Pastoral Care Ministries

Decoding ” Da Vinci Code”

An Analysis of Da Vinci Phenomenon

Paper Presented by: Rajesh on 20-7-06.

Introduction:
What is the primary motivation for Dan Brown to write, ‘The Da Vinci Code’? A simple bird view of the Novel shows that Brown wants to write a thriller which brings him fame and money. The book is filled with all the stunts, plots, sex, and romance like any typical novel designed to become a thriller and eventually a movie. After many months after its release, still DVC movie is one of the top ten earners in United States Box office. It raked 220 million dollars within three days of its ease! The book DVC was sold more than 40 million copies! And was translated in different languages! Did Brown accomplish his goal of fame and money? Certainly, but the questions which emerge are: At whose cost and by what method?

Why DVC has become so famous? Any literature or movie which attempts to question established religious traditions create a disturbance in the society, especially among the followers of the particular religion. This very disturbance leads to popularity of the piece of literature or a movie. There are ample of evidences of this phenomenon in recent times. ‘Satanic Verses’ by Salman Rushdie, ‘Lajja’ by Taslima Nasreen, the movie, ‘Last Temptation’ all have exploited the above
mentioned phenomenon. DVC did not become famous because it has replaced the truth, but because it has attempted to create a doubt about the truth. Along with using above mentioned phenomenon Brown brilliantly attempts to use obscure historical records to obscure audience, to make them believe that his work is well researched according to academic and scientific standards. nfortunately most of his audiences do not have the apparatus to verify the veracity of his claims.

Brown’s major attack on Christianity is; he questions the very existence and formation of Bible specially Gospels, and the divinity of Jesus. These two issues are handled in detail in this paper.

Canonization of Scriptures:
The attack of Dan Brown can bee seen in the following abstracts from his book. “The Bible is a product of man… Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.”[1] “More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among
them.” “The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.”[2]

When we observe the above mentioned abstracts, Brown mixes the facts with speculations very finely, may be this is the reason he was able to create so much tumult. It is true that Bible evolved through translations, additions, revisions with history of tumultuous time. It is also true that there are other gospels apart from the four gospels found in New Testament (NT). From unbeliever’s perspective, it can also be accepted that Bible is a product of man. But the question is what role Constantine played in canonization of four gospels in NT. It seems, Brown, did not do his home work properly. The historical records of the early church show that four canonical gospels gained considerable credibility and were considered as authentic in second century,
were as Constantine lived in fourth century. In this regard, the statement of the Catholic Church is given below. This statement of the church was in response to Marcion who questioned the authenticity of the Old Testament and the NT specially four gospels. “…As for the scriptures of the new order, we accept not one gospel writing only, but four. We accept not only ten letters of Paul, but thirteen (that is, including the three addressed to Timothy and Titus). We accept not the letters of Paul only, but letters of other apostles too. And we accept the Acts of the Apostles, a work which links the gospels and the apostolic letters, providing the sequel to the former and the background to the latter….”[3] Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage, in the mid third century, held almost all the NT books as authentic. With regard to this point NT scholar F.F. Bruce writes, “It is plain that by Cyprian’s day there existed a fairly complete Bible in the Old Latin version for him to memorize and cite as occasion required. His New Testament comprised four gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters to seven churches and to Timothy and Titus. 1 Peter, John and the Apocalypse. These writings, like the
prophetic scriptures of the Old Testament, were the product of divine inspiration.”[4] In the same accord concerning Tertullian the Bishop of Carthage in second century, Bruce writes, “Although he (Tertullian) nowhere formally enumerates its(NT) contents, it certainly comprised the four gospels and Acts, the thirteen epistles which bear Paul’s name, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation (which he ascribes to John the apostle). It also included the epistle of Jude, which he ascribes to the apostle of that name.”[5] In 1740 a Latin list of New Testament books was published by Lodovico Antonio Muratori, a distinguished antiquarian and theologian of his day, from a codex copied in the seventh or eighth century at the monastery of Bobbio, in Lombardy, but later lodged in Ambrosian Library, Milan (of which Muratori had at one keeper); there it is (catalogued)… The date at which the list was originally drawn up is disputed; it belongs most probably to the end of the second century. And this list resembles NT.[6] The above paragraphs does not intend to prove that NT books were unanimously accepted by all the leaders of early Christianity, there were variations in acceptance canonical books, but the point, the above mentioned paragraphs intend to make is that much ahead of Constantine the four gospels and other books of NT were recognized and other gospels which Brown mentions were not considered as credible. Henceforth Constantine did not have any role in the process of canonization. In this regard Casper Rene writes: Here we may close our view of the criticism of the canon. The one great result is that which has not come to the surface during the whole discussion. We have not said anything about a determination of the books which belong to the New Testament on the part of a general council of the Christian Church. We could say nothing about such a determination, because there never was one. Now and then a local or partial council ratified the statements of some preceding Church writer.[7] Above discussion also prove how Brown makes statements with out any solid evidences, Browns says: “Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke.
From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history….Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.”[8] If earlier gospels which depicted human traits of Jesus burned, then why the Canonical Gospels were spared which talk about humanity of Jesus. These gospels are earliest gospels recognized by Church Fathers as we have seen, and why they were not burned? The other question posed by Brown is of the other gospels which were left out. Brown gives an impression that they were left out from NT on the behest of the Constantine. But what is the fact? The following paragraphs depict the contents of the Gnostic gospels on which Brown builds his story. The Gospel of Phillip was used by Brown to speculate Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene. The author of the gospel writes that Jesus kissed on the mouth of Mary Magdalene more frequently and he loved her more than other disciples. But the Gospel of Phillip was declared heretic by early church leaders, because it had Gnostic teachings contradicting the Christian faith. In gospel of Phillip, the author writes that Jesus fooled every one by not appearing as he was, but appeared so that he could be seen. This teaching questions the humanity of Jesus as Gnostics do.[9] And Gospel of Phillip denies the supernatural birth of Jesus.[10] In the same accord Gospel of Thomas had Gnostic orientation this can be seen in it’s teachings. Here Jesus says to disciples to find the ALL that is in every body. (Element of divinity which Gnostics believed existed in all the human beings.) [11]
In the Caesarea Philippi incident when Jesus asked disciples, “Who do you say that that I am? In Gospel of Thomas Peter replies in positive terms as in canonical gospels but Thomas replies, “Lord I am not able to say who you are. And for this Jesus commends Thomas.[12] From recently published gospel of Judas it is clear that Jesus talks about the destiny and behavior of humans depend on their stars. This reflects typical eastern religious belief. From, the above mentioned contents of the Gnostic gospels it can be understood why they were declared as heretic and not because of Constantine. And these were declared as heretic much before Constantine. The question which boils down is: Does Brown wants to fill the New Testament with all the heretic gospels just because they were written in Christian name and in early Christian era?

