ARTICLE: The Da Vinci Code Cracks

[STR Ambassador]

The Da Vinci Code Cracks by Greg Koukl

Sometimes challenges to Christianity that seem complicated are not really that difficult. On closer inspection they unravel. You just have to have a plan.

I followed such a plan for this month’s double issue of Solid Ground (find the article at www.str.org) answering the revisionist history in Dan Brown’s blockbuster of blockbusters, The Da Vinci Code. Here it is.

First, isolate the claim. Get a clear fix on precisely what a person is asserting. Spell it out in unambiguous terms. This is not always easy because claims are often implicit or hidden between layers of rhetoric and linguistic maneuvering. But Brown makes it simple. Here are some of his claims, almost word for word. I answer each of them in this issue of SG:

History has never had a definitive version of the life of Jesus.

* The Gospels evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions.
* Thousands of Christ’s followers wrote accounts of Jesus’ life, and more than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament.
* The Bible as we know it was an invention of the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.
* Constantine arranged for all contrary gospels to be gathered up and destroyed.
* The Dead Sea Scrolls found in a cave near Qumran in the 1950s confirm that the modern Bible is a fabrication.
* Jesus’ divinity was a doctrine invented for political reasons at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Before that Christ’s followers considered Him a mere mortal.
* The Council of Nicea affirmed this invention by a close vote.

Once the claims are clear you have a second task. Before you go any further, do this. Ask if anything about an assertion seems suspicious or unlikely on its face.

For example, early in his novel Brown claims that over a period of 300 years the Catholic Church burned five million “witches” at the stake in Europe around the 15th century. I quickly took out my calculator and did the math. Rome would have to roast 45 women a day, every single day, non-stop for three centuries. That’s a lot of firewood.

Further, a quick internet search revealed that the population for Europe at the time was 50 million. If half were female (25 million) and half of those were adults (12.5 million), then something like 40% of the entire adult female population perished at the hand of the Vatican. That’s more carnage than the black plague of 1347, which killed only one third. Let’s just say, this seems highly unlikely.

Next, ask if the claims are factually accurate. This may take a little research. Brown’s fictional character, the British royal historian Sir Leigh Teabing, claims, “Three centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ…Christians and pagans began warring, and the conflict grew to such proportions that it threatened to rend Rome in two” (232).

The fact is, there were no wars between pagans and Christians before Nicea. Jesus’ followers were pacifists who didn’t believe in taking up arms. In fact, they considered it a privilege to by martyred for Christ. They wouldn’t even resist tormentors like Diocletian who executed them by the thousands just 20 years before the Council.

Finally, assess the argument, if there is one. Remember, an argument couples an assertion with evidence that supports the claim. Brown fails miserably here. In the novel, the French cryptologist Sophie Neveu never asks Teabing for any evidence and no primary source references are forthcoming.

Instead, Teabing simply repeats his assertion that recorded history makes “countless references to Jesus’ and Mary [Magdalene’s] union,” a fact “that has been explored ad nauseam by modern historians” (247). Harvard religious symbologist Robert Langdon nods in approval: “Sophie, the historical evidence supporting this is substantial.” This may be good enough for fiction, but not for serious scholarship.

What did early Christians really believe for 300 years before Nicea? We know because we have thousands of pages of their writings. In this Solid Ground I cite them, but I also show you where you can find them on the internet so you can see for yourself.

The simple lesson is this: Read critically. Reflect on the claims. Check the background information. Assess the argument. Find the truth. That’s the habit of clear-thinking Christians. And that’s what I do for you in this month’s Solid Ground. It’s a vital part of guarding the treasure entrusted to you.

Stand to Reason - Equipping Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6361

[roman guy here]

The Da Vinci Code Cracks by Greg Koukl

Sometimes challenges to Christianity that seem complicated are not really that difficult. On closer inspection they unravel. You just have to have a plan.

I followed such a plan for this month’s double issue of Solid Ground (find the article at www.str.org) answering the revisionist history in Dan Brown’s blockbuster of blockbusters, The Da Vinci Code. Here it is.

First, isolate the claim. Get a clear fix on precisely what a person is asserting. Spell it out in unambiguous terms. This is not always easy because claims are often implicit or hidden between layers of rhetoric and linguistic maneuvering. But Brown makes it simple. Here are some of his claims, almost word for word. I answer each of them in this issue of SG:

History has never had a definitive version of the life of Jesus.

* The Gospels evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions.
* Thousands of Christ’s followers wrote accounts of Jesus’ life, and more than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament.
* The Bible as we know it was an invention of the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.
* Constantine arranged for all contrary gospels to be gathered up and destroyed.
* The Dead Sea Scrolls found in a cave near Qumran in the 1950s confirm that the modern Bible is a fabrication.
* Jesus’ divinity was a doctrine invented for political reasons at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Before that Christ’s followers considered Him a mere mortal.
* The Council of Nicea affirmed this invention by a close vote.

