Da Vinci Code: Book Review

Here it is at last: my review of Dan Brown’s popular and controversial The Da Vinci Code. At last check, the novel was at #14 on Amazon.com’s top sellers list. While that may not be #1, try saying your book is in the top 15 two years after it was first published.

I am a late comer on this book. Da Vinci Code has been reviewed over and over, and most everyone knows the basic premise of the story. This is a murder mystery which turns into a search for the Holy Grail. Along the way, we learn about how the Church has suppressed the truth and forcibly conformed history to fit the Christianity’s goal of domination and making sure women were subjugated and never given equality. I will not spend time on the details of the story. My concern is with the presentation of Church History.

The story is fiction. Simple. Being fiction, I really would not fret too much over the "history" in the book. But Brown has gone on record as believing as fact the conspiracies and historical revisionism the Church (to Brown, the "Church" is the Roman Catholic Church; keep that distinction in mind) has done. He really believes the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, that she and Jesus were married and had children, the Church has suppressed that fact, they’ve rewritten history to hide the truth, the four Gospels in the Bible are corrupt and do not contain the true words of Christ, and what are known as the Gnostic Gospels promote Christ’s true teachings. Because he believes his own story, and many (many, many) Christians have bought his bill of goods, I have to take a position on this, educate myself, and be able to defend the truth.

At the center of the novel Robert Langdon (the main character, symbologist, educated in the history of Christianity) and Sophie Neveu (leading lady, cryptologist, ignorant of Christian history) meet with Leigh Teabing (most knowledgeable man alive on the Holy Grail and Christian history) to discuss the Holy Grail, and educate Sophie. This is where we start to see where Dan Brown did his research…but solely on the secret cults and rituals and all of the conspiracies he now believes in. There is no evidence he picked up any sort of scholarly work by an educated Church historian. What he presents is very matter-of-fact, presuppositions galore. There is not a hint of an opposing idea; only that this is truth. Had Brown taken some time to look over any relevant works by Jaroslav Pelikan, WHC Frend, Justo Gonzalez, Henry Sheldon, Philip Schaff, or any primary text of the Early Church Fathers, putting to paper what he did would be a little more involved. There would (or should) at least be a presentation of the opposing story (in this case, orthodox) and then a refutation. Moving on, I will deal with points that Christians are buying into.

"The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God.. . . 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

A bland attempt, at best. We have numerous Koine Greek manuscripts for the New Testament. We have OT manuscripts in the original Hebrew and Aramaic languages (and that includes the Dead Sea Scrolls). The "countless translations" are into English and languages that the masses can read. Additions? Revisions? Sounds like classical Mormon arguments, with the classical lack of evidence for the claim. There really is not much to say about that because each time I have asked for proof when presented with that claim (and in LDS circles, that one comes up all the time), I am given nothing. Not "nothing" by my opinion, but actual silence.

"History has never had a definitive version of the book." Of course that is based on who you ask. But, how is that related to the Bible being a product of man? Really, that statement was thrown in as a side bar, an extra jab, having nothing to do with the point of what he is saying.

"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."²

What’s not included is even a sample of what these "gospels" would be. Yet they are all legitimate gospels? Not the four chosen, of course.

The person of Constantine and his role in the creation of the suppressive Christian canon and the orthodox Christian tradition takes center stage in this tale. But, Brown again failed to do his homework. Constantine was not baptized against his will. He did not call the Council of Nicea to cease a battle between Christians and pagans. And he definitely was not the individual who changed the Christian worship day from the Sabbath to Sunday "on account of the pagan Sun-god’s weekly tribute."³ For an excellent review of Constantine and his relationship to the Church in the fourth century, Brown and everyone else interested should read Henry Sheldon’s History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, starting at page 331. That will give you a plain, easy to understand as well as historically accurate view of Constantine the Great.

The real kicker in this section was the depiction of the Council of Nicea in AD 325:

"During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as The Council of Nicea."

Sophie had heard of it only insofar as it being the birthplace of the Nicene Creed.

"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon—the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."

"I don’t follow. His divinity?"

"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal."

"Not the Son of God?"

"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'The Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."

"Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?"

"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. ". . . 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."

