the da vinci code separating fact from fiction

THE DA VINCI CODE:Separating FactFrom Fiction

RReleased in March 2003, thebook The Da Vinci Codeby Dan Brown quickly

made The New York Timesbestseller list. A year later, it was declared a bestseller in 100countries, while Doubleday, itspublisher, called it “the all-timebestselling adult novel.”

Why such interest? Theauthor claims to have given the world a fictional, fact-basedconspiracy theory alleging“scientific evidence that the New Testament is falsetestimony” (p.341).

Because a “good read”combined with bad history is notsomething to stake your life on,we have asked RBC researcheditor Dennis Fisher to help ussort out the facts from the fiction.

Martin R. De Haan II

Managing Editor: David Sper Cover Design:Terry Bidgood Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by ThomasNelson, Inc. Used by permission.All rights reserved.© 2005 RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan Printed in USA

CONTENTS

“Please, Help Me!” . . . . . 2

What Is The Truth? . . . . . 3

Separating Fact From Fiction . . . . . . . . . 28

Test The Spirits . . . . . . . 31

Q1117 DaVinci Code pp 12/16/04 1:29 PM

© RBC Ministries. All rights reserved.

“PLEASE,HELP ME!”

TThe e-mail reached our office with a sense of urgency.

This is what it said:Dear RBC, I don’t know where elseto turn. I pray to Godthat you can help me.

I began to read thebook by Dan Browncalled The Da Vinci Code.It was an interesting bookuntil I got to the partwhere he’s talking abouthow Christianity began,how it’s all false, and thatChristianity is basically alie and stolen from paganreligions. The secretsocieties, the Holy Grail,the church changingfacts, removing parts ofthe Bible. Is it all true?

So much of it makessense. There were thingsthat I had heard beforeand ignored. But now Ihave to know. Is the last

25+ years I’ve been aChristian all a lie? WasJesus just a man? Did it all really happen? Was He married to MaryMagdalene? Is everythingI was raised to believejust made up for the sake of money? I have to know.

I don’t know whereelse to turn. Now I amdoubting if there is aheaven, a God, andJesus. Please, help me! Please, in God’sname, help me. I’mbrokenhearted, confused, and still crying.This person’s response is

not surprising. The Da VinciCode has a storyline thatmakes it difficult to knowwhere the truth begins andends. Although it’s written asa novel, this conspiratorialmurder mystery claims to be based on well-researchedhistorical facts—facts thatcontradict historicalChristianity.

2



WHAT IS THETRUTH?

DDan Brown’s novelThe Da Vinci Codebegins with the

murder of Jacques Saunière,curator of the LouvreMuseum in Paris. As he isdying, Jacques hears hismurderer say, “When youare gone, I will be the onlyone who knows the truth.”

The truth. In an instant,the curator grasped the true horror of thesituation. If I die, thetruth will be lost forever(p.4).With a bullet lodged in

his stomach, the curator isgripped by . . .

a fear far greater thanthat of his own death. I must pass on the secret. . . . He thought of thegenerations who hadcome before them . . . of the mission withwhich they had all beenentrusted. An unbroken

chain of knowledge.Suddenly, now, despiteall the precautions . . .despite all the failsafes . . . Jacques Saunière wasthe only remaining link,the sole guardian of oneof the most powerfulsecrets ever kept.Shivering, he pulledhimself to his feet. I mustfind some way. . . (p.5).

What is the plotline of The Da Vinci Code?The complex story of The Da Vinci Code is one ofintrigue and conspiracy.

While in Paris onbusiness, a Harvardprofessor by the name ofRobert Langdon receives anurgent call. The curator ofthe Louvre art museum hasbeen found murdered. Thepolice are baffled by anencoded message left by thedead man and written withhis own blood. Langdonfollows the trail of thismystery, which leads to

3



clues left in the works ofLeonardo Da Vinci. He joinsefforts with cryptologistSophie Neveu, Saunière’sgranddaughter, and togetherthey discover that the deadcurator was part of a secretsociety, the Priory of Sion,whose members includedIsaac Newton, Victor Hugo,and Leonardo Da Vinci.Behind the scenes, Opus Dei, a Catholic layorganization, is plotting toprevent the discovery of an ancient secret, the HolyGrail, kept hidden by thePriory of Sion for centuries.If discovered, it would shake the foundations of thechurch and the faith it hasproclaimed for millennia.

Dan Brown’s plotlinedraws strength from publicknowledge of past andpresent church scandals andhas been recommended as agood and provocative readby prestigious critics. TheLibrary Journal recommendsThe Da Vinci Code as “a

compelling blend of historyand page-turning suspense.”

Why are some readers shaken by this novel?Central to the controversy is the book’s alleged exposéof the historic church and its Bible. Since followers ofChrist stake their lives onthe biblical record, The Da Vinci Code touches anerve when its allegedexpert declares, “The churchhas two thousand years ofexperience pressuring thosewho threaten to unveil itslies. Since the days ofConstantine, the church has successfully hidden the truth about MaryMagdalene and Jesus. Weshould not be surprised thatnow, once again, they havefound a way to keep theworld in the dark” (p.407).

Brown claims ancientevidence that Jesus was not a God-man as describedby the church. Instead, the

4



novel’s “experts” describeJesus as a mere man whohad a child with MaryMagdalene and gave her theresponsibility of leading Hisdisciples after He was gone.

