|
Unlocking the DaVinci Code
The Credibility and Formation of the Christian Bible (Session 2)
Rationale
The issue with Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" is not, ultimately, its truth or falsehood,
but the question, "Why are people so captivated?"
This novel is, without a doubt, a cultural phenomenon that needs to be appreciated for its
impact and addressed in regard to its inherent issues. Postmodern people enjoy watching
an authority challenged, and they like secret knowledge and direct experience. Christians
must respond appropriately and primarily to these concerns, as well as the truth claims of
Brown's novel.
Scripture Focus
2 Timothy 3:10-4:5
Theme
Trusting history for our future
Sermon Summary
To justify his presentation of pagan religion as an alternative to Christianity, the author
challenges the Bible as legitimate history by presenting the Council of Nicaea as a political
ploy of Emperor Constantine and of patriarchal bishops.
This claim can be easily countered by investigating the process of choosing the books of the
Bible, the emperor Constantine's Christian faith, and the results of the Council of Nicaea.
Putting this all into perspective, we will also discuss the purpose and function of the Bible
for Christian faith, religion, and lifestyle.
Introduction
Discuss: “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how simple, ignorant, or unqualified.” Is this an acceptable statement?
The DaVinci Code novel, written by Dan Brown, falls into a genre somewhere between
historical novel and alternate-history novel. Thus, it exudes the semblance of historical
facticity and begs our suspension of disbelief (which is usually acceptable, but only to a
certain degree). We will explore the issues involving this novel’s facticity in our last
session.
For now, however, we need to address the overt claim of Brown’s novel that legitimate
Christian writings were historically left out of the Bible because of the subversive political
agenda of Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.
Sir Leigh Teabing: “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.” [...]
“Who chose which gospels to include?” Sophie asked.
“Aha!” Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. “The fundamental irony of Christianity!
The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor
Constantine the Great.”
Brown’s opinions of these events are unfounded and misleading, being ignorant of the actual
events of history and unqualified in that Brown is certainly no expert in this field.
Let us
now investigate the true, and equally thrilling, history of the Bible.
Choosing the Books of the Bible and Why Some Were Left Out
1) As with any experience of an object of beauty —particularly when a person of the
opposite sex is involved— one feels inspired to write about the event
• no less so than those experiences of the apostles with God, through Jesus
2) With the return of Jesus delayed
and the possibility of the eventual death, whether by
natural causes or by persecution, of the apostles (Acts 2:42-43), the need arose for a
permanent witness of the life and teachings of Jesus, as well as guidance for worship,
faith, and lifestyle
Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible [are] considered to be Scripture [i.e.
inspired and sacred writings] and [are] therefore authoritative in matters of faith
and doctrine [...] Like those of the OT, [the books selected for the NT] were
collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship
and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living.
3) The writers and adherents of the Bible claim that its books are inspired, the very Word of
God
• the biblical definition of inspiration (in Latin: “inspirare”) can mean either:
– to have a sudden spontaneous idea because of the direct influence of God (e.g.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting
and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)
)
– to being possessed (e.g. "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man,
but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter
1:21)).
4) Inspiration is a process whereby God reveals himself both in and through human persons,
and does so with and for authority
Therefore, this definition of inspiration is suggested: “Inspiration is that mysterious
process by which the divine causality worked through the human prophets without
destroying their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative
and inerrant writings”.
The writers included in the Bible were inspired to write their gospels, letters, wisdom,
histories, songs, etc. Therefore, God imbued these writings with authority for faith and
lifestyle. But, we must also ask how did Christians recognise which writings had this
inspiration and authority?
5) The early apostles, and their followers, wrote so as to teach others
• their writings were circulated amongst the churches, far and wide
6) In regards to the NT, all of the writings considered acceptable and authoritative have
either apostolic authorship or apostolic teaching, thus having apostolic authority
• Matthew was an apostle
• Mark was closely associated with the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 5:13), yet had his own
God-given ministry (Acts 12:25; 2 Tim. 4:11)
• Luke was an associate of the apostle Paul (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24)
• John was an apostle
• while the author of Hebrews is not known for sure, he received revelation from God
(Heb. 1:1), the truth of which was confirmed by the twelve apostles (Heb. 2:3-4)
• James was a half brother of Jesus (James 1:1; Gal. 1:19) and a leader in the apostolic
church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; Gal. 2:9)
• Jude, also a half brother of Jesus (Jude 1:1; cf. Matt. 13:55), spoke with prophetic
authority (vs. 3, 5, 20ff.)
