The Da Vinci
Code
by Stephen Bastin
After almost a year on the New
York Times best seller list, Dan Brown’s book continues to fascinate many
people. Written as a fictional tale,
it is interesting and compelling reading. When
considered from an historical and religious perspective it contains many
troubling statements.
The claim is made in the
beginning of the book: “All
descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this
novel are accurate.” We want to
consider some of his references to “documents” and note some of the
inaccuracies that the book contains. We
will also consider some other views expressed in the narrative.
Here is a statement found in
“The Da Vinci Code”: “The
Bible is a product of man, my dear. 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.”
(Page 231)
The apostle, Paul, wrote in
his letter to the Galatians (New Testament):
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not according to man. For I
neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus Christ.”
That sounds close to falling
magically from the clouds. What
Peter said later was that “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
I like the sound of that better than “fall magically from the
clouds,” but that is just a quibble over words.
If Brown is right then Paul
lied. If Paul is right then at best,
Dan Brown is simply mistaken. Perhaps
his problem is that he simply has not investigated properly the claims the Bible
makes for divine authorship. That
would explain how he can make such a statement and expect people to blindly
accept it as a fact. (Remember he
said that “descriptions of . . documents . . in this novel are accurate.”)
On the same page as the above
quotation from “The Da Vinci Code” the author refers to Jesus as the
prophesied Messiah. (Page 231)
He is correct. Jesus is the
prophesied Messiah. But where are
those prophecies to be found? Why in
the Old Testament of course. The Old
Testament documents have been substantiated (in many instances) as pre-dating
the birth of Jesus. In dozens of
prophecies from the first book of the Old Testament to the last, the coming of
the Messiah is predicted in many specific
details. If the Bible is the work of
man, then how is one to account for the accuracy of every prediction?
Again, on the same page, we
find the statement: “The Bible, as
we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the
Great.” Whatever happened to his
theory that the Bible “has evolved through countless translations, additions,
and revisions.”
Apparently these were all done
before Constantine!
It is true that there are
countless translations of the Bible. These
exist because scholars have carefully studied the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic
texts of the New and Old Testament and put them in the language of today’s
people. Translations do not result
in any changes to the originals. Additions
and revisions to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts have been made as scholars
arrived at a better understanding of what was originally penned (based on the
discovery of older manuscripts). Even
so, in these revisions there are no fundamental doctrines that have been
changed. Revisions are not made to
eliminate old ideas and replace them with new, but to replace new ideas by
replacing them with what was originally written in the Bible.
Depending upon one’s
understanding of “definitive” one could easily say that we have always had a
“definitive version” of the Bible. Definitive
in this sense means simply that we have always had a book that sets forth in a
clear and understandable manner what God expects and tells us how we shall be
judged.
One of the more remarkable
statements in Brown’s book is found on page 232.
“Nothing in Christianity is original.”
He goes on to point out that there are numerous gods whose birthdays fall
on December 25. The Jesus of the
Bible is not born on December 25. In
fact, it is impossible to determine from the Bible what month Jesus was born,
much less the day. The celebration
of Jesus’ birth on December 25 is simply evidence that Christianity has been
corrupted from pagan mythologies. What
is original here is that no date is assigned to the birth of Jesus.
Of much greater importance is
the original nature of the plan of salvation that is offered in the New
Testament. The Son of God is sent to
be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.
It is not an inward look that will bring peace to man, but an upward look
to the God who created man.
Jesus was demonstrated to be
the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.
The eye witness testimony of those who were his closest associates
confirms that he truly died on the cross, was buried in a tomb and was alive on
the third day. The eye witnesses
then sealed the truth of their testimony by their patient endurance of
rejection, persecution, physical abuse and then death at the hands of those who
rejected their testimony. No other
religion offers such a sacrifice for sins. The
apostles are established as credible witnesses.
Nor is that the only original thing in Christianity.
In the teaching of Jesus it is not the works of merit that make one
deserving of eternal life. It is
rather faith in what Jesus has done. When
that faith is coupled with a genuine repentance and baptism, after the example
of Jesus, there is the promise
of salvation.
The tragedy of “The Da Vinci
Code” is that there have been so many befuddled souls who have spent their
life searching for the “Holy Grail.” Brown
describes his hero in the book as finding it in a supposed tomb of Mary
Magdalene in France.
The truth is it does not
matter whether one finds the tomb of Mary Magdalene or anyone else’s tomb.
One will not be forgiven and justified before God by any such nonsense.
It is a search that results in one believing in Jesus as the only
begotten Son of God that offers hope.
Brown asserts (page 233),
“Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and
voted on by the Council of Nicaea.” That
proposal was made by Peter on the road to Caesarea when Jesus asked, “Whom do
you say that I am?” To which Peter
replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
That answer is found in Matthew 16:16.
In numerous historical records it is evident that the Gospel of Matthew
was written hundreds of years before the Council of Nicaea!
And this does not even begin to cover the numerous references in other
New Testament books to Jesus as the Son of God (Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans,
Galatians, etc.)
Finally, Brown alleges,
“Every faith in the world is based on fabrication.
That is the definition of faith—acceptance of that which we imagine to
be true, that which we cannot prove.” (Page
341) Simply put, that is not my
definition of faith nor is it the definition of those who wrote the Bible.
When Elijah stood before the
people of Israel (1 Kings 18) and challenged them:
“If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”
Elijah proposed a contest in which the prophets of Baal should offer
their sacrifice and call on their god to send fire to consume it.
Elijah would then call on his God and ask the Lord to send fire to
consume his sacrifice. “And the
God who answers by fire, He is God.”
The prophets of Baal tried and
failed. Elijah built an altar to the
Lord, laid the wood and the sacrifice on the altar, drenched the sacrifice, the
wood and the altar with water and called on God.
God answered with fire. The
people responded, “The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God.”
The people of Israel did not
have to use their imagination to decide who the true God was.
They could see the fire fall from heaven and consume the sacrifice at the
prayer of Elijah.
Just so, John wrote concerning
the miracles of Jesus, “These have been written so that you may believe that
Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” That
is Biblical faith!