Homepage
|
186 York Street York, Maine 03909 Telephone (207) 363-3758 email office@firstparishyork.org |
|
| The Da Vinci Code - Fact or Fiction? |
|
Homepage
|
186 York Street York, Maine 03909 Telephone (207) 363-3758 email office@firstparishyork.org |
|
| The Da Vinci Code - Fact or Fiction? |
About a year ago a good friend of mine handed me a book and said, “Read this and tell me what you think.” The book was Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. I enjoyed reading it immensely. It is truly a page-turner. You get to the end of a chapter and he’s leaves you hanging, and then he picks up another storyline. And you just have to find out what happens in the main story line, but he’s brought in another one, and by the end of that chapter there’s a cliff-hanger again and you want to find out what happens next, but then in the next chapter he picks up with the original storyline again! So you just keep reading and reading and reading.
I don’t read a lot of novels. Rarely do I find myself staying up late because I can’t put a book down. But with The Da Vinci Code, I stayed up late a number of times. I can see why it’s been on the New York Times Best Seller list for 59 straight weeks. It’s been translated into over 40 languages, and ii’s set to be made into a movie, directed by Ron Howard. It’s a wonderful book.
And yet . . . . . . there is something very troubling about the book, something that makes me very sad. It is filled with fiction presented as fact. Throughout the book the main character, Professor Robert Langdon, presents a view of church history and the origins of the New Testament that is absolutely false. Now this would not be a problem in a work of fiction, except for the fact that Dan Brown claims that everything in the book is historically accurate.
He grants very few interviews and seldom credits his sources but he claims that everything in the book is true and that when it comes to Christ, we’ve all been lied to for 2000 years. On the Today Show Matt Lauer asked Dan Brown, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred? Brown replied, “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.”
Throughout the book, Brown has “fact” pages. The first one ends with this “Fact: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
Here’s another example: “Fact: The Priory of Sion – a European Secret Society founded in 1099 – is a real organization.” I read recently from two different sources that “The Priory of Sion” was a hoax, formed in 1954, with fake and forged documents, claiming famous members like Leonardo Da Vinci.
Brown is using a literary technique. It’s been used before, to present fiction as fact. It’s also common in fiction to thrown in a few facts every so often to make the story more believable. It brings you more into the story. But many of Brown’s so-called “facts” are quite disturbing and not facts at all! They’re direct attacks at the origins and therefore integrity of our faith. He selfishly seeks to undermine the credibility of the scriptures so that the reader will be more open to his far-fetched plot-line regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
It bothered me when I read it. “How can he say that? That’s not true!” I said a lot. But as you read the book Brown’s theories come a little here and a little there, and the story just grabs you so you keep reading. Many people have asked me about the book and said it raised a lot of questions for them. In my research, I’ve pieced together the various claims made in the book. It really is a book that attacks traditional Christianity in a very clever and dangerous way, dangerous because people will use it as an excuse for spiritual apathy or to give up on Christ and his church.
One of the characters in the book, Leigh Teabing, states the thesis of the book quite clearly: “What I mean is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.”
One area Brown focuses on concerns the divinity of Christ, the divine nature of our Savior. The books states that the bishops who gathered in 325 A.D. for the Council of Nicea created a divine Christ.
“Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power.” (p. 233)
Langdon states that the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity was the result of the bishops on a chauvinistic power trip. Anyone who has read the New Testament knows that this is not true. The first apostles believed and taught the divinity of Christ. Here are just some of the key passages:
Colossians 1:15, “Christ is the image of the invisible God.”
Colossians 1:19, “In him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.”
Hebrews 1:3, “He is the exact representation of God.”
John 1:15, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
Matthew 1:23, “And he shall be called ‘Immanuel,’ God with us.”
Titus 2:13, “We wait for the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Jesus was accused of blasphemy throughout his ministry. It was one of the reasons for his crucifixion. Such statements as, “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30) and “When you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9), were clear to those listening.
What does Doubting Thomas say when he meets the risen Christ? He says, “My Lord and my God!” In Matthew’s Gospel when the disciples see the risen Christ they fall down and worship him. Jews would only bow down and worship God! (Remember the first commandment? – “You shall have no other gods before me.”)
