DVCode Exposé

The Anglican Church in Tasmania Search

a healthy church...transformingLIFE

Home About Contact us News Issues Parishes Prayer Calendar Youth Resources

June 2006

DVCode Exposé

David Rogers-Smith believes that The Da Vinci Code has exposed the single most important issue for all of us: the reliability and trustworthiness of the Christian Scriptures, especially the Gospels.

If the extraordinary claims in Dan Brown’s novel are true, then the Gospels are not, and millions of other Christians and I have been deceived for 2000 years!

Conversely, if they are true, then Jesus is someone we will need to do business with, sooner or later. Dan Brown’s incredible claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers who married and had children is drawn from two Christian Apocryphal works – the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene). These so-called gospels were never recognised by the Christian Church as authentic eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life and for good reason: they are late (second or third century) writings that betray teaching that is clearly foreign to the Old and New Testament documents, and that was therefore rightly opposed by orthodox, historical Christianity. For example: the idea that humans are divine and that God and humans are androgynous (on the latter, Mary Magdalene is quoted as saying she became a man!) Further, New Testament scholars have shown that these so-called gospels do not say or even suggest that Jesus was married. As they say, ‘the devil’s in the detail’, and the detail does not support Brown’s claim.

Brown claims that in the fourth century AD the Roman Emperor Constantine imposed the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) onto the Church in a bid to falsely promote Jesus’ divinity. This is a very serious claim that makes possible Brown’s further claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children to her. What we have here, however, is a case of supporting a highly questionable hypothesis (that Jesus and Mary married) with an impossible hypothesis (that Constantine constructed Jesus’ divinity) – hardly solid scholarship!

The latter is impossible because Jesus’ divinity is affirmed not only by the four historic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), but also by the other New Testament documents, for example, the apostle Paul’s letters (c.f. Romans 1:3-4; 9:5; Titus 2:13; Colossians 1:15-20; 2:9; Philippians 2:6-11), the book of Hebrews (c.f. Heb 1:1-13) and 2 Peter 1:1.

These texts are all first-century and thus significantly pre-date the Emperor Constantine, and were considered authoritative by both the Eastern and Western Christian churches (c.f. Irenaeus, writing in AD 125, Against Heresies, 3.11.8; and Bishop Athanasius, Festal Letter, 39.5,7). So much for the Constantine conspiracy.

Brown’s most sensational claim is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers who married, had children and moved to France. Mary is said to be in Leonardo Da Vinci’s famous painting, The Last Supper. It is argued that Mary is the feminine looking person on Jesus’ right and that the apparent V-shape between her and Jesus is Da Vinci’s coded way of alluding to her. It must be said that this is fanciful speculation. Numerous so-called codes could be found in the painting (any painting!) to support your particular theory or view. Moreover, the apparent ‘V’ to one person is merely the natural contour of the space between two people.

We are on much more solid ground with a plain reading of the four historical Christian Gospels. Nowhere is any indication ever given that Jesus and Mary were married, or even lovers. Yes, she was alone with him on the morning of his resurrection from the dead (c.f. John 20:10ff). However, it is also clear that she didn’t recognise him at first, not expecting to see him alive again. Yes, she touched him on this occasion (c.f. Jn 20:17). It may have even been a hug of sorts, borne out of immense relief and joy. To read sexual innuendoes into this encounter is unnecessary and ridiculous.

The overriding point of the narrative is the wonderful reality of Jesus’ resurrection and his tender concern for his anguished followers, male and female (c.f. Luke 24:13-35). John helps us to see that Jesus truly is the Good Shepherd who knows and calls his sheep by name (c.f. Jn 10:14-30), whether that name be Mary or Michael, Andrew or Angela. Sex and religion are a potent mix and, as we’ve seen, this book has concocted quite a cocktail.

The last part of that cocktail I wish to address is where the church is portrayed as replacing a spirituality that involves communion with God through sex, with one that brings that communion through the church. The same spurious evidence that was used for the book’s claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers is used here: second and third century so-called gospels that were rightly rejected by the Christian Church. On the basis of these writings the book claims Jesus endorsed this so-called sacred sex that the fourth century church eradicated in the interests of self-preservation.

The truth is, this kind of spirituality is pre-Christian and thoroughly pagan.

Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Syrian pagan religion practised it, and the Old Testament denounced it (c.f. Judges 2:11-23; 1 Samuel 7:3-4; 1 Kings 11:4-8). The Bible is not against sex. It is against sex that is practised outside of God’s purposes for it. Moreover, Jesus clearly taught that communion with God and the knowledge of God come through faith in him, not through sex (c.f. John 14:1-9; 17:3).

The Da Vinci Code is fiction presented as fact, but it does not survive scrutiny. The real Gospels have survived – for two thousand years. My trust remains in the historic Jesus and the eyewitness record of his life.

