Why The Da Vinci Code Deserves to be Cracked.

Graham Leo

1 Distortions about the Bible

(a) The author, Dan Brown, claims that the Roman emperor “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 earliest gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.” (p 234-5)

There is no record of this or anything like it ever having occurred. If ever a book should have been destroyed and lost to history it would have been the Bible. It has faced countless attempts at destruction from the very earliest days in the first century up to modern times. Despite this, we have excellent and numerous ancient copies of the text. Here are just a few examples of these, compared with other ancient texts:

a) The earliest existing copy of Homer’s Iliad (written in 900 BC) is dated 1500 years after the original was written. We have only 643 manuscripts of this work.

b) Aristotle’s writing was dated around 382-322 BC are dated 1400 years after the original was written. We have only 49 copies of them.

c) There are only seven (7) copies of Plato’s work (427-347 BC) and the earliest of these is dated 1200 years after the original was written.

Nobody doubts the general accuracy or existence of these writers. In contrast to the above, there are 13,000 copies of the complete New Testament, with some parts dating back to as early as 130 AD, and many parts dating back to 200 AD. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was just one modern discovery that confirmed the absolute accuracy of much of the modern Bible – many Old Testament books were found to be completely identical with those found in the Scrolls and many others with just very minor and insignificant copyist variations.

If the Bible were not a sacred text, but just another ancient Greek or Roman writing, it would be highly regarded as an extremely accurate text and not challenged by anyone.

(b) Brown suggests that the present Bible gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were selected by Constantine out of a list of about 80 possible books. Not only Brown, but other Christian critics have suggested that all the Gospels were written with a gap of many decades and perhaps even a century.

The facts are that every single book in the New Testament canon was almost certainly written in the first century. Each of the Gospels was, in fact, probably written within one generation (40 years) of Christ’s death. This was at least 250 years before the Nicene Council, which Brown argued was the scene for the selection of the Bible. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the selection of Biblical texts at all. It did confirm what had been in place for over two hindered years but did not attempt to alter the writings or to make new selections.

Well-known and well-attested church fathers such as Irenaeus, (150-200) Justin Martyr, (100-165) Clement (155-220) and Origen (185-254) all affirmed the New Testament writings pretty much as we have them today.

(c) Brown has Langdon telling Sophie that Christianity, along with every other faith, is “based on fabrications”. (p 342)

Despite centuries of historians poring over Biblical texts, attempting to prove inaccuracies, not one convincing claim has been settled by academics working in the field.

There is no good reason for anyone to doubt the essential historicity of the Gospels as an account of Jesus’ life and the other New Testament books as reliable accounts of the history and beliefs of the early church in the first century after Christ.

2 Mary and her Relationship with Jesus

Brown’s strongest ‘argument’ for this is Da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper. There are at least two problems with this:

Da Vinci painted his painting one and a half millennia after Jesus Christ. Relying on the private interpretation of an Italian painting from the 16th century is shaky evidence to say the least. It is probably similar to identifying the London murderer, Jack the Ripper on the basis of a photo album found in an antiques shop in Manhattan.

There are 13 figures in Da Vinci’s painting: 12 disciples and Jesus. This is exactly what one would expect. If Da Vinci had intended to show Mary as the ‘other woman’ intruding on this all male party, surely he would have painted 14 figures?

Brown’s case for Mary being the wife of Jesus is based on the Gospel of Philip, where Mary Magdalene is described as the companion of Jesus. He writes: “as any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word “companion’ in those days literally meant “spouse”.

Unfortunately for Brown, this Gospel was not written in Aramaic! It was written in Coptic. In fact, too, the page of Philip’s Gospel (which has never been accepted by the Church as part of the Biblical canon, anyway) is badly damaged. It is largely unreadable and needs to be reconstructed to read what you think it should.

In relation to the theory that Jesus and Mary married and went to France to live, this notion is not referred to by any ancient authority, including:
a) Any Bible writer;
b) Any early church record;
c) Any ancient Father;
d) Any secular historian;
e) Any Gnostic Gospel.

If it had been true, the information would surely have been seized upon, and used widely by any of a very large number of anti-Christian forces: the Jews, the Romans, the hundreds of other religious groups whose business was threatened by Christianity, secular contemporary historians such as Josephus. Each of these had an enormous amount to gain from such a claim, and they each had the resources available to them to make very effective propaganda from it.

In those days, historians did not even have to source or prove their claims in the way that modern historians are required to. The fact that no such propaganda exists even in the form of hints and gossip columns, let alone serious writing, argues strongly for it to be a modern nonsense invention.

3 Has Christianity sought to put women down?

It is not hard to find people who will argue this, and Brown does not even have to find half a case to support this claim to gain supporters.

If we examine the facts, however, a different story emerges.

Firstly it must be acknowledged that women have generally been poorly treated over the last 200 years at least in most countries. But if Christianity were to blame for this, we would logically expect that in Japan, China, aboriginal societies, Islamic cultures, Buddhist and Hindu cultures and so on we might find that women are treated better than they have been in western Christian-influenced cultures.

Even a cursory glance at history will show us that the opposite is the case. It has been under western Christian influence that women have been granted universal suffrage (the right to vote), rights to own property, education, freedom of association and dress, just to name a few.

While it is certainly true that in some periods of history, the Church assisted in patronising treatment and discrimination of women. It is, however, arguable that this was due more to broad social beliefs than Christian doctrine in particular.

