Breaking The Da Vinci Code 05.19.06
There is little doubt that The Da Vince Code has hit a cultural nerve. Not only has it been on the best seller list in the USA for several years, it has also bee adapted into a major film. Its combination of mystery, history, conspiracy and the use of romantic locations and figures has made it a very popular piece of non-fiction.
So where does the controversy come from? What has made it so divisive is the author's claim that the backdrop to the novel is rooted in historical fact. Dan Brown made such claims on national morning television in November 2003 and they are stated in his book in the opening page. In fact, in his interview he claimed that he had meticulously researched the topic and had became a believer in what he wrote. Such claims include:
[1] Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, [2] the four gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke and John) were chosen from among eighty others that existed in the fourth century because they presented a divine Jesus, and [3] the divinity of Jesus himself became the accepted view by a very close vote at the council of Nicea in AD 325.
The key to the novel's story line is that many in the early church supposely knew that Jesus was married-and to protect his divinity they kept it a secret-even to the point of murder. As fiction, this makes an intriguing story, but as a historical "skeleton-in-the-closet," it simply falls apart.
PROBLEM 1: Was Jesus Married? Basic to the story line is the claim that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and that many people in the early church knew it (as well as people later on like Leonardo Da Vinci). The evidence for this claim comes from two non-biblical gospels, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and The Gospel of Philip. Both contain remarks that Jesus had a special relationship to Mary or that he loved her more than any of the twelve. In addition, there is reference to a text where Jesus is said to kiss Mary on the lips. So the inference is, that if he kissed her in public, he must have been her husband.
Now the facts are these. First, almost all modern scholars, both liberal and conservative, question whether these extra bibical gospels contain anything of value in terms of the historical Jesus. However, even if they did, the texts noted do not actually affirm that Jesus was married. In fact, the famous "kiss-on-the-lips" text actually has a blank in the original manuscript right at the point where it describes where Mary was kissed. So it could be the lips or te cheek, which would simply refer to a kiss of fellowship. More than this, we have volumes of texts about Jesus from the first five centuries. In all of these materials not a single text describes Jesus as married. Nor does the Bible. This fact alone is enough to collapse the whole novel...but let's go on.
PROBLEM 2: When Were The Gospels Accepted? The novel also claims that the four gospels were chosen to be a part of the Bible later than we now claim-because they described a divine Jesus-as opposed to other gospels that had a more "human" Jesus. Once again we are at a place where liberal and conservative scholars agree. The study of what is called the canon (or the recognition of the books that comprise the New Testament) is a complex area when it comes to the compilation of the entire New Testament. Athanasius in AD 367 is the first figure we have who lists the 27 books of the New Testament as we have them today. It may be that Dan Brown rested his view on this fact, although he never mentions it. However, what this does not take into account is that the books that were under discussion in the third and fourth centuries were several epistles and Revelation, books like 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, not any of the gospels.
Scholars of the canon agree that by the end of the second century the four-fold gospel was recognized as authoritative. This is a full 125 years before Constantine and the Nicean Council came on the scene to do the defining work for orthodoxy according to the novel. The idea that the gospels emerged as a reflection of orthodoxy about the time of the fourth century is just bad history.
PROBLEM 3: Was Jesus' Divinity Decided by a "Close Vote" in the Fourth Century? Brown claims that the Council of Nicea in AD 325 decided, by a narrow margin and for political purposes, to declare for the first time that Jesus was the Son of God. History shows that this is just not true. What we know about the Council is this. It did gather, not to declare the divinity of Jesus, but to decide how Jesus was divine. Was he the first created being (according to Arius) or was he eternally related to God as his Son (as stated in the Nicene Creed)? Jesus as the Son of God was always a core belief of the earliest church.
Constantine called this council together because he wanted peace and unity, which The Creed merely served to put into precise philosophical and theological language what had been expressed in more general terms for years. The vote at Nicea, rather than establishing the church's beliefs, affirmed and officially recognized what was already the church's dominant view. The council had about 216 bishops representing most of Christendom in attendance, but only two out of the entire group refused to accept this affirmation of the Christian faith. Hardly a close decision. Brown's claim, then, is false here as well.
OTHER PROBLEMS. There is a host of other problems with the "historical backdrop" of the novel. 1) The idea that Mary was an "apostle to the apostles" misrepresents Hippolytus, a church father of the later second century. 2) The other "gospels" that the novel claims show a human Jesus, in most cases actually have a more divine Jesus than the biblical gospels (i.e. he was only divine, not both man and God). 3) Leonardo Da Vinci would never have painted a Last Supper scene and replaced one of the Twelve with a woman. Many art historians on that period agree-Dan Brown simply got his art history wrong.
WHAT TO MAKE OF IT ALL? Interest in The Da Vinci Code reflects some remarkable things about today's culture, mainly that there is a keen interest in the origins of Christianity, and there is a spiritual hunger of sorts out there. The fact that this book has put Christian history into the public square is a good thing, but readers and viewers need to be aware of what really happened. Perhaps if people truly understand who Jesus Christ really is and explore his claims for themselves, they will find the real clode that opens up the way to life.
THE JESUS CODE We have all been "programmed" from birth with an internal code that is not completely adequate. Its basic failure is that it cannot effectively respond to God in a personal way (a result of what theologians and teh Bible call "sin"). However, God in his goodness does not leave the solution of our scrambled code to us, nor does he make coming to know him difficult.
God sent his Son into the world as a human being who could sympathize with us and represent us before his holy Father. In addition, as an expression of God's love and as a gift, He accepts Jesus' death and sacrifice in payment for our sin and guilt. This opens the way to an unbroken relationship with God that lasts forever, where sin is forgiven and God's Spirit lives in us so we can enjoy him.
Both in this life and in the life to come, a new, real, eternal code is placed within us the moment we believe in Christ and accept his work on our behalf. Scripture says the purpose of this new life is to know the one true God and his Son (John 17:3). Those who respond in faith to the offer of this gift are its only recipients (Ephesians 2:8-10).
God does not force himself upon us. So if you are interested in God replacing the scrambled code you know isn't working...turn to him with a sincere faith in his Son. That is something worth believing.