The Apostle Paul wrote his letters in the 50s – almost 300 years before the Council of Nicea. He refers to Jesus constantly as “Lord.” Philippians 2:11 says, “Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” The word “Lord” there is Kyrios in Greek. It was a divine term. It was used for Caesar, to mark his claim of divinity. “Caesar is Lord.” Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that Jews refused to say, “Caesar is Lord” because only God is Kyrios
Furthermore, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament that existed in the first century, known as the Septuigent, do you know what word was used for God,? “Kyrios,” the same word that the Christians applied to Jesus. “Kyrios is my shepherd” (Psalm 23).
The New Testament, written in the first century, calls Jesus, “Kyrios,” divine Lord. A second century Christian writing known as the Didache also refers to Jesus as “Kyrios,” “Christ is Kyrios.” So to say that power-hungry bishops in the fourth century invented the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is absurd and historically inaccurate.
Brown also states that the vote on the divinity of Christ was a close one. Do you know what the count was at the Council of Nicea? 316 – 2 (Erdmann’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 160).
Another absurd claim in the book is that these bishops in 325 A.D. invented the New Testament as we know it today, and that the process was political in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Here are some of the claims made in the book about the Bible:
“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)
“The Bible is the product of man.” (p. 231)
The New Testament is false testimony (p. 345) . . . compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda . . . to solidify their own power base.” (p.234).
All of the above statements are total fiction. I can prove it to you with a little history lesson that shows us how the early church very quickly recognized the four gospels we have today as authoritative scripture.
Now Marcion did not like the Old Testament and the God found there, whom he viewed as harsh and vengeful. Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament was a different God from the God of the New Testament.
I love what William Willimon says to people who express this view. Willimon is the Chaplain of Duke University. When people tell him they don’t like the Hebrew Scriptures, he asks them, “Have you always been anti-Semitic, or is this a recent thing?”
The Old Testament was Jesus’ Bible, but Marcion didn’t like it. He also did not like books of the New Testament that had references to the Old. So he proposed a new canon. He left out the Old Testament, as well Matthew, John, and Hebrews from the New Testament because they had too many Old Testament references.
Now, what’s the point? The early church declared Marcion a heretic and excommunicated him. They said, “No, Marcion. We have an authoritative list of sacred scripture. You’re not going to delete from it.”
So the Bishops in 325 A.D. did not invent the New Testament canon. It existed prior to 140 A.D. in a form close to what we have today.
An early church leader named Irenaeus wrote in the second century contantly quoting the four gospels that we have today (The Formation of the New Testament by Eduard Lohse, p. 21). In addition, the Muratorian Canon, dated 175 A.D., contains all four gospels, and 23 of our present 27 New Testament books. We also have an actual manuscript from the year 200 A.D. (P45) that contains Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the four canonized gospels all together in the year 200.
The earliest New Testament manuscript that we have is dated 125 A.D. We do not have the original manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. What we have are copies of copies of their manuscripts. The earliest one is dated 125 A.D. Do you know where they found it? Jerusalem? Galilee? Nazareth? No. Egypt. What does that tell you? It tells you that at a very early date John’s Gospel was recognized as authoritative – an accurate and reliable account of the life of Jesus, so much so that they’re already reading it in Egypt by the year 125 A.D.!
Now there were some
disputed New Testament books. These included Hebrews and Revelation. Hebrews was
questioned because the author was unknown. Revelation was questioned . . . . .
well, if you’ve read it you know why! These two books were debated in some
circles for years. The Council of Nicea did make a final determination to
include them, but they had been recognized in far earlier lists.
I Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke and says, “As the scripture says . . .”
So the canonization process started very early in the life of the church. It began during the time that the New Testament was still being written!
So these other “gospels” were not even in existence when the New Testament was written, and when the canon was being formed (prior to Marcion in 144 A.D.). They are later documents! This is a crucial point.
The Early Church rejected these so-called other “gospels” for several reasons.
1. Because they were written the second and third centuries, they did not have any connection to a disciple or an associate of a disciple. This is called “Apostolic Authority,” and was crucial in determining authoritative scripture. These other “gospels” lacked it because they were written so late.
2. Secondly, these other “gospels” contained errors, such as Jesus performing miracles as a child (John 2 says his first miracle was at the wedding at Cana) or Jesus portrayed as “glad and laughing” on the cross. This is contrary to the accounts given in the four recognized gospels. They also ascribe words to Jesus that are very different from what we know of the historical Jesus. One of these other “gospels,” the Gospel of Thomas, ends with these words: “Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life.” Jesus is also quoted as saying, “Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her a male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males.” As Dr. Bruce Metzger says, “This is certainly not the Jesus we know from the four canonical gospels.” Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ puts it this way: “The Gospel of Thomas excluded itself! It did not harmonize with other testimony about Jesus that early Christians accepted as trustworthy.”
