Here's the thing.  I don't have a problem with exciting mystery novels and suspense thrillers that might want to use Christian history.  However, I do have a problem with The DaVinci Code, which claims "truths" about Christian history which are blatant and outright falsehoods.  

Now wait just a minute, you might say -- The DaVinci Code is marketed as fiction, right?  Right.  Or is it? 

Author Dan Brown apparently doesn't think of it as fiction:

I began as a sceptic.  As I started researching Da Vinci Code I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that.  I became a believer.  --- Dan Brown, in a National Geographic television interview, aired July 17, 2005

Ah, so here we have a cunundrum!  A novel that is labled as fiction, found in the fiction sections of the bookstores, and yet -- the author himself believes its contents to be... wait --- true?!  What?  Did he just forget to put the "Based on a True Story" line at the bottom of the cover??  Hmmm... seems like we have a bit of a problem here.  

Does nice Mr. Brown just want to confuse us?  Why the confusion?

Well my friends, unfortunately, it all boils down to good ole' fashioned ignorance.  Ignorance on the part of Brown as the author, and ignorance on the part of his massive audiences.  Ignorance of what, exactly??  The history of Christianity.  Let's take a look at some examples.

The DaVinci Code claims that over 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament, which were collected by Constantine.  Several problems with this: Constantine was not involved in this process at all, for one.  Two, there was near universal acceptance of the four cannonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) by the second century, and none of the non-cannonical gospels were even close to the accepted four in their date of composition, magnitude of distribution, or proportion of acceptance.  And regarding the Nag Hammadi scrolls that Brown mentions, those were not even around when scriptural cannon was formed.  Why didn't early Christians accept these "other" gospels??  Probably because they were laughably outrageous.  The infamous "gospel of Thomas" ends with Jesus maintaining that women must "become male" in order to obtain salvation.  Riiiight.  (Notice Brown didn't include this 'gospel' -- it wouldn't have fit with the whole "seeking after a feminine divine" thing.)

The DaVinci Code also references the "Q" gospel, which Brown maintains as a 'book of Jesus' that was potentially written in His own hand.  This one hit home particularly because I remember a certain SBC professor claiming its possibility.  Sadly for her, (and Brown) there is not a single scrap of evidence anywhere in the world that can even suggest a "Q" gospel.  People claim its existence based on textual simmilarities between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which they assume means that Matthew and Luke got their ideas from a previously existing manuscript.  Here's a thought:  perhaps Matthew and Luke had simmilar stories because they were writing accounts of oh, I don't know... um.... the same stuff.   

Oh now here's a funny one.  This one may just take the cake for obvious stupidity.  The DaVinci Code claims that the Vatican tried to cover up the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls because they contained damaging information about Jesus (and in the book, the Evil Catholic Church wants to keep humanity in the dark, remember...).  But here's the thing.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are (in reality) Old Testament manuscripts... i.e. stuff that's in the Jewish Torah.  Um... the Old Testament doesn't mention Jesus (outside of Messianic prophesy).  Yeah. 

Perhaps the most damaging of The DaVinci Code's assertions is that of Christ's supposed lack of divinity.  Here's were it gets more complicated.  If you personally are struggling with Jesus being divine, then that's a whole other LJ article (and I'd be glad to discuss that with you).  But with regards to Brown's claims that many of the early Church Fathers wrestled with this question, again, he's just plain wrong.  In the novel, Brown writes that at the Council of Nicea, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon - the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus . . . until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal" (253).  Um... not quite.  Only two out of 300 bishops at the Council of Nicea voted against the affirmation of Christ's divinity.  It's not like this was a close call, as Brown submits:
" 'Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea.'
'Hold on.  You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?'
'A relatively close vote, at that...'" (253).

298 to 2 is a close vote??!  It's just laughable.   

Perhaps the most famous of DaVinci's claims is that of Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene.  Brown maintains that "Jesus as a married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor…Because Jesus was a Jew…the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son. If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible's gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood" (245).  However, here's where Brown is wrong again.  Jesus living a celibate life would not have been considered an "unnatural state" for him, because in the Jewish culture of Jesus' time, prophetic figures (such as John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Banus, etc) were accepted as embracing celibacy.  There is no doubt that the historical Jesus was considered a "prophetic figure" in the least, therby allowing his celibacy to be acceptable.  Plus, Brown is commiting a classic philosophical fallacy: one cannot affirm something simply because it is not specifically denied (i.e. we cannot affirm that Jesus was married simply because the cannonical Gospels do not specifically deny that he was married).  That would be the same as me saying that Matt went skydiving on Friday, simply because he didn't mention anything to the contrary.  Obviously, we can see how this argument would fail.  I can't assume something happened simply because it wasn't outwardly denied. 

I could go on and on.  Honestly, this would make a fun paper.  But what it all boils down to is this:  thinly veiled as a fictional story, Brown parades his highly ignorant and ill-researched theory (which he now believes to be true) throughout the pages of his novel, planting blatant heresies and seeds of doubt into the minds of uninformed and woefully uneducated Christians and non-believers alike.  It both saddens and frightens me.  How on earth do people believe -- or even consider believing -- any of these claims?!  We believe something because it is true.  So the only reason to believe something that is not true is to be ignorant of the truth (you unintentionally choose a falsehood), or else you choose to not accept reality (you intentionally choose a falsehood).  

The other issue here, too, is the subject matter.  Can you imagine if someone wrote a "fictional" book that totally blasphemed and bashed say, the Black community?  Or what if somone wrote a fictional book that slammed the Jews?!  There would be a societal uproar!  But for some reason, our society thinks its ok to hail a fictional book that trashes Christians (and particularly the Catholic Church).  Let's smear the Name of Jesus and make a movie about it!  Ugh.  Personally, I feel angered by this because I am a Christian.  A news show I was watching the other day interviewed a guy from a Catholic defense league (I forget the official name).  The Catholic guy was severely offended (and rightfully so) by The DaVinci Code book and movie.  The news anchor challenged him on this and said, "but, come on now -- I mean, it is afterall just a fiction novel.  Why be so upset?"  The Catholic guy responded well, I thought, with this: "Well, Neil, what if I wrote a fictional book that completely defamed and disgraced your mom.  I mean, what if I wrote some horrible lies about her, and then told you not to be upset -- because afterall, it's just fiction.  How would you feel about that?"  Our friendly news anchor admitted it was a fair argument.  And it's true.  The DaVinci Code is offensive to me as a Christian because it completely slanders my God.  That's a lot worse that slamming my momma. 

So my friends, take this seriously!  Use your heads!  Learn your stuff!  Be informed and educated.  And don't just believe any JoSchmo to write a book.  And to steal a line from The DaVinci Code movie previews:  SEEK THE TRUTH.  Heh.  Seriously.

 


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will come to believe it."  --- Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler's minister of propaganda