“All the New Testament books were written in the 1st century, within a generation after Christ”
7) If we consider that Jesus died in 33 ad, and these authors were writing during the
lifetime of the apostles and eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:6), this places their
writings all within the 1st century (i.e. 40-100 ad)
• as opposed to being written in the 2nd and 3rd century as were the gnostic writings
promoted by Dan Brown (e.g. The Gospel of Mary was written in the 3rd century
)
8) Marcion, a prominent gnostic heretic of the 2nd century, proposed his own list of
acceptable books
• he promoted only eleven books
– an abridged and mutilated Gospel of Luke
– ten of Paul’s epistles
• he put Galatians first in order, and called Ephesians The Epistle to the Laodicaeans
• He rejected the pastoral epistles (in which the forerunners of Gnosticism are
condemned), the Epistle to the Hebrews, Matthew, Mark, John, the Acts, the
General Epistles, and Revelations
“Which writings to include; which to leave out?”
• in reaction to Marcion, orthodox Christian leaders and teachers began proposing
their own lists
– for example, Irenaeus (c. 175-195), the first theologian to cite Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John as comprising the four Gospels of the received tradition, quoted
or considered as authentic twenty-three of the twenty-seven books, omitting
only Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John
– Ignatius (c. 115)referred to the four gospels of our New Testament as “the
gospel”
– Tatian (c. 170)made a “harmony of the gospels” using only these four
– Polycarp (c. 150) quotes from Matthew, John, the first ten of Paul’s epistles,
Peter, and 2 John
– Justin Martyr (c. 140) considered all the gospels as Scripture, plus most of Paul’s
epistles, as well as Peter and Revelation
– Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) had an almost identical list as Irenaeus, with the
exception of his omission of 2 Timothy and 2 John
• copies of NT writings were not only being circulated and taught from, but were also
being translated into other languages, thereby assuming a list of authoritative
writings
– The Old Syriac translation of the NT was in circulation in Syria about 400 ad,
but represented a text dating from the end of the second century; it included all
of the twenty-seven NT books except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation
– The Old Latin translation came into being prior to 200 ad and contained all the
NT books except Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter
– The Muratorian Fragment is the earliest orthodox list, coinciding exactly with
the Old Latin, but omitting only Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter
9) While Christians suffered persecution and martyrdom in the 1st centuries, much effort
was also directed against the Bible itself
• Eusebius of Caesarea described events of March 303 under the persecution of
emperor Diocletian
It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, and the month of Dystrus,
or March, as the Romans would call it, in which, as the festival of the Saviour’s
Passion was coming on, an imperial letter was everywhere promulgated, ordering
the razing of the churches to the ground and the destruction by fire of the
Scripture, and proclaiming that those who held high positions would lose all civil
rights, while those in households, if they persisted in their profession of Christianity,
would be deprived of their liberty. Such was the first document against us. But not
long afterwards we were further visited with other letters, and in them the order
was given that the presidents of the churches should all, in every place, be first
committed to prison, and then afterwards compelled by every kind of device to
sacrifice.
• within a few decades, Constantine took positive action to preserve the Bible by
commissioning Eusebius to prepare fifty copies of the Scriptures at imperial expense
I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the
sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for
the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible
manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly
practiced in their art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions
from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation
of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they are completed
with as little delay as possible.
– such actions prompted a careful examination and scrutiny of all Christian
writings in order to discover which were truly authoritative
• in the same century as Diocletian’s persecutions and Constantine’s commission, the
Church finally gave official recognition to the twenty-seven books of the New
Testament
– Athanasius (c. 367) identified all twenty-seven books of the NT by writing:
Again it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are, the
four gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of
the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two;
of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of
Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians;
after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to
the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and
again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the
Revelation of John.
– confirmed at region councils (e.g. in 363 at Laodicea, in 393 at Hippo, and in 397
at Carthage)
Is Our Bible the Same as Their Bible?
1) During the first centuries, authors wrote by hand on (chronologically) animal skin,
papyrus, vellum, or parchment, all of which are susceptible to decay
• paper was not invented until the 2nd century
2) Archaeology continues to discover preserved copies of biblical writings
• rarely whole copies; usually fragments
• each copy, whether whole or a fragment, is referred to as a manuscript
• an original manuscript is the first one produced, usually called an autograph
– there are no known original manuscripts of the Bible
– the abundance of manuscript copies makes it possible to reconstruct the original
with complete accuracy
3) There are 5,366 Greek manuscripts of part or all of the New Testament text
• By way of contrast, consider that
– there are only 643 manuscripts by which the Iliad is reconstructed
– 9 or 10 good manuscripts for Caesar’s Gallic Wars
– 20 manuscripts of note for Titus Livy’s History of Rome
– 2 by which Tacitus is known to the modern world
– 3 fragments of The Gospel of Mary
– 3 fragments and 1 complete (?) copy of The Gospel of Thomas
– 1 complete (?) copy of The Gospel of Judas
– 1 complete (?) copy of The Gospel of Philip
• The time lapse between the original composition and the earliest manuscript copy is
also significant
– The oldest manuscript for the Gallic Wars is some nine hundred years later than
Caesar’s day
– The two manuscripts of Tacitus are eight and ten centuries later, respectively,
than the original
• The case with the NT it is very different
– there exists complete manuscripts that were written only three hundred years
later than the original writings
– most of the NT is preserved in manuscripts written less than two hundred years
after the original
– some manuscripts of books date from little over one hundred years after
– one fragment exists which was written within 50 years of the original
No book from the ancient world comes to us with more abundant evidence for its integrity
than does the New Testament.