The source of theseallegations is a collection of ancient Gnostic gospelsfound at Nag Hammadi,Egypt, in 1945. The SecretBooks Of James and TheGospel Of Thomas are justtwo of these documents that reflect the ancientphilosophy of Gnosticism.

From the early days of the Christian church,Gnostics promoted adifferent view of Christ. They claimed to have a“secret knowledge” that was necessary to know the truth about God.

Regarding the second-century teaching of Gnosticism, one modernsource says,

From the standpoint oftraditional Christianity,Gnostic thinking is quite

alien. Its mythologicalsetting of redemptionleads to a depreciation of the historical events of the life, death, andresurrection of Jesus. Its view of man’srelationship to God leads to a denial of theimportance of the personand work of Christ, while,in a Gnostic context,“salvation” is notunderstood in terms ofdeliverance from sin, butas a form of existentialself-realization (TheNew Bible Dictionary).Although the Gnostic

gospels are second- andthird-century writings, The Da Vinci Code regardsthem as the “lost books of the Bible” that representthe true picture of Jesus and His teachings. Secret knowledge, goddessworship, and self-deificationemerge as an alternativetheory to the historic recordof the Bible.

5



Why were the Gnostic gospelsexcluded from the Bible? There are many reasons the Gnostic gospels were not included in the Bible.Early church leaders foundconsensus in determiningwhether ancient Christiandocuments were sacred by asking some basicquestions: Was it written by an apostle of Christ or by someone who haddirect contact with theapostles? Did the writings in question receive wideacceptance as beingconsistent with the teachingof Christ and the apostles?Did they bear the mark andeffect of spiritual power andtruth?

None of the Gnosticgospels measure up to theNew Testament standard of reliable documents.Instead of being consistentwith the earliest and most reliable eyewitness

accounts, and instead ofresting on the foundations of the Jewish Scriptures, theGnostic gospels reflect aworldview that is foreign to both Old and NewTestaments.

Why are so manytaking The Da VinciCode seriously? On the title page of The Da Vinci Code, the authorclaims: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture,documents, and secretrituals in this novel areaccurate.” In addition,Brown offers a lengthy list of acknowledgments thatleave the impression that allof these prestigious sourcesand institutions collaboratedwith him in his research.

Since so much of thecomplex plot and themedevelopment are dependentupon Dan Brown’s claim oflegitimate research into realpeople, times, and places,it’s easy for the reader to

6



assume that the backbone of The Da Vinci Code iscredible. Because the heroesof the novel are “seekers of truth,” they seem to beleading us to higher ground,as when a Harvard professorsays, “I’m a historian. I’mopposed to the destructionof documents, and I wouldlove to see religious scholarshave more information toponder the exceptional lifeof Jesus Christ” (p.342).

This is the apparentpassion for truth expressedby another of the book’sheroes, a researcher by thename of Teabing, who makesstatements like, “It’s amatter of historical record, . . . and Da Vinci wascertainly aware of that fact.The Last Supper practicallyshouts at the viewer thatJesus and Magdalene were a pair. . . . The marriage ofJesus and Mary Magdaleneis part of the historicalrecord” (pp.244-245).

On closer look, however,

the book’s alleged factualbasis does not stand up.Richard Abanes, in his book The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, writes:

Most critics wouldacknowledge that Brown has the right tosay whatever he wants tosay. What is problematic,however, is the way thathe, his publisher, and the media have beenpresenting The Da VinciCode: as a fact-basedexposé wherein thecharacters reveal truthslong hidden from, or atthe very least ignored by,the general public (p.9).This observation is

important because Brownhas repeatedly insisted thathis novel is based on fact.During an interview he said:

One of the manyqualities that makes The Da Vinci Codeunique is the factualnature of the story. Allthe history, artwork,

7



ancient documents, andsecret rituals in the novelare accurate—as are thehidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci’smost famous paintings(ibid, p.9). This is what makes

The Da Vinci Code somisleading. It claims to bean accurate portrayal ofhistory. Yet the book is aseductively clever mix of factand fiction.

Does The Da VinciCode deserve to be thought of ashistorical fiction?Historical fiction is a genreof literature in whichimaginary characters live within the realisticboundaries of known facts.

In her class syllabusUsing Historical Fiction In The History Classroom,Sarah K. Herz writes:

The author of historicalfiction must blendhistorical facts with

imagination and creativestyle to master his art. He must be a master of the past so as toportray accurately ideas,attitudes, tendencies, and themes and weavehis story—accurate in all its details—into thethematic materials. . . .Historians and novelistsoften differ in their pointsof view about thehistorical novel and itspurpose. However, bothagree that the writer ofhistorical fiction must not distort past reality;the writer must notmanipulate historicalfacts to make the novelmore interesting orexciting (Yale-NewHaven TeachersInstitute).By this definition, The

Da Vinci Code would needto develop its plot withhistorical integrity. Whenchallenged on his facts, theauthor cannot rightfully say,

8



“It’s only a novel.” Suchpositioning places the readerin a schizophrenic world offact and fiction.

Dan Brown writes an“alternative history” withoutgiving the reader the abilityto see where his facts beginand end. Literary scholarssee the difference; theaverage reader may not.

Let’s look at how the“what if” history of The Da Vinci Code plays out with elements that arealleged to be factual.