Divinity of Jesus Christ: Concerning the divinity of Jesus Brown makes a blanket statement without any proper research or reflection. Brown claims that because of Constantine Jesus became God. The following statement of Brown needs to be analyzed. “Jesus’ establishment as “the Son of God” was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea….Nonetheless, establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman Empire and to the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity, but now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channel(The Roman Catholic Church).”[13] The factual error of Dan Brown in above mentioned paragraph is that at Nicaea divinity of Jesus was not debated but his status in relation to God the Father was debated. Arius was not Gnostic and did not question the divinity of Jesus but his co-equal status to God the Father.[14] Athanasious, the opponent of Arius argued that in every ways Jesus is equal to God the Father. And majority of the Bishops around 316 voted for Athanasious and only 2 voted for Arius. Consequently, Nicene Creed was drafted, which declared that Jesus was in substance and in essence was same as God the Father. And Constantine supported Athanasious. There is no need to convince Brown that Jesus was believed to be God since his earthly days and centuries preceding Constantine. And because of this belief Christians were persecuted and martyred before Constantine and after Constantine. Constantine role in Nicaea was not to shape the faith of Christianity but to
endorse what was believed by majority of Christians. Paradoxically growing influence of Christianity influenced the policies of Constantine. By fourth century Christianity became a political force to reckon with. And Constantine recognized it. Ironically this has been admitted by Brown himself. “Constantine was a very good businessman. He could see that Christianity was on the rise, and he simply backed the winning horse.”[15] If Constantine needed Christian horse to win, how can he dare to challenge its belief rather than flow with it? Brown is caught in his own web of statements. Jesus was not made divine but is divine, he was not made God but is God. This fact has been confessed and canonized in first century itself. A bird view of Gospels and Pauline letters canonized in first century itself reveal who Jesus is. Some of the statements of early church Fathers concerning the divinity of Jesus are recorded below. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110): “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of david, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit.”[16] Clement of Alexandria: “The Word, then the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning for he was in God and our well being. And now this time same word has appeared as man.
He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things.”[17] What do the statements canonical gospels and church Fathers mentioned above prove? And how can Constantine make Jesus as God who is already believed and worshiped as God?
Conclusion: Dan Brown is genius, in making historical statements without any proper evidences, and finely mixing such historical statements with his speculations and interpretations. And present it to unsuspecting audience who do not have any apparatus to check his claims. Brown is also genius to escape critical scholarly comments under the carpet of fiction. That is why he titled his writing as Novel, yet making serious comments about established religious faiths. Since he titled his writing as Novel he easily escapes from the responsibility to give credible historical evidences to his statements.
End Notes
[1] Dan, Brown, “The Da Vinci Code,” London: Corgi Books, 2004. p.312.
[2] Ibid., p.313. For details see appendix.
[3] F.F. Bruce, “The Canon of the Scriptures,” Illinois: IVP, 1988. p.151.
[4] Ibid., p.184.
[5] Ibid., p.182.
[6] Ibid., pp.158-159.
[7] Casper Rene Gregory, “Canon and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” New
York: Charles Scribner’s Son, 1907. p.286.
[8] Ban Brown. pp.316-317.
[9] Gospel of Phillip, 57:28.
[10] Gospel of Phillip, 55:23
[11]Gospel of Thomas, Sayings, 2, 6, 77.
[12]Gospel of Thomas, Saying 13.
[13] Dan Brown, pp.315-316.
[14] William G. Young, A Handbook of Source Materials for Students of Church
History, Madras:CLS,1969,No. 259-260, pp.197-198.
[15] Dan Brown, p.314.
[16] Letter to the Ephesians 1.
[17] Exhortations to the Greeks1:7