	The Anglican Church in Tasmania Search
	a healthy church...transformingLIFE
	Home About Contact us News Issues Parishes Prayer Calendar Youth Resources

				June 2006

		DVCode Exposé David Rogers-Smith believes that The Da Vinci Code has exposed the single most important issue for all of us: the reliability and trustworthiness of the Christian Scriptures, especially the Gospels. If the extraordinary claims in Dan Brown’s novel are true, then the Gospels are not, and millions of other Christians and I have been deceived for 2000 years! Conversely, if they are true, then Jesus is someone we will need to do business with, sooner or later. Dan Brown’s incredible claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers who married and had children is drawn from two Christian Apocryphal works – the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene). These so-called gospels were never recognised by the Christian Church as authentic eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life and for good reason: they are late (second or third century) writings that betray teaching that is clearly foreign to the Old and New Testament documents, and that was therefore rightly opposed by orthodox, historical Christianity. For example: the idea that humans are divine and that God and humans are androgynous (on the latter, Mary Magdalene is quoted as saying she became a man!) Further, New Testament scholars have shown that these so-called gospels do not say or even suggest that Jesus was married. As they say, ‘the devil’s in the detail’, and the detail does not support Brown’s claim. Brown claims that in the fourth century AD the Roman Emperor Constantine imposed the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) onto the Church in a bid to falsely promote Jesus’ divinity. This is a very serious claim that makes possible Brown’s further claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children to her. What we have here, however, is a case of supporting a highly questionable hypothesis (that Jesus and Mary married) with an impossible hypothesis (that Constantine constructed Jesus’ divinity) – hardly solid scholarship! The latter is impossible because Jesus’ divinity is affirmed not only by the four historic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), but also by the other New Testament documents, for example, the apostle Paul’s letters (c.f. Romans 1:3-4; 9:5; Titus 2:13; Colossians 1:15-20; 2:9; Philippians 2:6-11), the book of Hebrews (c.f. Heb 1:1-13) and 2 Peter 1:1. These texts are all first-century and thus significantly pre-date the Emperor Constantine, and were considered authoritative by both the Eastern and Western Christian churches (c.f. Irenaeus, writing in AD 125, Against Heresies, 3.11.8; and Bishop Athanasius, Festal Letter, 39.5,7). So much for the Constantine conspiracy. Brown’s most sensational claim is that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers who married, had children and moved to France. Mary is said to be in Leonardo Da Vinci’s famous painting, The Last Supper. It is argued that Mary is the feminine looking person on Jesus’ right and that the apparent V-shape between her and Jesus is Da Vinci’s coded way of alluding to her. It must be said that this is fanciful speculation. Numerous so-called codes could be found in the painting (any painting!) to support your particular theory or view. Moreover, the apparent ‘V’ to one person is merely the natural contour of the space between two people. We are on much more solid ground with a plain reading of the four historical Christian Gospels. Nowhere is any indication ever given that Jesus and Mary were married, or even lovers. Yes, she was alone with him on the morning of his resurrection from the dead (c.f. John 20:10ff). However, it is also clear that she didn’t recognise him at first, not expecting to see him alive again. Yes, she touched him on this occasion (c.f. Jn 20:17). It may have even been a hug of sorts, borne out of immense relief and joy. To read sexual innuendoes into this encounter is unnecessary and ridiculous. The overriding point of the narrative is the wonderful reality of Jesus’ resurrection and his tender concern for his anguished followers, male and female (c.f. Luke 24:13-35). John helps us to see that Jesus truly is the Good Shepherd who knows and calls his sheep by name (c.f. Jn 10:14-30), whether that name be Mary or Michael, Andrew or Angela. Sex and religion are a potent mix and, as we’ve seen, this book has concocted quite a cocktail. The last part of that cocktail I wish to address is where the church is portrayed as replacing a spirituality that involves communion with God through sex, with one that brings that communion through the church. The same spurious evidence that was used for the book’s claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers is used here: second and third century so-called gospels that were rightly rejected by the Christian Church. On the basis of these writings the book claims Jesus endorsed this so-called sacred sex that the fourth century church eradicated in the interests of self-preservation. The truth is, this kind of spirituality is pre-Christian and thoroughly pagan. Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite and Syrian pagan religion practised it, and the Old Testament denounced it (c.f. Judges 2:11-23; 1 Samuel 7:3-4; 1 Kings 11:4-8). The Bible is not against sex. It is against sex that is practised outside of God’s purposes for it. Moreover, Jesus clearly taught that communion with God and the knowledge of God come through faith in him, not through sex (c.f. John 14:1-9; 17:3). The Da Vinci Code is fiction presented as fact, but it does not survive scrutiny. The real Gospels have survived – for two thousand years. My trust remains in the historic Jesus and the eyewitness record of his life.