Are the book’s claimsabout the Holy Grail,the Priory of Sion, andthe Knights Templarhistorical?According to The Da VinciCode, the legendary HolyGrail is not the chalice usedat the Last Supper of Christ.Instead, Brown uses his“experts” to suggest that thereal Holy Grail is a person,Mary Magdalene, whocarried the bloodline of

Jesus Christ by having Hischild. The book also treatsas fact the existence of asecret society called thePriory of Sion, which forcenturies has kept the secret of Jesus’ relationshipto Mary. Mary Magdalene,according to this bestsellingnovel, represents thefeminine aspect of God (the “divine feminine”)—loved by Jesus but denied by the church for hundredsof years.

The Knights Templar arealso included as protectorsof the secret but were all butwiped out by the church.

The Holy Grail and the Priory of Sion are only two of the many “facts” thatneed to be subjected to ahistorical “reality check.”

The Holy Grail is amedieval legend about thecup of the Last Supper. Thefirst appearance of the term“Holy Grail” was in 1170 inPerceval, a romantic writingabout the legend of King

9



Arthur and his kingdom of Camelot. When Brownsuggests that the Holy Grailis not a cup but actuallyMary Magdalene who carried on Jesus’ bloodline by having His child, he altersan existing legend about thehistorical “cup of Christ” anduses it to advance fictionalclaims about Jesus and Mary.

The Priory of Sion alsohas a basis in fact, but notin the sense that Brownportrays it. The title hasbeen used three differenttimes. It was first a monastic

order founded in Jerusalemin 1100 that was absorbedinto the Jesuits in 1617.

The second and thirdPriory of Sion were eachunder the leadership of PierrePlantard (1920–2000), ananti-Semitic Frenchman whowent to jail in 1953 for fraud.In 1954, Plantard formed agroup called the Priory ofSion to help those in need oflow-cost housing. The groupdissolved in 1957. Then inthe 1960s and 70s he createda series of forged documentsto “prove” the existence of abloodline descending fromJesus and Mary through thekings of France to himself(claiming to be the rightfulheir to the throne). He and his associates calledthemselves the Priory of Sion and deposited thesedocuments in libraries allover France, including theNational Library.

In 1993, however,Plantard admitted underoath to a French judge that

10

Brown alters anexisting legend

about the historical“cup of Christ” anduses it to advance

fictional claimsabout Jesus and

Mary.



he had fabricated all thedocuments relating to thePriory of Sion. The judgeissued him a severe warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank(www.priory-of-sion.com).

The Knights Templar arebased in history but, onceagain, not as portrayed inThe Da Vinci Code. Theywere founded in 1118 as a military religious order, but they did not becomewealthy, as alleged in thenovel, by discovering thesecret of the Holy Grail. And there is no evidencethat they were annihilatedfor having knowledge of it.

Were Da Vinci and Isaac Newtonmembers of thePriory of Sion?The significance of thePriory of Sion is bolstered inthe plotline of The Da VinciCode by claiming a little-known connection with such geniuses as Leonardo

Da Vinci and Isaac Newton.Once again, however, Brownbases these assertions onone of Plantard’s forgeddocuments called LesDossiers Secrets d’HenriLobineau (The SecretRecords Of Henri Lobineau).Even though a French judgegot Plantard to admit hishoax, Dan Brown uses these“secret records” as if theywere legitimate.

These facts are importantto readers of The Da VinciCode. If there is no credibleevidence that Leonardo Da Vinci and Isaac Newtonwere secretly involved in thePriory of Sion, and if there is only fraudulent evidencethat the Priory of Sion wasformed to keep “the secret of Mary Magdalene,” other factual claims of TheDa Vinci Code also need tobe carefully looked at.

Did Da Vinci leaveclues to his beliefshidden in his art?

11



Dan Brown’s maincharacters—RobertLangdon, Sophie Neveu,and Leigh Teabing—areexperts at deciphering codesand interpreting symbols.This is one of the mostcompelling aspects of thenovel. The book accuratelypoints out that Leonardowas known to have usedreverse text (which could beread with a mirror) for someof his “progressive theories on astronomy, geology,archaeology, andhydrology” (p.300). Yet, his “secrets” were probablymore scientific thanreligious. Leonardo wasamong the Renaissancescientists who had to becareful not to raise suspicionthat their theories werechallenging establishedchurch doctrine on creation.

Brown, however, used the fact of Da Vinci’sreverse-style scientific essaysto suggest that Leonardoalso left clues in his artwork

about secret religious beliefs, which if knownwould have changed thepublic’s acceptance of hiswork. In The Da Vinci Code,the great artist is portrayedas a goddess worshiper wholeft clues in his artwork tolet us know that his views ofChrist were not in line withthe teachings of the church.

But how believable is thisclaim? Art critics who haveno interest in defending thechurch have rejected thenotion. Authorities in the art world believe that the“hidden clues” to Leonardo’ssecret faith exist only in theimagination of those lookingto make a conspiracy theory plausible (see: Bruce Boucher, “Does The Da Vinci Code CrackLeonardo?” The New YorkTimes, 8/3/03; Sian Gibby,“Mrs. God,” Slate, 11/3/03).

Is the book’s portrayal of theCatholic organization

12



known as Opus Dei accurate?Early in The Da Vinci Code,a “tortured soul” by thename of Silas is introducedas the faithful assassin doing “the work of theLord.” Silas turns out to be a member of Opus Dei,complete with a spiked beltfor self-mortification and a willingness to silence(murder) all enemies of the secret society.