". . . Many scholars claim the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power."⁴

Indeed, the Council of Nicea was meant to unite Christianity on matters of doctrine and practice. The reason Constantine called for the council was for keeping some peace and unity within the empire. The immediate reason or cause was not the toppling of paganism, especially when "paganism" was not in question at the council. While many items were on the agenda, the divinity of Jesus consumed the majority of the focus and time during the council.

Contrary to Brown's researched understanding of the history, Nicea did not steal Jesus from his originally human state among his followers and establish him as the Son of God in order to expand their power. The first thing to note in Brown's retelling of Nicea is that this was not a battle between Christians and pagans. This was between Christians and Christians: orthodox and arians. Pagans were not involved. Secondly, there was no vote in the same sense Americans undertand within the republican/democratic system. There were debates and discussions, creeds were presented, and one creed was formulated by those discussions, and a final creed agreed upon. You were then to sign off on the creed; if you did not sign, you were anathematized. If you still consider that a voting system, here's a little more information. There were over 300 bishops present, over 95% of them from the East (which, interestingly enough, should have given the arian side more support; turned out not to be the case). Only two people did not sign, and Arius was one of them. Over 300 in favor, with only two dissenting on the creed. Now, if Brown is correct, 300-2 is considered a "relatively close vote." Relative to what exactly?

The Nicene Creed did not refashion the human Jesus as this new Son of God, fully divine. The creed codified what the vast (and I mean extremely vast) majority of Christianity already believed. This arian doctrine that had seeped into some churches had gone beyond the wiles and schemes and falsehoods of Gnosticism. It had to be dealt with in an authoritative way. Hence the creed. Through the character of Leigh Teabing, Brown declared that until AD 325, "Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." This could not be further from the truth. Let's see what Jesus' followers were saying about Him:

Ignatius of Antioch, c. AD 107: "united and elect through genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God,"⁵ and "For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father."⁶

Polycarp, c. AD 107: "the Eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith."⁷

Martyrdom of Polycarp, c. AD 156: "For this one [Christ], who is the Son of God, we worship."⁸

Epistle of Barnabas, before AD 135: "the Son of God came in the flesh for this reason."⁹

Epistle to Diognetus, between AD 150-225: "In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone?"¹⁰

And that is only a miniscule sampling of the comments made by Jesus' followers about His divinity, well prior to the Council of Nicea. Not even the Gnostics considered Christ a mere man, but divine and outside of the evil, fleshly realm. And, Dan Brown, the vast majority of the other "gospels" not included in the New Testament do not present Him as a man, but more than a man. Yes, even Arius did not agree with Brown.

Lastly, Brown mentions that "Many scholars claim the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers." What about the many more scholars who claim otherwise? Trying to play the numbers game is a logical fallacy. Of course, Brown may consider five scholars "many," but he does have a tendancy towards fuzzy math (300-2 is how close?).

I do believe Christians should read The Da Vinci Code if they want to discuss the issues with their friends and family, as long as they also pick up a copy of Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity, or a similar, highly acclaimed work, to help you understand the truth. Dan Brown is so strait-forward it can be deceptive. However, the failings are almost laughable.

Despite the lack of legitimate historical or theological value, Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is a definite page turner. The story is riveting for the most part, very fast moving, and mixed well with occassional twists in the mystery. While you are able to catch up with the lives of the characters via flashbacks, some of them are not timed well and hurt the flow of the story. Though the novel fails to be historically accurate, he obviously intended to be one sided and use the short time he had in the story to promote his presuppositions. I was very happy not to see a love story throughout (that was saved for the end, though there were minute hints of the developement here and there), but understand he wanted to keep the lead characters human.

Don't let the hype fool you. It's not great; it is good. The popularity and controversy alone should have you reading this book, but the possibility for discussions and sharing the truth were the nail in the coffin for me. 2.5 TULIPS from me.



__________

1. Brown, Dan, The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday: New York, NY, 2003), 236. This is the advanced reader’s copy, so my pages will be different than the regularly published edition, but the content the same.
2. Ibid., 236-237.
3. Ibid., 238.
4. Ibid., 238-239.
5. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, intro.
6. Ign., Romans, iii.3.
7. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, xii.2.
8. Martyrdom of Polycarp, xvii.3.
9. Epistle of Barnabas, v.11.
10. Epistle to Diognetus, ix.4