Questions

Question first appeared on November 16, 2003
“The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown has been a best-seller for quite awhile now. The book also inspired an ABC one-hour television special which reflected primarily on Brown’s fascination with the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Before I address specifics about the book, let me share a reaction that occurred at the National Council of Churches (NCCC) meeting that I attended in early November.

At a breakfast meeting with Dr. Bob Edgar, NCCC General Secretary, heads of the member churches and the ecumenical officers of those churches, a question was asked whether our gathering should make a statement regarding the book, “The Da Vinci Code.” The unanimous reaction was a resounding “No.” The book is a work of fiction and deserves no official comment. To do so would give the book more notice than it deserves on its own merit.

Having said that, let me reflect on the main premise of Brown’s book. Brown believes that the first Great Ecumenical Council convened by the Emperor Constantine in Nicea, 325 AD, resulted in making Jesus divine and establishing an infallible New Testament, which he claims were never universally believed among Christians. This was a plot of the “ Vatican ” and the “Roman Catholic Church” to consolidate power. Already we are faced with Brown’s ignorance since these institutions were not in place at this time.

Brown shows additional ignorance about the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic period up to the time of Constantine . The New Testament writings of the first century and the writings of Church Fathers of the next two centuries: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, to name a few, all testify to Jesus Christ as divine. The Church of the second and third centuries encountered and defeated Gnosticism, a collection of various sects and groups that claimed “new” and “true” revelations about Jesus and who he truly was. Among these were strange stories about Mary Magdalene and her relationship to Jesus.

Brown is right about one thing: the meeting in Nicea in 325 AD was a high water mark in Church history. The Church defeated the teachings of Arius who insisted that Jesus was not divine. However, Brown adopts Arius and his teachings as being the normal belief of Christians prior to Nicea. This is a serious error. Arius became the first major threat to Apostolic teaching and was roundly defeated by that teaching and the consistent record of it for nearly three hundred years.

Brown also claims that Constantine and those meeting in Nicea created an infallible New Testament limited to 27 books and disregarding other writings which showed a different Jesus. Again, Brown shows ignorance of pre-Nicean history. The Church had collected and shared first century letters and gospels which were slowly being formed into a new canon of scripture. During this time, additional letters and gospels were said to be discovered, which the Church rejected as being fraudulent or counterfeit. Most of these were writings attempting to back up the gnostic teachings that the Church rejected as heretical. By the time of Constantine , the Church was almost in agreement on what writings should be included in the New Testament canon. Two writings, Hebrews and Revelation, were still in debate even after Constantine and the meeting in Nicea. It wasn’t until after this time that the Church declared the New Testament to include these books among the 27.

“The Da Vinci Code” may be an interesting read, but it’s still fiction.