Brown begins his book by stating as fact: “The Vatican prelatureknown as Opus Dei is adeeply devout Catholic sectthat has been the topic ofrecent controversy due toreports of brainwashing,coercion, and a dangerouspractice known as ‘corporalmortification.’ Opus Dei hasjust completed constructionof a $47 million NationalHeadquarters at 243Lexington Avenue in New York City.”

Again, The Da Vinci Code

alleges to have uncovered“secrets” about the church.The truth is that the realOpus Dei is a RomanCatholic lay organizationthat emphasizes piety andgood works. Its founderJosemaria Escriva was bornin Babastros, Spain, in 1902and created the Work (orOpus Dei, “work of God,” as it would later be known)to empower lay people,instead of focusing on thespirituality of clergy.

The characteristics ofOpus Dei are self-denial and sacrificial good workswithin the context of theRoman Catholic Church. Yet its portrayal in The Da Vinci Code as existing to suppress documents of the Priory of Sion is purefabrication. As we havealready noted (pp.9-11), the claim that the Priory of Sion exists to keep thesecret of the relationshipbetween Jesus and Mary is without merit or evidence.

13



To what extent has the church devaluedwomen?According to The Da VinciCode, “Powerful men in the early Christian church‘conned’ the world bypropagating lies thatdevalued the female andtipped the scales in favor of the masculine. . . .Constantine and his malesuccessors successfullyconverted the world frommatriarchal paganism topatriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda thatdemonized the sacredfeminine” (p.124).

In addition, The Da VinciCode refers to the CatholicInquisition and to victimsthat “included all femalescholars, priestesses,gypsies, mystics, naturelovers, herb gatherers, andany women ‘suspiciouslyattuned to the naturalworld.’ Midwives also werekilled for their heretical

practice of using medicalknowledge to ease the painof childbirth” (p.125).

It is public knowledgethat followers of Christ havenot always treated womenwith the love and respectthat Jesus Himself showedthe women who followedHim. Yet the truth is that thepersecuted groups listed byBrown were not specificallytargeted because of theirgender. The Inquisitiontargeted men and women—priests, nuns, artists,transients, and politicalenemies among others.

To the extent that The Da Vinci Code is right aboutthe church’s devaluation ofwomen, it is only becausefollowers of Christ havemissed the spirit of theirown Scriptures and Leader.For 2,000 years, the Biblehas urged its readers tobreak not only with thefertility cults and goddessworship of pagan religions,but also to reject the kind

14



of patriarchal culture thattreats women as servile,sexual objects, or property.Even though the spirit of theculture has often crept intothe church, Jesus’ treatmentof women and the apostlePaul’s teaching that menshould love their wives asChrist loved the church havechanged the hearts of menwho are open to the Spirit of Christ (Eph. 5:25).

Because of this influence,the church has, in manycultures, raised the status ofwomen from legal propertyto a relationship of “beingheirs together” (1 Pet. 3:7).

Was Mary Magdaleneever worshiped as agoddess?According to The Da VinciCode, Jesus wanted MaryMagdalene to restore to thechurch the concept of “thesacred feminine.”

Robert Langdon, Brown’s Harvardsymbologist, explains:

“The Holy Grail representsthe sacred feminine and thegoddess, which of coursehas now been lost, virtuallyeliminated by the church.The power of the female andher ability to produce lifewas once very sacred, but itposed a threat to the rise ofthe predominantly malechurch, and so the sacredfeminine was demonizedand called unclean”(p.238).

By that rationale, andwith second-century Gnosticdocuments, Brown buildshis case that Jesus not onlytook Mary Magdalene asHis wife but planned tomake her the founder of His church (p.254).

All of this, however, is contrary to what manyscholars regard as the oldestand most reliable accounts.The New Testament portraitof Mary Magdalene is insharp contrast to DanBrown’s vision of her.According to the gospel

15



of Mark, Jesus delivered herfrom seven demons (16:9).Grateful for being set free,she became a follower who,along with many others,provided financial support toJesus and His disciples (Lk.8:1-3). She was a witness ofthe crucifixion, burial, andresurrection of Christ (Mt.27:55-56; Mk. 15:40). John’sgospel says Mary was thefirst to see Jesus after Hisresurrection (Jn. 20:11-18).

In short, the NewTestament paints a pictureof Jesus and Mary that is honorable and abovereproach. Their relationshipis consistent with that of awoman who, along with theother disciples, followed a man who could healwithered legs, walk on water, and turn water intowine. The Gospel accountsof their friendship aremarked by a reserve andspiritual connection thatdoes not even hint at romantic involvement.

Yet despite the historical evidence thatMary Magdalene was one of many followers whowitnessed the miracles andunparalleled life of Christ, The Da Vinci Code portraysa romantic relationship thatleads to marriage and achild.

Did Jesus and MaryMagdalene marry and have a child?Although the New Testamentnever explicitly says thatJesus remained single, itgives indirect evidence thatHe did not get married likeHis apostles and brothers.The apostle Paul later wrotein his first letter to theCorinthians, “Do we have no right to take along abelieving wife, as do also theother apostles, the brothersof the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5). If Jesus hadmarried, Paul would haveincluded Him in the list.

The combined evidence 16



that Jesus lived a single lifeof devotion to His mission,however, does not show up in The Da Vinci Code. In fact, one of its maincharacters claims, “Almosteverything our fatherstaught us about Christ is false” (p.235).

In the context of a novel,such a statement reflects“freedom of speech.” Butfiction is not something onwhich to stake our lives.

Darrell Bock, who is aresearch professor of New Testament Studies at DallasTheological Seminary, saysthis about Jesus beingmarried:

Most scholars have longbelieved that Jesus wassingle . . . . No earlyChristian text we possess, either biblical or extrabiblical, indicatesthe presence of a wifeduring His ministry, Hiscrucifixion, or after Hisresurrection. Whenevertexts mention Jesus’

family, they refer to Hismother, brothers, andsisters but never to a wife. Furthermore, thereis no hint that He waswidowed (Breaking TheDa Vinci Code, p.41).Bock goes on to give

three arguments against theclaim that Jesus and Marywere married:

1. Mary is never tied to any male when she wasnamed (Mt. 27:55-56; Mk.15:40-41; Lk. 8:2; Jn. 19:25).

2. A minister’s right tomarry was cited withoutreference to Jesus (1 Cor.9:4-6).

3. Jesus showed nospecial concern for MaryMagdalene at the cross (Jn. 19:25-27).

Even though the Biblegives us compelling reasonto conclude that Jesus andMary were not married, whyshould we trust its claimsover the claims of theGnostic gospels and The Da Vinci Code?

17



Why should we trustthe biblical accounts of Jesus and Mary?The trustworthiness of anyancient document dependson its ability to stand upunder time-tested criteria.Let’s see what that measureof authenticity is and howthe New Testament and the Gnostic gospels stand up to it.

In the ancient Greekworld, Aristotle cast a giantshadow of scholarly andscientific insight thattouches us today. Longbefore the invention of the printing press, Aristotleused well-reasoned criteria for recognizing the trustworthiness of anancient document. He listedthree guidelines that havestood the test of time: (1) Was the person aneyewitness to the event herecorded? (2) How manycopies of the record do wehave and how close are theyto the event they describe?

(3) Are there other sourcesoutside the document thatcorroborate the document’sclaims? Even today,historians follow theseguidelines. They remainfoundational to the scienceof textual criticism.

Such guidelines help us to see some of the manyreasons that the credibilityof the New Testament hasstood the test of time. TheNag Hammadi documents(Gnostic gospels), bycomparison, were writtenabout 100 to 200 years afterthe life of Jesus. Being laterin time and lackingconnection to those whoknew Christ, they reflectGnostic doctrines of thesecond and third centuriesrather than a first-centuryrecord of witnesses.

By contrast, the New Testament gives useyewitness accounts, withmore copies, closer to theevent than any otherdocument from the first

18



century. Even though theoldest manuscripts are notcomplete, textual critics areable to piece together theevidence. Small portions like the Chester Beatty and John Ryland papyrifragments bring scholarsback to within 40 years ofthe writing of the gospel ofJohn (F. F. Bruce, The NewTestament Documents—AreThey Reliable? pp.17-18).Likewise, F. F. Bruce in hisbook Jesus And ChristianOrigins Outside The NewTestament shows howhistorians have used otherearly documents to confirmthe reliability of NewTestament accounts.

Even in the face of suchevidence, The Da Vinci Codecan still cause confusion. Bydeveloping a cleverly writtenplot that commingles “agood read” with a mixture of historical fact and fiction,the casual reader is unableto tell where the truth startsand stops. A good example

of this distortion of history is The Da Vinci Code’s viewof Emperor Constantine.

Was Constantine a lifelong pagan?According to The Da VinciCode, Constantine “was alifelong pagan who wasbaptized on his deathbed,too weak to protest. . . .Rome’s official religion wassun worship—the cult of Sol Invictus, or the InvisibleSun—and Constantine wasits head priest” (p.232).

Once again, the record of history is significantlydifferent than what DanBrown states. According to church historian Kenneth Scott Latourette,Constantine was a fourth-century Roman Emperorwho confessed a life-changing experience thatcaused him to reverse alongstanding persecutionpolicy against Christians. Byhis Edict of Milan (AD 313),he extended to Christianity

19



the toleration granted otherreligions of the day.

It’s true thatConstantine’s allegedconversion to Christ iscomplicated by the fact that Roman emperors wereregarded as both politicaland religious heads of state. In the Roman senate,Constantine was consideredhead priest of the cult of SolInvictus and also “pontifexmaximus” (commander andchief) of the priests of thefaith.

Despite this mix ofpolitical and pagan religiouspower, history bears recordthat Constantine’s interestswere not merely political.Until his Edict of Milan,Christians had beenregarded as enemies of the state because of theirconfession that Christ, rather than Caesar, is Kingof kings and Lord of lords.

Constantine’s baptismjust prior to his death mayreflect a misguided belief in

his day that water baptismwashes away sin. There isreason to believe that hedelayed his baptism untilthe last moment to try toassure that all the sins of his life would be cleansed.

Was Constantineresponsible for theview that Jesus is God? According to Brown, “Jesus’establishment as ‘the Son ofGod’ was officially proposedand voted on by the Councilof Nicaea.” And “until thatmoment in history, Jesuswas viewed by His followersas a mortal prophet . . . agreat and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal” (p.233).

Without question,Constantine was a pivotalfigure in church history who did more than grantfollowers of Christ protectionunder the law. He was alsoresponsible for conveningthe Council of Nicaea (AD325) to help church leaders

20



develop consensus about the doctrine of Christ.

The council wasconvened because an aged presbyter named Ariusdenied the full deity of Christby proclaiming, “There was[a time] when [Jesus] wasnot.” Arius reasoned thatbecause Jesus came into thisworld in physical form, Hemust be changeable—unlikeGod, His Father.

The views of Arius stirredgreat controversy amongother church leaders whowere convinced that thewritings of both Old andNew Testament Scripturesshowed that the Messiahwho came into the worldwas fully divine. The ideathat Jesus was a God-mandid not begin withConstantine. Hundreds of years before Jesus came into the world, Old Testament prophetsanticipated a comingMessiah as “Mighty God”(Isa. 9:6), “Immanuel” (Isa.

7:14) meaning “God withus” (Mt. 1:23), and “theLord” (Ps. 110:1).

This view of Jesus as Godin the flesh was later taughtby the apostles who wereeyewitnesses to all thatJesus said and did.

According to the NewTestament, these witnessesdid not always form theiropinions easily. One ofthem, named Thomas, is still known as “the doubter.” Yet upon encountering the risen Christ, Thomasconfessed, “My Lord and my God!” (Jn. 20:28).

In our day, Thomas’words might sound like aprofane exclamation. But his confession reflects thereasoned conclusion of otherapostles who recorded whatthey had seen and heard.Peter addressed Jesus as“the Christ, the Son of theliving God” (Jn. 6:69). Andthe apostle Paul, after hisconversion, ascribed to Jesusthe essential attributes of

21



God and full deity in humanform (Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 2:9).

Additional evidenceshows that belief in the deityof Christ preceded the daysof Constantine. In thegenerations that followed

the Apostolic Age, the fulldivinity of Christ was widelyaccepted by the churchfathers. Justin Martyr in AD150 wrote, “[Jesus is] thefirst-begotten Word of God,is even God.” In AD 185,Irenaeus proclaimed thatJesus of Nazareth is “ourLord and God and Saviorand King.” Clement ofAlexandria (c. AD 200) said

that Jesus was “truly mostmanifest Deity, He that ismade equal to the Lord ofthe universe.”

When Constantineconvened the Council ofNicaea, the Council’sconclusion that Jesus Christ was “God of veryGod” had deep historicaland scriptural roots. It’s also important that he did not lead the Council but served as an advocatefor reconciliation andagreement among themembers (The Truth BehindThe Da Vinci Code, Abanes,p.37; Breaking The Da VinciCode, Bock, pp.101-102;Christendom Volume 1,Bainton, pp.97-98).

Even if Constantine didnot project deity upon theman Jesus but cooperatedwith a growing consensusabout His divine nature, washe responsible for destroyinglegitimate documents thatshould have been includedin our Bible?

22

There is a wealth of evidence showing

that the belief inthe deity of Christdid not originatewith Constantine.



Did Constantinetamper with thecontents of the Bible?“The Bible, as we know ittoday, was collated by thepagan Roman emperorConstantine,” says DanBrown’s “expert” (p.231). He continues: “BecauseConstantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost fourcenturies after Jesus’ death,thousands of documentsalready existed chroniclingHis life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a boldstroke. From this sprang the most profound momentin Christian history. . . .Constantine commissionedand financed a new Bible,which omitted those gospels that spoke ofChrist’s human traits andembellished those gospelsthat made Him godlike. Theearlier [Gnostic] gospelswere outlawed, gathered up,and burned” (p.234).

Once again, however, therecord of history is different.There is no evidence thatConstantine ordered theburning of any Gnosticgospels. What were burnedwere Arian papers found bythe Council of Nicaea to beheretical. This destruction ofdocuments says more aboutthe church’s defense of thedoctrine of Christ than itdoes about the origin of theNew Testament.

The informal recognitionof New Testament Scriptureswas well under way longbefore Constantine. And the formal affirmation of the New Testament as weknow it today occurred 72years later at the Synod ofCarthage (AD 397). It was then, decades afterConstantine, that the official books of the Biblewere ratified (A Timeline OfChurch History, ConciliarPress).

23



Does The Da VinciCode or the NewTestament give us a better “unbrokenchain of knowledge”?The Da Vinci Code claims an “unbroken chain ofknowledge” (p.5) that can be traced back to theOld Testament. The NewTestament also claims to be rooted in the JewishScriptures. But which of thetwo fits like a hand in glovewith Moses and theProphets?

Dan Brown attempts to tie his “secret knowledge”to early Judaism with thisshocking statement:“Admittedly, the concept of sex as a pathway to God was mind-boggling at first. Langdon’s Jewishstudents always lookedflabbergasted when he firsttold them that the earlyJewish tradition involvedritualistic sex. In theTemple, no less. Early Jewsbelieved that the Holy of

Holies in Solomon’s Templehoused not only God butalso His powerful femaleequal, Shekinah. . . . TheJewish tetragrammatonYHWH—the sacred name ofGod—is in fact derived fromJehovah, an androgynousphysical union between themasculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve,Havah (p.309).

Such concepts soundscholarly when spoken by afictional Harvard professorof symbology. They can alsobe misleading when theycome from the pen ofsomeone who is trying torewrite history to claim thatGod is pleased by the paganpractices of ancient fertilitycults. This is anotherinstance, however, where the facts are different.

Researchers Carl Olsonand Sandra Miesel note:

The name “Jehovah”didn’t even exist until the thirteenth century at the earliest (and

24



wasn’t common until the sixteenth century),and is an English word. It was created byartificially combining theconsonants of YHWH (or JHVH) and thevowels of Adonai (whichmeans “Lord”), the namesubstituted for YHWH in the Old Testament byJews. The Hebrew—not“pre-Hebraic”—word for Eve is hawwâ,(pronounced “havah”),which means “mother ofall living” (www.davincihoax.com). By contrast, Brown

uses his own assumptions to make unjustified claimsabout Hebrew wordmeanings and origins. Thereader is asked to accept thewords of Robert Langdon, afictitious authority in thefield, who tries to tie theworship of Israel to theancient fertility cultscharacteristic of Israel’sneighbors. Notice the

difference of definition givenby Hebrew scholars in theTheological Wordbook OfThe Old Testament.

Most likely the name[YHWH] should betranslated something like“I am He who is,” or “Iam He who exists” . . . .More than anythingperhaps, the “is-ness” of God is expressive bothof His presence and Hisexistence (p.214).The self-description of

God in the Old Testament is that He is personal andeternally existent. But why isthis important? The ancientHebrews were surroundedby pagan people whoworshiped many gods and goddesses, offered their children as sacrifices,and engaged in ritual sexand other forms of moraldepravity. These forms ofworship were condemned by the prophets. In fact, aruler of Israel or Judah was often approved or

25



condemned on the basis of whether he accepted orrejected such pagan cults (1 Ki. 15–16).

Yet The Da Vinci Codeclaims that the original formof Judaism was polytheisticwith goddess worship andritual sex (p.309). To placesuch pagan practices withinthe Holy of Holies wouldhave been a blasphemousviolation of Mosaic law.

The Da Vinci Codecontradicts the combinedwitness of the HebrewScriptures. What about theNew Testament? Does it givea picture of continuity withthe Old Testament? Together,the writings of Paul, Peter,James, John, and Judecombine with the gospels ofMatthew, Mark, Luke, andJohn to cite multiple sourcesfrom the Old Testament tosupport their view of Christ.They build on the testimony of Jewish prophets whoanticipated a comingDeliverer who would be

born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14;Mt. 1:18,24-25). ThisMessiah would be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; Lk. 2:4-7). Although a king,He would enter Jerusalemhumbly on a donkey (Zech.9:9; Mt. 21:6-11). Even the piercing and death of Messiah were foretoldcenturies before the

invention of crucifixion as a form of execution (Isa. 53;Zech. 12:10; Mt. 27). Andthe Messiah triumphing over death in resurrectionwas foretold (Ps. 16:10; Isa. 53:10; Acts 2:31). Thesefulfillments of messianicpredictions are only part of a much wider range ofother elements of continuity

26

The Old and NewTestaments fittogether like a hand in glove.



also fulfilled by the uniqueperson of Jesus of Nazareth.

Many have noted downthrough the centuries that“the New Testament is in the Old Testament contained and the OldTestament is in the NewTestament explained.” Theydo fit together like a hand inglove—a fit that would havebeen impossible to contrive.

Do “the winners”rewrite history to suit their desires?Dan Brown’s expert “Grail hunter” tells Sophie:“History is always written by the winners. When twocultures clash, the loser isobliterated, and the winnerwrites the history books—books which glorify theirown cause and disparagethe conquered foe. AsNapoleon once said, ‘Whatis history, but a fableagreed upon?’ ” (p.256).

One problem with the book’s observation that

the emperor Constantinerewrote history is thatConstantine could not havecollected and altered thecombined evidence ofhistory that preceded him.

Ancient documentsincluding but not restrictedto the New Testamentaccounts tell the story ofwitnesses who saw the Old Testament Scripturesfulfilled in Christ and whowere willing to suffer and diefor what they saw in the life,death, and resurrection ofChrist. These witnesses lived and died in spite of thepower of Rome, not becauseof it. For most of the yearspreceding Constantine theywere a hated and persecutedpeople (1 Cor. 1:26-31).Followers of Christ were theoutcasts of society. Theywere the poor and powerlesswitnesses of the history ofChrist, not “the winners,” as alleged by Brown.

27



SEPARATINGFACT FROMFICTIONCUNNINGLYDEVISED FABLES The first apostles of Christknew the difference betweenfact and fiction. The NewTestament writer we know as the apostle Peter wrote:

We did not followcunningly devised fableswhen we made known toyou the power and comingof our Lord Jesus Christ,but were eyewitnesses ofHis majesty (2 Pet. 1:16).Peter affirmed that the

historic Christian faith doesnot rest on cleverly inventedstories that have no basis infact. “Cunningly devised”could literally be translated“artfully framed by humancleverness.”

The TheologicalDictionary Of The NewTestament makes thefollowing observation:

Certain unspecified

Gnostic teachings are inview in 2 Peter 1:16, butthe warning is a generalone to shun contact withall false doctrines, whichcan pass on only mythsand not the realities ofrevelation.

Notice that this biblicaldictionary identifies Gnosticteaching and myths that arenot consistent with eventsrecorded in Scripture as“cunningly devised fables.”

The word fables isliterally mythos, from which we get the word

28

“We did not followcunningly devisedfables when wemade known toyou the power

and coming of ourLord Jesus Christ.”

