Historical truth takes much abuse in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. But even greater damage is done, I think, when the novel makes assertions about theological matters, especially to relating the person of Jesus Christ and early Christian beliefs.

The Divinity of Jesus

Much attention has been given to the Code's claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. But an even more audacious claim is made by the character Leigh Teabing, a historian, who insists that until A.D. 325 and the Council of Nicaea, "Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet …" He later states: "Jesus' establishment as ‘the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."

There is clear and copious evidence that the early Christians, dating back to Jesus' time on earth, believed that Jesus of Nazareth was divine. John's Gospel, written between A.D. 80 and 100, contains some of the strongest statements about the divinity of Jesus. The densely theological prologue proclaims: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (Jn1:1-3); the Word is Jesus, the incarnate Son: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (Jn 1:14). Later, after upsetting some of the Jewish authorities because of his activities on the Sabbath, Jesus' life is threatened, "because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (Jn 5:18).

The testimony of the New Testament books alone—all written by the late first century or early second century at the latest—clearly refutes Teabing's statement that prior to Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, none of Jesus' followers believed He was anything more than a mortal. But there is also the testimony of numerous Christian writers between A.D. 100 and the fourth century to the belief in Jesus' divinity. In addition to proving what Christians really did believe about Jesus in the first three centuries of Christianity, these writings also provide invaluable context to the theological issues and battles that would eventually be addressed, at least in part, by the Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Nicaea did not define that Jesus, the Son of God, was divine (since that was accepted by Christians) or vote whether or not Jesus was "the Son of God". After all, that title is used over three dozen times in the New Testament to refer to Jesus! Rather, the Council of Nicaea addressed the issue of the exact relationship between the Son and the Father: Are they equal? One in substance? Two Persons? The Council specifically condemned the popular heresy of that time, called Arianism, which insisted that the Son was a lesser god, created by the Father at some point in time and not eternally existent.

The Gnostic "Gospels"

One of the more outlandish claims of Brown's novel is that the early Christians "literally" stole Jesus and shrouded his "human message . . . in an impenetrable cloak of divinity," using it to expand their own power. The novel claims that the gnostic Jesus is far more human than the divinized Jesus of the four canonical Gospels contained in the Christian Bible. Teabing even says that the Emperor Constantine "omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike."

That might sound agreeable to some readers — unless they actually read the so-called "gnostic gospels" and compare them to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Jesus of the gnostic writings is rarely recognizable as a Jewish carpenter, teacher, and prophet dwelling in first-century Palestine. Instead, he usually described as a phantom-like creature who lectures at length about the "deficiency of aeons", "the mother", "the Arrogant One", and "the archons"—all terms that only the gnostic elite would comprehend, hence their secretive, gnostic character (the Greek word gnosis refers to secret or elite knowledge).

Dan Brown's depiction of the early Christians hijacking the truth about Jesus and making Him God while the gnostics emphasized Jesus' humanity is completely incorrect. In fact, it is the exact opposite of the actual case, for the depictions of Jesus in the four Gospels are filled with concrete, historical details, social and political information, and logical narrative, qualities sorely lacking in most gnostic writings.

The vast majority scholars agree that the earliest gnostic texts were written in the middle of the second century A.D., well after the four canonical Gospels. And it was in the second century that orthodox Christianity began to seriously grapple with gnostic heresies, including the idea that the material realm is evil and that salvation comes through special knowledge, not faith and grace. The nature of this struggle can be seen in the writings of orthodox apologist Irenaeus, who wrote his great polemic refuting certain gnostics, Against Heresies, around A.D. 180.

Jesus and Mary Magdalene

Teabing and hero Robert Langdon tell Sophie Neveu, the young French detective, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children. This alleged marriage, Teabing states, "is part of the historical record" and is "the greatest cover-up in human history." As evidence, he quotes from a gnostic text, The Gospel of Philip, dated approximately 180-250 A.D., which describes Mary Magdalene as the companion of Jesus and depicts the two kissing one another. This is said to indicate a marital relationship.

But in the gnostic context, which disdained procreation and the material world, the love of the gnostic Jesus for Mary Magdalene is probably not romantic or sexual, but focused on spiritual insight and secret knowledge. Another gnostic text, The (Second) Apocalypse of James, contains a notable parallel to the story in The Gospel of Philip, in which the risen Jesus imparts his secret mysteries to James by kissing him on the mouth and calling him, "My beloved!" It is a non-sexual, symbolic act demonstrating James' privileged position as one who recognizes Jesus as teacher (or "Hidden One," in gnostic terms).

So the kiss between Jesus and Mary Magdalene most likely indicates her privileged position, a position due not to her being married to Jesus, but having spiritual insight into his teaching that exceeds that of the other disciples. And kissing is probably the means by which a special spiritual insight is given or symbolized. For the gnostics, the relationship between the two is spiritual only, with Mary being understood to be Jesus' spiritual counterpart.

If Jesus and Mary Magdalene really were married, why wouldn't the gnostics have made it even more obvious? A possible reply is that they were too afraid of orthodox persecution and so chose to be ambiguous and secretive in their communications. And yet the gnostic writings are full of teachings that are obviously incompatible with an orthodox understanding of Jesus Christ, His life on earth, and the Church He established.

Ultimately, an ambiguous third-century gnostic text read through the lens of anti-Christian, feminist ideology does not provide even modest proof that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married.

On and on it goes, with faulty and often blatantly incorrect statements about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Vatican, paganism, early Christianity, medieval Christianity, modern day Catholicism, the life and work of Leonardo, secret societies, the origins of the English language, Constantine, and much more.