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant
evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for
any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were
written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of
the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.
As for Brown’s reliance on ‘gospels’ not included in the Bible to undermine the credibility of
the Bible, there’s nothing more that can be said, other than, “Nice try”.
The First Universal Gathering of the Church
1) in 318, a presbyter of Alexandria, named Arius, criticised his bishop for subscribing to
the heresy of Sabellianism (the view that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were merely roles
or modes assumed in turn by God)
• unfortunately, he went to the other extreme
– If the Father was absolutely one, where did the Son come in?
– Arius explained it thus:
The Father existed before the Son. There was a time when the Son did not exist.
Therefore, the Son was created by the Father. Therefore, although the Son was the
highest of all creatures, he was not of the essence of God.
– his bishop tried to force Arius to recant this position
– Arius eventually took this matter to the emperor
2) in the year 325, emperor Constantine summoned the bishops of the empire by a letter of
invitation, and assumed, from the public treasury, the expenses of their residence in
Nicaea and of their return
“The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) had nothing to do with determining the books of the Bible”
• this council was intended to represent the whole church of the empire, and to give a
final decision upon the relation of Christ to God, and upon some minor questions of
discipline, the time of Easter, and a schism in Egypt caused by Meletius, bishop of
Lycopolis.
3) The whole number of bishops assembled was at most three hundred and eighteen; that
is, about one sixth of all the bishops of the empire
• most of the Eastern provinces were strongly represented; the Latin/Western
church, had only seven delegates
• the proceedings of the Council are well-documented, even to the degree of who
spoke what and when
4) After two creedal proposals were rejected, including one proposed by the Arians and
one by the moderates, the creed that we know today as The Nicaean Creed was passed
• only two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, persistently refused to sign, and
were banished with Arius to Illyria
As is plainly obvious, the Council of Nicaea had absolutely nothing to do with the formation
of the Bible, which does not reach fruition until 40-65 years later. If there was no official
Bible to undermine, then how can Brown argue that Constantine changed it?
The First Christian Emperor?
1) Dan Brown has his character, Sir Leigh Teabing, claim that Constantine was a pagan
• while his salvation is not our judgement to make, consider the following:
– upon his father’s death, Constantine was proclaimed co-emperor, with Galerius,
is 306
– shortly before his death in 311, Galerius, the senior co-emperor of Rome, issued
an edict of toleration which ended the persecution of Christians
– just before the battle at the Mulvian Bridge, in a dream Constantine saw a vision
of a monogram composed of the first two Greek letters of the name of “Christ”;
the next day he had his soldiers inscribe that monogram on their shields
– while marching one day he and his army saw the image of a cross appear before
the sun with the words, “In this sign conquer”
– during the winter of 312 and 313, he wrote to an officer in North Africa
instructing him to supply money to the bishop of Carthage in order to pay
expenses of the clergy
– when he and Licinius (then co-emperor with Constantine) met in Milan in 313,
they issued an edict granting all persons the freedom to follow whichever
religion they wished —Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion
of Rome, but allowed it to become a state religion
– his Christian sentiments also resulted in laws allowing bishops to decide civil
lawsuits, banning any branding on the face (because it marred the image of God),
closing law courts and workshops on Sunday, and banning gladiatorial games
– though he favoured Christianity, Constantine was also tolerant of paganism and,
as late as 324, pagan themes were engraved on his coins; with Christians such a
minority in the empire, Constantine felt he could not risk offending the pagan
majority
– according to legend, Constantine was baptised on his deathbed in 327
While we cannot know, conclusively, whether Constantine was a Christian, his support of
Christianity certainly gave it the impetus that it needed to replace Roman paganism in the
empire. Did Constantine help Christianity take over by tailoring its message to cover-up
Jesus’ marriage and lack of divinity? The historical evidence simply does not validate
Brown’s claim?
Conclusion
Again, let me state that Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, is a good novel to read.
Unfortunately, particularly in the case of the topics that we’ve investigated tonight, Brown
takes advantage of our ignorance of history —I mean, who here knew anything about the
Council of Nicaea? Does anyone know how to spell it properly?— and, in so doing,
promotes a radically subversive version of the history of the formation of the Bible.
This is a book that is completely credible and trustworthy. More so than any other ancient
text, we can rest assured that the Bible we have today is 99% the same Bible that the
apostles and associates wrote. We can also be confident that God spoke into this book and
continues to speak through this book today. “Let those with ears to hear listen!”
sermon delivered by Ian Forest-Jones
at Hurstville Church of Christ
on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 6pm
[email]
< back |