Peter (2 Pet. 1:16)



myth. Other commentatorssee a connection withGnostic teachings as well.For example:

The reference here may be . . . to Gnosticspeculations about aeonsor emanations which rosefrom the eternal abyss(Vincent and Wuest). This is not to say that

all fiction or myth is wrong.Some ancient myths, such as Aesop’s fables or Zenparables, have stood the testof time as fictional moralitylessons. They are not writtento make claims about historybut to illustrate principlesthat speak to the humanheart. Likewise, well-writtennovels can use imaginationcombined with a historicalbackdrop to tell a grippingand insightful story. The Da Vinci Code, however,alters the facts of history to promote a Gnostic andfanciful portrait of Jesus. The result is a bestselling“cunningly devised fable.”

TRUTH TWISTINGThe New Testament warns:

Now the Spirit expresslysays that in latter timessome will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits anddoctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1).Down through the

centuries, what Paul called“doctrines of demons” havebeen competing with thetruth for the minds andhearts of each generation.

In 1942, an Oxfordscholar and Christianapologist named C. S. Lewistried to imagine the mindsetand strategies of suchdemons in a book calledScrewtape Letters. It’s acollection of fictional lettersfrom a senior demon namedScrewtape to a novicedemon named Wormwood,his nephew and protégé.Screwtape gives his nephewadvice about how to use liesand deception to keep theyoung man he was assigned

29



to from seeing the truthabout “the enemy.”

In one exchange,Screwtape encouragesWormwood to try to distract his “patient” fromthe real Jesus by using theidea of “a historical Jesus.”Screwtape says:

In the last generation we promoted theconstruction of such a “historical Jesus” onliberal and humanitarianlines; we are now puttingforward a new “historicalJesus” on Marxian,catastrophic, andrevolutionary lines. The advantages of theseconstructions, which weintend to change everythirty years or so, aremanifold. In the first place they all tend todirect men’s devotion to something which does not exist, for each“historical Jesus” isunhistorical. Thedocuments [the New

Testament Gospels] saywhat they say and cannotbe added to; each new“historical Jesus”therefore has to be gotout of [the Scriptures] bysuppression at one pointand exaggeration atanother (pp.123-124).The Jesus of The

Da Vinci Code is an alleged“historical Jesus.” The bookcalls Christ a wonderful man while denying that He was anything more.Brown’s fictional Grailhunter for instance, says,“Nobody is saying Christwas a fraud, or denyingthat He walked the earthand inspired millions tobetter lives. All we aresaying is that Constantinetook advantage of Christ’ssubstantial influence andimportance. And in doingso, he shaped the face ofChristianity as we know it today” (p.234).

As we have seen, there is no evidence that

30



Constantine tried to alter the record of the Old or NewTestament Scriptures. Andbecause of the way theScriptures had been copied,distributed, and writtenabout, Constantine couldnot have altered the existingbiblical record even if hehad wanted to.

Anyone who calls Jesus a good teacher, but not Godand Savior, can do so onlyby ignoring or dismissing thecombined evidence. TheJewish prophets, apostoliceyewitnesses, churchfathers, and hundreds ofmillions of people over the last 2,000 years havefollowed Christ long enoughto find the truth in Him.

By contrast, The Da VinciCode combines fiction withdistortion of fact, referencingsecond- and third-centurywritings of known enemiesof the church, a conspiracytheory, and unproven claimsof “genealogical documents”that have never been found.

The truth about Christ ismore amazing than fiction—and far more believable.

TEST THESPIRITS

TThe disciple who satclosest to Jesus at theLast Supper left us a

gospel of His life and threeshort letters of spiritualinstruction. Many NewTestament scholars believethat the letter of 1 John had an ancient form ofGnosticism in view when the apostle wrote:

Beloved, do not believeevery spirit, but test thespirits, whether they are ofGod; because many falseprophets have gone outinto the world. By this youknow the Spirit of God:Every spirit that confessesthat Jesus Christ has comein the flesh is of God, andevery spirit that does notconfess that Jesus Christhas come in the flesh is

31



not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist,which you have heard was coming, and is nowalready in the world. Youare of God, little children,and have overcome them,because He who is in youis greater than he who isin the world (1 Jn. 4:1-4).John’s confidence in

Christ is as compelling today as it was in theancient world. He had

come to know Jesus not only as a wonderful friend(Jn. 21:20-24), but as theCreator of the world (Jn. 1:1-

3), who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn. 14:6).

SUGGESTED READING The Truth Behind The

Da Vinci Code by RichardAbanes (Eugene: HarvestHouse, 2004).

Breaking The Da VinciCode by Darrell Bock(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004).

Cracking Da Vinci’s Codeby James Garlow and PeterJones (Colorado Springs:Victor, 2004).

The Da Vinci Deceptionby Erwin W. Lutzer(Wheaton: Tyndale, 2004).

Jesus & Christian OriginsOutside The New Testamentby F. F. Bruce (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

The New TestamentDocuments—Are TheyReliable? by F. F. Bruce(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1973).

32

“I am the way,the truth, and

the life. No onecomes to the Father exceptthrough Me.”Jesus ( Jn. 14:6)



www.discoveryseries.org/catalog

USA: PO Box 2222, Grand Rapids, MI 49501-2222Canada: Box 1622, Windsor, ON N9A 6Z7

Get your free BibleResources catalog!

Discovery Series booklets can be valuable guides to help you learn what the Bible says about abroad range of topics.Each 32-page bookletcan be used in yourpersonal Bible study or in a small-group setting.

Your free BibleResources catalogincludes a brief

description of each Discovery Series booklet.To get your copy, write to us at the address belowand ask for a catalog. Or follow the link below torequest your copy today.

www.discoveryseries.org/catalog