3. Thirdly, these other writings contain a vastly different theology from the New Testament. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas sets forth pantheism, the notion that God is not a distinct personality or being, but just part of nature. These other Gnostic “gospels” mix together pantheism, ancient paganism, and a platonic dualism, where the material world is an inferior illusion. There is also no theology of the cross and resurrection of Christ. This is a vastly different theology from what is set forth in the scriptures. If you read the Gnostic “gospels” for yourself, you will see that they are very different from the four gospels in terms of content, quality, and theology.
It was not a political process at all to decide which gospels made it in or not. It was a test of reliability and accuracy.
Da Vinci’s Last Supper
Let me mention another subject, Da Vinci’s Last Supper. The portrait of the Last Supper was painted in 1498 (a mere 1465 years after the fact!) The person to Jesus’ right looks feminine to our eyes. Brown says that it’s Mary Magdalene and that she and Jesus had a romantic relationship.
Who knows what Da Vinci had in mind in 1498. Was he painting a woman there? We do not know. Even if Da Vinci believed in a relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, that doesn’t make it so.
If Kathy Carter (one of our church members and an excellent artist) does a portrait of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and puts Father Samuel Moody (beloved colonial pastor of this church for 50 years) on the ship, that doesn’t mean that he was on it! And if Jim Carter starts a secret society that claims that Moody was on the Mayflower, again that doesn’t mean that he was! In truth, Moody would have “missed the boat” by about 50 years.
There’s no evidence that Jesus had a romantic relationship with Mary, and I know of no scholar who believes that Jesus was married. In the gospels Mary Magdalene is never tied to any male when she is named. She is usually listed with the women disciples of Jesus. On the cross, Jesus had special words for his mother Mary. If Mary Magdalene were his wife, he would have had special words for her as well. Also, I Corinthians 9:4-6 gives pastors the right to marry and does not reference Jesus as having been married, which would have made the case even stronger. I don’t think it would change our faith much if Jesus had married, but there’s simply no evidence of it.
(In all fairness, there is one passage from the Gospel of Philip that I should mention. This document was written in the later part of the third century, so it lacks any authoritative, verifiable connection to a disciple of Christ. In the text (63:33-36) we find this, “Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene often on the . . . . .” The manuscript is damaged and the sentence is cut off before we discover if it’s saying he kissed her on the lips or on the cheek or on the hand. In Middle Eastern culture, then and now, greeting one another with a kiss was and is quite common. Even the New Testament says, “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (II Cor. 13:12).)
In Closing
When it comes to The Da Vinci Code I’ve never liked and disliked something so much in my life. Brown’s book is wonderfully written and thoroughly entertaining. But it’s an insult to believing Christians throughout the ages. It’s an insult to our sacred texts. It’s an insult to the martyrs who died in defense of the faith. It’s an insult to those bishops who met in Nicea and wrote some of the most beautiful words our faith has ever known. If you have ever worked on a mission statement for an organization, you know how hard that is. Imagine if your job was to give clear expression to one of the core doctrines and mysteries of our faith, the Trinity.
I’d like to close with what those bishops came up with in 325 A.D., the Nicene Creed. All Christian denominations utilize this creed. It is known for its Trinitarian language, using John’s phrase, “the only begotten Son of the Father” (John 3:16). Articulating the Trinity was no small task, especially how the eternal Christ is co-equal with the Father and the Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is also co-equal with the Father and the Son.
The creed in the form that we have it today comes from the next Council of Nicea in 451 A.D. They made a few changes and additions to the original Nicene Creed, but the heart of it was written by those bishops in 325 A.D.
Let’s take a look:
I believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made, who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
These words have stood the test of time. Truth always does.
Rev. Rich Knight, D. Min., June 2004
For further study:
Breaking the Da Vinci Code by Darrell Bock
Erdmann’s Handbook to the History of Christianity
Cracking the Da Vinci Code by Garlow & Jones
The Formation of the New Testament by Eduard Lohse
The Da Vinci Deception by Erwin W. Lutzer
The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content by Bruce M. Metzger
The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
On line resources: