What About the DaVinci Code?

The DaVinci code by Dan Brown is a mystery / adventure novel which centres on the search for the Holy Grail. In this novel however, the grail is presented not as the familiar cup of the Last Supper, but the "royal bloodline" of Jesus and his claimed wife, Mary Magdalene. The idea is nothing new, being popularised back in 1982 by Michael Beigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, in "Holy Blood Holy Grail" (Delacorte Press).

As the story goes, Brown's fictional characters encounter real-life clues, which lead them to several inescapable conclusions, chief among them, are:

• Jesus is not God, and was not seen as God until the time of Constantine (4th century)
• Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
• They had children together which became France's royal bloodline
• The canonical Gospels do not faithfully represent the real Jesus, but supplanted earlier, more reliable texts (such as those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic texts found in Egypt)
• These earlier texts were officially set aside by Constantine the Great as he was shaping our New Testament
• Authentic Christianity, which included goddess worship as an integral part, was supplanted by a tyrannical male lead institution. This institution was responsible for the deaths of over 5 million women
• This true history has been known to a few, such as Leonardo Da Vinci, who hinted at it in his artwork. The famous Last Supper painting purportedly portrays Mary Magdalene seated at Jesus' right hand.

But its just fiction...right?

Not according to Brown. Although his characters are fictional, Brown assures his readers that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." (The DaVinci Code, Doubleday, p.1). Without a doubt, Brown's readers are intended to walk away from this book convinced that the Jesus of the Bible is a fabrication. If this isn't provoking to the Christian, I don't know what is.

How convincing is the DaVinci Code's evidence?

There are literally scores of articles and books today that have thoroughly refuted Brown's claims. The fact that people are still enthralled by his work is a commentary on where are as a society. One commentator has aptly remarked: "That millions of people are not turned off by the lack of authenticity in the DaVinci Code is more than surprising - it is sad."

As Christians mandated to defend our faith (1 Peter 3:15), we should at least familiarize ourselves with our own Christian history and be prepared to give reasons for accepting it as factual. We should also be able to point out some of the more significant flaws in the revisionist's bizarre theories. To accomplish this, this short article we will only address more offensive of Brown's historical blunders. For a more complete examination of Christianity's historical credentials see my 100 Reasons to believe the New Testament.

Was Jesus Seen as God?

Brown says no. According to him, Jesus was not seen as God until the time of Constantine (4th century). This ridiculous assertion is so demonstrably false that it hardly needs comment. Every reputable scholar in the world acknowledges that the books that make up the New Testament Cannon were composed in the first century [1]. It is within these books that we find unequivocal claims of Jesus' divinity (see our article for a thorough treatment of this topic). John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1, all make the unmistakable claim that Jesus was and is God.

Pliny the Younger, the governor of Bythnia in Asia Minor wrote the emperor Trajan around AD 112 concerning Christian beliefs and conduct. To gain this information tortured, presumably to death, two Christian women. Pliny wrote:

"…they affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up" Pliny the Younger, Epistles X, 96

After reading the writings of Justin Martyr (AD 100 - 160) and Irenaeus (AD 130 - 202) there can be absolutely no doubt that early Christianity viewed Jesus as God. That the church throughout the Roman Empire was unified in this doctrine may be seen in the writings of Hegesippus, a traveller / research who wrote about AD 150:

"The Corinthian Church remained in the true doctrine until Primus became bishop. I conversed with the Corinthians on the voyage to Rome, and we were refreshed by the true doctrine. After arriving in Rome, I compiled the succession down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. In each succession and in every city, preaching corresponds with the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord." Hegesippus, as cited by Eusebius, "The Church History", 4.21-22

Brown's claim on this point is therefore absolutely false.

Was Jesus Married?

According to Brown, Jesus had to be married if he was to have any respect at all as a leader. This claim, too, is demonstrably false. Though celibacy was not commonly observed by Jewish religious leaders of Christ's time, it is mistaken to say that it was universally looked down upon. Surveying the rabbinic literature, we find that the postponement of marriage for the purpose of studying the Law was perfectly acceptable [2].
Once again, Brown's assertion that Jesus had to be married falls flat in the light of the historic facts.

Brown states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene which is nothing more or less than his interpretation of the second century Gnostic "gospel of Philip." According to this text, Mary was Jesus' "companion" and that He often kissed her "on the mouth" thereby incurring the jealousy of Peter.

The gospel of Philip is one of 52 ancient texts (only 5 of which are labelled "gospels") unearthed at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. It is universally acknowledged that the earliest of these texts, the gospel of Thomas, can be dated no earlier than the mid-second century - at least 120 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. The gospel of Philip is acknowledged by scholars to be no earlier than AD 150, with some arguing for an even later date [3].

Though Brown makes use of Philip to substantiate his claims, he all but ignores Thomas, the Nag Hammadi texts' star witness. Why? Because among Thomas' 114 sayings of Jesus is the claim that if Mary Magdalene is to inherit the kingdom of God, she must first become a male. This, of course, does not sit well with Brown's assertion that original Christianity was matriarchal in nature, whose focal point was the "sacred feminine." It's obvious that Brown cares nothing about having his fictional characters discover real historical facts, but instead "cherry picks", sifting the ancient texts for those that support his own particular religious slant.

The canonical Gospels on the other hand, are universally acknowledged to have been written and in use by at least the second half of the first century. This means that the canonical Gospels were written and propagated well within the lifetimes of the witnesses to the events they describe. That these Gospels and these alone were viewed as authoritative by the first Christians may be seen by their prominence in the writings of Clement of Rome (AD 30 - 100), and Justin Martyr (A.D. 100 - 160). Aristides, an Athenian Christian philosopher addressed the Emperor Hadrian in AD 125, and urged him to read the Gospels. There can be no doubt that the canonical Gospels were written, propagated, and deemed authoritative by those closest to Jesus long before the Nag Hammadi texts were even thought of.

What about the so-called Royal Bloodline?

The idea that the children of Jesus and Mary became the Royal bloodline in France comes straight from Beigent's book. At the heart of the conspiracy the lies the claim that this information was kept secret by the Priory of Sion, a secret society of which Leonardo Davinci became a Grand Master. What is the source for all this?

The entire Priory of Sion scheme is a hoax. It is the brainchild of Pierre Plantard, who was convicted of fraud back in 1953. In 1956, Plantard started a group called the Priory of Sion, whose cause, apparently, was to lobby the government of France to improve the state of low cost housing. In 1957 the group disbanded, but Plantard kept the name. In the 1960's and 70's, he dreamed up the idea that France's royalty could be traced back to the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and he created the documents to prove it. Of course, this bloodline pointed straight to Plantard himself. He even changed his name to Plantard de St. Clair to reflect his claimed relationship to France's royalty.

In 1993 a scandal arose because of one of the names on Plantard's documents. This name was Rodger Patrice Pelat, whom Plantard claimed was a Priory of Sion Grandmaster. Pelat's friendship with the then French president Francois Mitterland practically guaranteed a formal investigation into the matter. Plantard was subpoenaed to testify in court and under oath, admitted to fabricating the whole Priory scheme. He was given a warning by the judge and dismissed as a harmless crank [4]. This was the basis for Beigent's 1982 book, which, though utterly refuted by countless researchers, formed the basis for "The DaVinci Code."

Don't the Dead Sea Scrolls Support Brown's Hypothesis?

On page 234 of Brown's book, he places these ridiculous works into the mouth of Teabing, Brown's fictitious history expert:

"Fortunately for historians some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950's hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert."

First, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, not in the 1950's. Second, the scrolls themselves do not represent any form of Christianity, but Judaism. The scrolls contain scrolls and scroll fragments of nearly every Old Testament book, along with various commentaries and other written works such as religious rules of conduct etc. Since many of these documents predate the New Testament sometimes by over 100 years or more, the real value of the scrolls is their affirmation that the Old Testament has remained virtually unaltered for literally thousands of years [5].

It is true that papyrologists Jose O Callahan and Carsten Theide were both of the opinion that some of the Greek papyrus fragments found in cave seven were portions of our New Testament [6]. Their view is definitely not shared by the majority of scholars, but even if it were found to be true, it would not help Brown's cause in the least because of their identification with the canonical Gospels. Again, this would just reinforce what the overwhelming majority of scholars already believe: that the canonical Gospels were first century documents, written long before any of Brown's "secret gospels."

What of Constantine's Involvement?

Constantine the Great became a Christian at the beginning of the fourth century, and ended the last and most violent persecution of Christians under Diocletion in 311. In 318 a man named Arius proposed that Jesus, while divine, was not "God in the flesh", but a created being. Indeed, Arius' views cause some today to regard him as the real father of the Jehovah's Witnesses cult [7]. Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria opposed him, and in a local council meeting held there in 321, he was deemed a heretic. Arius then moved to Palestine and began propagating his ideas in letters to area churches. The debate grew so large that it drew the attention of Constantine the Emperor. In 325, Constantine presided over the council of Nicea, in which over 300 bishops from across the empire attended. Arius' claims were examined and flatly rejected in light of what was written in the Gospels that the church had always possessed. In other words, the Nicene council was not brought together to discuss whether or not Jesus was divine (contrary to Brown's claims) but how he was divine. The issue was decided by turning to the authoritative texts that the church had always possessed.

It's important to note that Christians who lived through the Diocletian persecution were scattered over vast geographical distances without telephones, e-mail, or faxes. Living as they did in a time where one's faith could not be shared openly for fear of persecution (a situation in which many Christians find themselves even today), it is remarkable to find such a high degree of unanimity among what these early Christian communities believed. Indeed, as far as the historic record is concerned, the Nicene council created nothing new, but simply publicly ratified what the Church already believed. Brown's claims that it was at this time that the "secret gospels" were suppressed are demonstrably false.

What About the Church's Persecution of Women?

Brown claims that original Christianity was matriarchal, and centred on goddess worship and the "sacred feminine." He claims unabashedly that the Christianity that supplanted it was a tyrannical male dominating institution that systematically exterminated over 5 million women in witch-hunts (Brown, p.125). Is any of this true?

It would be foolish to believe that everyone who ever claimed to be a Christian lived according to the Bible's teachings. History is replete with instances where Christian leaders have made outlandish (and unscriptural) claims, such as the erroneous assertion that God is finished with His people the Jews (a claim that unfortunately persists to this day in various Christian circles). It cannot be denied that those in leadership positions within the church were responsible for the oppression and execution of women. However, there are three important points that must be borne in mind.

First, the people responsible were clearly operating outside the realm of scripture. One cannot find any place in the New Testament that could even remotely be said to sanction such activities. Those responsible can only be called "nominal" Christians - Christians in name only. Real Christians see the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and conduct.

Second, it must be remembered that the witch-hunts were not the sole responsibility of the church. Political powers had as much or more to do with these atrocities as the nominal Christians involved. Brown refers to Malleus Maleficarm as being drawn up by an official of the Roman Catholic Church. In reality, the church rejected the legal procedures set forth in the document, and finally censured them a few years later. Nearly five years before Brown wrote The DaVinci code, Jenny Gibbons, herself a Neopagan, wrote:

"Popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion [which is what Brown claims - J.F.] Today we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the church was at the height of its power (11th to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." Jenny Gibbons, "Recent Developments in the study of the Great European Witch Hunt", Covenant of the Goddess, http//www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html, cited by Jones and Garlow, p. 65

Third, the number of women killed has been vastly over estimated. This is not to excuse anyone or diminish the serious of murder in any way. I point this out simply to show yet again, the poor scholarship that pervades Brown's work. According to Oxford Scholar Robin Briggs,

"a potent myth has become established, to the effect that nine million women were burned as witches in Europe; gendercide rather than genocide. This is an overstatement by a factor up to 200, for most reasonable modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 percent were men." "Witches and Neighbors", New York: Penguin, 1998, cited in Garlow and Jones, "Cracking DaVinci's Code", p. 66

Jenny Gibbons also noted that,

"We Neopagans now face a crises. As new data appeared, historians altered their theories to account for it. We have not. Therefore an enormous gap has opened between the academic and the average Pagan view of witchcraft…We avoid the somewhat dull academic texts that present solid research, preferring sensational writers who play to our emotions." Jenny Gibbons, "Recent Developments in the study of the Great European Witch Hunt", Covenant of the Goddess, http//www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html

And The DaVinci Code?

According to Brown, DaVinci was a Grandmaster of the secret order known as The Priory of Sion, which was, remember, proven a fraud back in 1993. But in Brown's world, DaVinci, was part of this order, and knew the secret of the Holy Grail. In his famous painting "The Last Supper" DaVinci supposedly hinted at the truth by painting Mary Magdalene as seated at Jesus' right hand.

Art historians have long maintained that the "feminine" figure seated next to Jesus in the painting is a youthful apostle John, as he is normally depicted in artwork of that era. Carmen Bombach, an expert on DaVinci, was interviewed on the Today Show by Katie Courie. According to Bombach, Brown's claims are to be rejected. The ABC special on the DaVinci Code was only able to locate one art historian, Carlo Pedretti, who agreed that DaVinci painted the figure as a woman. This he did based on the figure's faint resemblance to a woman in another painting.

Personally, I think it may be a bit tough to be 100% certain of what any figure in the painting looked like immediately after DaVinci painted it. The painting itself has been falling apart almost since the work was completed in the late 1490's, and since 1726, it has been restored no less than seven times.

What conclusions can be fairly drawn?

The DaVinci Code would not be worth a second glance if not for its author's claims that the book's basic premise is factual. These claims are easily disproved, however, even after a cursory glance at the available historic data. The problem is, our culture seems to care little about cold hard facts, instead preferring to embrace outlandish conspiracy theories. For those who find Christianity's demanding moral code and the need for a Saviour distasteful, these theories offer at least some excuse for rejecting the Bible's claims.

Notes and References:

For a more thorough treatment of this topic see article "Not Davincible: A Review and Critique of the Da Vinci Code", by James Patrick Holding, Tekton Apologetic Ministries, www.tektonis.org

Also see James L. Garlow and Peter Jones, "Cracking DaVinci's Code", Victor, 2004 and Darrel Bock, PH.D., "Breaking the Da Vinci Code", Nelson Books, 2004

1. University of Chicago's Robert M. Grant is one of the most respected New Testament Scholars. He echoes the views of virtually all in his field when he states,

"The gospels, then, originated fairly soon after the middle of the first century. They were created by and for believers who were concerned with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and tried to interpret the meaning of this chain of events." "Historical Introduction to the New Testament", Harper and Row, New York, p. 109

2. Glenn Miller's Christian Think Tank offers much more information on this topic. From the article, "Did the Bible Lie About Jesus not Being Married"? (at www.christianthinktank.com/singlejesus): "Celibacy was, in fact not common, and was disapproved by the rabbis, who taught that a man should marry at eighteen, and that if he passed the age of twenty without taking a wife he transgressed a divine command and incurred God's displeasure. Postponement of marriage was permitted students of the Law that they might concentrate their attention of their studies, free from the cares of supporting a wife." For this quote he sources "Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of Tannaim. George Foot Moore. (reprints of 1927/1930 vols), Hendrickson.

3. Philip Jenkins, Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University assigns to the Gospel a Philip a date of AD 350. See "Hidden Gospels", Oxford Press, 2002, pp. 69, 117

4. Garlow and Jones, pp.112-113

5. "It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, 'Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition." Millard Burrows, "The Dead Sea Scrolls", p. 304, as cited by Geisler, "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics", Baker Books, 1999, p. 187

6. Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona, "Eyewitness to Jesus", Doubleday, 1996

7. "The Christiology of Jehovah's Witnesses, also, is a form of Arianism; they regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russel, the founder of their movement." Encyclopedia Britannica, "Arianism", p. 550