manuscripts, and non-Christian writers all show that early Christians believed Jesus was God. So why on earth could Dan Brown’s book claim Christians did not believe Jesus was God until 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea? I suppose that perhaps Brown could have an answer to that though: “just ask my accountant!”
50 early New Testament manuscripts and fragments before ca 300 A.D. attest that we have the same text (97/98%) today as back then. All of these are even prior to the famous manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. You can see this list at www.HistoryCart.com/EarlyNTManuscripts.htm
175-200 Old Testament
Now to return to refuting Dan Brown’s book, it was universally believed there were only four gospels, the books of the Old and New Testaments, and Christian doctrine was pretty much settled. Among specific doctrines were that Christ was both God and man, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified and rose again, and that believers were to live holy and chaste lives.
But I will let the early Christian leaders speak for themselves.
Papias, who died about 163 A.D. was a disciple of John the apostle. He wrote over 5 volumes; unfortunately most of what he wrote was lost. However, the church historian Eusebius records
“he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he had made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could” Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3:39 (vol.1 p.154)
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) writes, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. … the ‘pillar and ground’ of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side.” Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.11.8
Tertullian’s Five Books Against Marcion (207/208 A.D.) book 4 ch.2 says, “We lay it down as our first position, that the Evangelist Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. … Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets.” Later he mentions a false gospel published by Marcion.
But if that was true, what about the controversy that led to the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea? It is an ignorant statement to say that Nicea was about whether Christ was God or not. Rather it was between Orthodox Christianity and Arians, who disagreed on how Christ was God. Was Christ of the same substance as the Father as Orthodox Christianity says, or was He of like or different substance, presumably less than the Father as Arians believed.
You can read at least 24 early Christian writers who said that Jesus was God, all before Nicea at: www.HistoryCart.com/EarlyChristianDoctrines.htm under Deity of Jesus Our Lord. Again, Dan Brown’s writing has dishonestly ignored a large amount of Christian writing.
Some might think it a real letdown for early Christians actually to believe the same as we do today on the essential points. However, having read through seven volumes of the early Christian writers before 325 A.D., I find it encouraging that God guided them, and us, to the same truths.
Again, the early Christian bishop, Irenaeus, says: “The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion [death], and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ...” Irenaeus Against Heresies book 1 ch.10.2 p.330.
2. Why the Nag Hammadi Gnostics are
Cannot be Called Christians
No early Gnostic would believe what Dan
Brown presents as early Christianity because of the way Brown has selectively
chosen from so-called Gnostic teachings. All of the various Gnostic schools
claimed the following:
X The God of the Old Testament, the Creator, was an evil/deluded/misled god who made a wicked mistake in creating the earth and matter. They thought the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament) was from a bad god.
X The New Testament
god, who was a different being from the evil Old Testament god, came to set
everything right.
X All early Gnostics
thought Jesus was a divine being, which totally refutes the false assertions in
Dan Brown’s book.
X Many Gnostics
believed Hercules, Jupiter, and other Greco-Roman gods were real beings in
heaven. Gnostics in general tried to mix pagan teaching with Christianity.
X In particular, the
Gospel of Thomas, which Nag Hammadi Gnostics held to, had a very low view of
women. Let’s look at some quotes.
What do you think of this “truth” from the last of the 114 teachings of
the Gospel of Thomas? Simon Peter said to Him, “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
How about the 98th saying? Jesus said, “The Kingdom of the Father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could carry through. Then he slew the powerful man.”
To see a listing of 30 Gnostic schools, go to www.HistoryCart.com/ListOfGnostics.htm.
3. True Christianity Teaches Moral and
Ethical Responsibility
So why would anyone even advocate the Gospel of Thomas or Gnosticism? This is frankly answered at www.y2gateways.com/id81.htm, (5/6/2001)
“One of the biggest differences between this Gospel and later biblical writings is that it has neither gloom nor doom, no political positioning, not a crucifixion nor resurrection in sight. The gospel recognizes Jesus as a teacher, not God. Hallelujah!”
Why would the people of the Jesus Seminar promote this? Perhaps if they did not, they would not be able to make so much money publishing books and speaking. Even a liberal scholar, Howard Clark Kee in a letter to the Los Angeles Times called the seminar “an academic disgrace” (from The Real Jesus, by Timothy Luke Johnson. p.18.)
Despite the attacks by Gnostics and modern day, unbelieving liberals, early Christians were united in believing in no sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Dan Brown goes on and on about phallic and feminine symbols in Judaism and Christianity, and how “the evil Catholic Church” repressed all this sexuality. Actually we have so many early Christian writings prior to the council of Nicea that even if it had wanted to, the Catholic Church would have been unable to suppress what early Christians really taught. Once again Dan Brown is just dead wrong.
Conclusion
Peter prophesied in 2 Peter 2:1-2 that there would be false teachers. Regardless of the historical facts, perhaps Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code “had to be written” because there was such a large market for gullible people who would hope it would be true, and had never been taught about the massive evidence of early Christianity between the New Testament times and Council of Nicea.
Recommended Books
The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code by Richard Abanes
The Gospel Code by Ben Witherington III
Cracking the Da Vinci Code by James Garlow & Peter Jones
Breaking the Da Vinci Code by Darrell Bock
Discussing the Da Vinci Code by Lee Strobel &
Garry
I learned of the survey in the Ottawa Citizen from an excellent Christian magazine, The Christian News January 9, 2006 p.3.
Recommended Web Sites
www.answeringinfidels.com/content/view/60/1/
The Da Vinci Code: Separating Fact From Fiction
[www.rbc.org/davinci/]
Deciphering The Da Vinci Code from Crosswalk - July 29, 2003 [www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=7/29/2003]
Crash Goes the Da Vinci Code by Ron Rhodes [www.leaderu.com/theology/crashdavincicode.html]
Dismantling the Da Vinci Code by Sandra Miesel
[www.leaderu.com/popculture/dismantlingdavinci.html
Not-Recommended References
The Franck-Einstein Monster was in the World Weekly News March 20, 2006 p.24.
The wild rhinoceroses menacing horses in
Psychic readings in 7 minutes that have never failed are advertised in The National Enquirer March 27, 2006 p.52.
The over 40 million copies of the Da Vinci Code sold cam from an Associated Press Article by Jill Lawless April 7, 2006.