Once the claims are clear you have a second task. Before you go any further, do this. Ask if anything about an assertion seems suspicious or unlikely on its face.

For example, early in his novel Brown claims that over a period of 300 years the Catholic Church burned five million “witches” at the stake in Europe around the 15th century. I quickly took out my calculator and did the math. Rome would have to roast 45 women a day, every single day, non-stop for three centuries. That’s a lot of firewood.

Further, a quick internet search revealed that the population for Europe at the time was 50 million. If half were female (25 million) and half of those were adults (12.5 million), then something like 40% of the entire adult female population perished at the hand of the Vatican. That’s more carnage than the black plague of 1347, which killed only one third. Let’s just say, this seems highly unlikely.

Next, ask if the claims are factually accurate. This may take a little research. Brown’s fictional character, the British royal historian Sir Leigh Teabing, claims, “Three centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ…Christians and pagans began warring, and the conflict grew to such proportions that it threatened to rend Rome in two” (232).

The fact is, there were no wars between pagans and Christians before Nicea. Jesus’ followers were pacifists who didn’t believe in taking up arms. In fact, they considered it a privilege to by martyred for Christ. They wouldn’t even resist tormentors like Diocletian who executed them by the thousands just 20 years before the Council.

Finally, assess the argument, if there is one. Remember, an argument couples an assertion with evidence that supports the claim. Brown fails miserably here. In the novel, the French cryptologist Sophie Neveu never asks Teabing for any evidence and no primary source references are forthcoming.

Instead, Teabing simply repeats his assertion that recorded history makes “countless references to Jesus’ and Mary [Magdalene’s] union,” a fact “that has been explored ad nauseam by modern historians” (247). Harvard religious symbologist Robert Langdon nods in approval: “Sophie, the historical evidence supporting this is substantial.” This may be good enough for fiction, but not for serious scholarship.

What did early Christians really believe for 300 years before Nicea? We know because we have thousands of pages of their writings. In this Solid Ground I cite them, but I also show you where you can find them on the internet so you can see for yourself.

The simple lesson is this: Read critically. Reflect on the claims. Check the background information. Assess the argument. Find the truth. That’s the habit of clear-thinking Christians. And that’s what I do for you in this month’s Solid Ground. It’s a vital part of guarding the treasure entrusted to you.

Stand to Reason - Equipping Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6361

i think that all religion is contadictory to our society anyway and the da vinci is just another representation of it

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

The biggest problem with the DaVinci Code(and other similar works) is that is wrong even from premise. The premise is that Jesus was married and that Christians hid it because it would be damaging to his divinity. However Christianity has always taught(even from its conception) that Jesus was fully God and fully human. If Jesus was married, it would have been seen as an extention of his humanity, not a denial of his divinity.

So I ask if Dan Brown can be so off base even from premise, how much more off-base could his arguemnts be?

[TheOneAndOnly]

So I ask if Dan Brown can be so off base even from premise, how much more off-base could his arguemnts be?

His arguments? I think you'll find Dan Brown is a fiction writer. Although it is somewhat amusing to see the world's Christian intelligencia get their knickers in a not over an overhyped airport novel, I should warn you that making these watertight arguments against his socalled "arguments" only makes those making these pointless arguments look little and petty, and slightly comical. I'm sure Dan Brown feels really stupid seeing all these reasoned arguments against his work of fiction.

[Ytaker]

His arguments? I think you'll find Dan Brown is a fiction writer. Although it is somewhat amusing to see the world's Christian intelligencia get their knickers in a not over an overhyped airport novel, I should warn you that making these watertight arguments against his socalled "arguments" only makes those making these pointless arguments look little and petty, and slightly comical. I'm sure Dan Brown feels really stupid seeing all these reasoned arguments against his work of fiction.

He shouldn't have put a fact page at the start, talking about it's accuracy, if it was full of lies.

[Nanny]

I'm sure Dan Brown feels really stupid seeing all these reasoned arguments against his work of fiction.

No, he does not! See Brown's comments in an interview with bookreporter. http://www.bookreporter.com/authors/au-brown-dan.asp

"...the secret behind THE DA VINCI CODE was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss. ....

"Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information [italics mine] is anything but new. My sincere hope is that THE DA VINCI CODE, in addition to entertaining people, will serve as an open door through which curious souls might pass to begin their own exploration." ....

This "secret behind the DaVinci Code" is what is being promoted as history. Obviously not the novel itself.

Brown begins the interview

"it relates to one of the most famous histories of all time…a legend familiar to all of us. Rumors of this conspiracy have been whispered for centuries in countless languages, including the languages of art, music, and literature. Some of the most dramatic evidence can be found in the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci...

The italics are mine. Notice the exchange of the words "histories" and "legend," and Brown's support of the "dramatic evidence." Make no mistake, the novel/movie wouldn't be getting this amount of publicity (controversy) if it were not subtly or overtly presented as being based on history. Whether Brown is a true believer as he has hinted, or just laughing all the way to the bank, who knows?
N.