Stay tuned for part two of our series as medieval historian Sandra Miesel takes aim at 5 key issues from her long list of Code's historical inaccuracies.

Carl Olson and co-author Sandra Miesel will appear live on EWTN Wednesday, May 3rd at 8 p.m. to discuss their book "The Da Vinci Hoax".

Conspiracy hype elicits strong response from church leaders

In his Easter sermon the Archbishop of Canterbury questions the authority of Brown's Da Vinci Code and the Gospel of Judas

One of the ways in which we now celebrate the great Christian festivals in our society is by a little flurry of newspaper articles and television programmes raking over the coals of controversies about the historical basis of faith. So it was no huge surprise to see a fair bit of coverage given a couple of weeks ago to the discovery of a ‘Gospel of Judas’, which was (naturally) going to shake the foundations of traditional belief by giving an alternative version of the story of the passion and resurrection. Never mind that this is a demonstrably late text which simply parallels a large number of quite well-known works from the more eccentric fringes of the early century Church; this is a scoop, the real, ‘now it can be told’ version of the origins of Christian faith.

You’ll recognise the style, of course, from the saturation coverage of the Da Vinci Code literature. We are instantly fascinated by the suggestion of conspiracies and cover-ups; this has become so much the stuff of our imagination these days that it is only natural, it seems, to expect it when we turn to ancient texts, especially biblical texts. We treat them as if they were unconvincing press releases from some official source, whose intention is to conceal the real story; and that real story waits for the intrepid investigator to uncover it and share it with the waiting world. Anything that looks like the official version is automatically suspect. Someone is trying to stop you finding out what really happened, because what really happened could upset or challenge the power of officialdom.

It all makes a good and characteristically ‘modern’ story – about resisting authority, bringing secrets to light, exposing corruption and deception; it evokes Watergate and All the President’s Men. As someone remarked after a television programme about the Da Vinci Code, it’s almost that we’d prefer to believe something like this instead of the prosaic reality. We have become so suspicious of the power of words and the way that power is exercised to defend those who fear to be criticised. The first assumption we make is that we’re faced with spin of some kind, with an agenda being forced on us – like a magician forcing a card on the audience. So that the modern response to the proclamation, ‘Christ is risen!’ is likely to be, ‘Ah, but you would say that, wouldn’t you? Now, what’s the real agenda?’

Father Raniero Cantalamessa in his Good Friday Homily admonishes believers to study biblical scholarship

"While we celebrate here the memory of the passion and death of the Savior, millions of people are seduced by the clever writing of ancient legends to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was never crucified," he noted.

Father Cantalamessa mentioned a "best seller" today in the United States, "an edition of the 'Gospel of Thomas,'" presented as the gospel that "spares us the crucifixion, makes the resurrection unnecessary, and does not present us with a God named Jesus."

"People who would never bother reading a responsible analysis of the traditions about how Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead are fascinated by the report of some 'new insight' to the effect he was not crucified or did not die, especially if the subsequent career involved running off with Mary Magdalene to India," alerted the Capuchin, quoting biblical scholar Raymond Brown.

"These theories demonstrate that in relation to the passion of Jesus, despite the popular maxim, fiction is stranger than fact -- and often, intentionally or not, more profitable," continues the biblicist's quotation.

Free Republic

The exclusivistic aims of 2nd century Gnosticism continue to fascinate and confuse with release of the Judas Gospel

National Geographic is grabbing headlines with the recent release of the first modern translation of the ancient Gospel of Judas. The air of controversy permeates their public relations for the project. The work is touted on the National Geographic website as:

"One of the most significant biblical finds of the last century—a lost gospel that could challenge what is believed about the story of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus."

Promotional material for the project uses terms such as "unveiling" and "bearing witness" while citing "biblical scholars" who vouch for the historical "authenticy" of the document. To the uninitiated, historical authenticity can be equated with the authority of the claims in the document itself.

Fortunately dozens of articles by church historians and leaders have been published explaining that the real significance of the The Judas Papers is their accurate depiction of a second century Gnostic worldview, which was rejected as heretical by the early church.

For those who wish to know more, we've compiled quotes and links to further resources below.

Judge lets Dan Brown off the hook

Last week, the copyright infringement trial brought against Dan Brown by the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail concluded in Brown's favor. Although he won the case in court, the judge's concluding remarks confirm what historians and theologians established long ago, that Dan Brown did not do his homework---he got much of his material from his wife.

"Blythe Brown provided the material for a chapter in The Da Vinci Code with The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail in her hands.
I do not accept he knew necessarily where she was obtaining her material from. I do not think for one minute he cross-checked his wife's work. That was her valuable input into the book.

The use of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail for copying of these generalised parts of the text is not of itself actionable."

BBC

A Million Little Embellishments: Truth and Trust in Advertising and Publishing

Marketing professor Lisa Bolton agrees with Dunfee that all marketers should be truthful, not only because it is the right thing to do, but because being deceptive can alter consumers' long-term psychological perceptions about what is and is not true.

Olson and Miesel systematically examine Brown's historical and theological inaccuracies

The Da Vinci Hoax relies on many secular historical sources. And it starts by eroding Brown’s main sources — the gnostic gospels. These writings, which came decades and centuries after the four canonical Gospels, show a Jesus that is removed from historical context and full of indecipherable pronouncements.

They hardly portray, as Brown asserts, a Jesus that is more human than in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. It’s quite the opposite, Olson says.

“Without the canonical Gospels there would be no historical Jesus at all, no meaningful narrative of his life, and no decent sense of what he did, how he acted, and how he related to others,” The Da Vinci Hoax says.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.