If we go back to the source of Christianity, we find, for example the following:

In a very male-dominated society, Jesus chose to spend a considerable amount of his time with women, including very ordinary housewives and women of poor reputation.

In a society that encouraged men to hold sway over women, he refused to accuse a woman caught in adultery, preferring to send her away, forgiving her sins, and suggest that those men who had accused her might be more guilty than she was.

In the early church, as detailed in the Bible records (see the book of Acts and Paul’s writings) there are ample records of women taking key roles of teaching, being pastors and church leaders. The practice of precluding women from leadership appeared much later.

In the early centuries, there are many women who are still renowned as significant leaders. These include such figures as Julian of Norwich, Joan of Arc, St Hilda, and a very large number of women in the Celtic church. The emphasis on male leadership is very much a later, Roman European emphasis, and assisted by Augustinian thinking. It was extended by strict Reformed thinking in the Middle Ages where social perception of women’s roles had slipped significantly since the early Christian ages. The contemporary debate about female leadership in the church probably owes more to this late Reformational influence than earlier influences.

Brown has his character, Leonard Teabing suggest that the church burnt to death up to 5 million women(mainly witchcraft-related). Oxford historian, Robin Briggs states that “Most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750 with perhaps between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25% were men.”

4 Was Jesus regarded as the Son of God by the early Church?

One of Brown’s key purposes, apart from making a lot of money from a very entertaining book, seems to be to destroy one of the key claims of Christianity. As can be seen by the above, he is either a very poor and lazy researcher who gets most of his facts wrong, or he is deliberately falsifying history to achieve his own purposes.

The facts are well known from thousands of early writings. The church from its very earliest days regarded Jesus as divine, as the Son of God, as God in the form of human flesh.

This was confirmed by the actual Bible books, written in the first century, Jesus’ own claims in the gospels and other ancient writings, all the early church councils, and the early church fathers. Here are just a few of the latter:

Ignatius(AD 105): “God himself was manifest in human form”
Clement of Alexandria(AD 150): “It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as God.”
Tertullian(AD 200): “Christ our God.”
Novatian(AD 235): “He is not only man, but God also…”
Methodius(AD 290): “He truly was and is…God.”

There is no shortage of early church leaders and ordinary followers who were executed purely because they taught and believed that Jesus was the Son of God, and actually divine himself. There were hundreds, if not thousands of these, in the first few centuries.

5 So what? Does it all really matter?

Well, yes, for several reasons.

Firstly, the more significant of Brown’s claims are not merely presented as being fictional. They are presented by him as fact. Hiding behind the statement that the book is only a work of fiction is misleading, because of the claims of truth he makes at the outset.

Because they are presented as a kind of pseudo-history to people who won’t go and do the research themselves, they are deliberately deceptive and mischievous. They have already served and no doubt will do so even more, to help people who want an excuse to ignore God to think they are doing so safely and sensibly.

Secondly, for the great majority of society, perception is reality. It is not truth that drives people’s thinking for the most part – it is what is commonly perceived as truth that drives their thinking.

For example, consider the way that slavery was condoned for so long because people were encouraged to think that black humans were less important than white humans. Consider the way that myths grow up around famous events in every nation’s history, e.g. Anzac Cove, Eureka Stockade and so on. How many people are convinced that Shakespeare had Juliet asking “Romeo, where are you?”, when in fact, Romeo was standing right in front of her. She was actually asking “Romeo, why did you have to be born into your particular family?” (Wherefore [why] art thou Romeo?)

Brown’s novel plays into the collective consciousness of society and helps the largely-unthinking masses to feel justified in ignoring a part of realty that may in fact be very dangerous for them to ignore.

Thirdly, the novel vilifies many people and organisations who or which deserve better treatment. The Roman Catholic church, as any large organisation, has no doubt made many mistakes over the centuries. But it has also held on to many very significant truths. It has produced thousands of very important scholars, politicians, scientists, saints, missionaries and millions of good, honest, ordinary citizens (including some of you reading this article).

It is simply unfair to make extravagant and false claims about organisations which are not true and not fair. Remember when Proctor and Gamble suffered extensive losses because of hateful emails that were circulated by Christian people who read an anonymous email about their products being inspired by Satan worship? Christian or atheist, it is incumbent on us all to be sure that what we say and pass on to others is true and helpful. ]

Finally, many parents will have heard me talk about C. S. Lewis says about Christianity. I think it is one of the most simplistic and devastatingly logical statements about the Christian faith.

He says that if Christianity is false, then we ought to abandon it altogether. If it is not true, then it is actually a waste of time; it may even be a distraction from the real truth whatever that is. But, he says, if it is true, then because of the kind of issues that it deals with – values, life after death, morals – then it is very important. The one thing it cannot be, Lewis says, is moderately important. The material it deals with is so important, so vital, that it must either be abandoned because of its falseness, or embraced wholeheartedly because of its truth.

Just like road safety, we cannot say of Christian faith, “Well, a little bit of it is good for children. It can’t hurt them. I learnt about it as a child and it didn’t hurt me. But don’t go overboard on it, and when you are older you can afford to ignore it. At least until you are dead, when you really want a minister or priest to say some magic words over your coffin.”

Let’s let C. S. Lewis have the last say:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us." (Mere Christianity)