By Donna Ree
Earle Cairns in his book "Christianity through the Centuries" states, "Christians have a special interest in history because the very foundations of the faith that they profess are rooted in history. … Christianity has
become the most nearly global and universal of all religions that emerged in
the past in the near and far East. In addition, it has become increasingly influential
in the history of the human race" (1981, 13).
How does one conquer a structure
of such magnitudinous global impact? The answer resounds destroy its foundation;
create loopholes in its history and present them to the world. Such a presentation
however, must not only be propagated in literature (for not everyone is literate
or actively interested in such a genre of dissemination of information) but
also in movies (the world loves a good show). Such a plan is ingenious, and
could only be conspired and implemented by the astute mind of an intellect.
The question on everyone's
lips is, "are the allegations factual or are they not?" If they are
true, then the world has been deceived by the Church, historians, and the Bible
itself. These institutions would have played on the minds of the unsuspected
(including other intellectuals and even historians) for centuries. If they are
not, then Brown is a schemer and a propagator of false information. Consequently,
the information must be properly dissected so as to reveal truth.
Three major issues to be
addressed based on the movie are:
1. Was the Divinity of Jesus invented by Constantine and ratified at the Council
of Nicea?
2. Was Jesus and Mary Magdalene really married?
3. Are the books contained in the Bible the result of man's choice and what
of those that were not included?
First, was the Divinity
of Christ invented by Constantine? Teabing, a professed scholar, states that,
preceding the Council of Nicea Jesus Christ was viewed by his followers as a
powerful but mortal man, mighty prophet but not Son of God. Langdon then corrects
Teabing's fallacious statement, explaining that Constantine merely sanctioned
Christ Divinity, which already existed. To the rebuke Teabing remarks that Langdon's
words posit mere semantic. Semantic? There is indeed a great difference between
one sanctioning Christ's divinity and one creating a new doctrine, especially
one that has had such enormous repercussions. Certainly the difference between
the two cannot be referred to as mere semantics.
Prior to the fourth century
believers worshipped Jesus as God, the apostles are prime examples. During the
fourth Century Arius attempted to defend the oneness of God and as such advocated
for the supreme manhood of Jesus clearly refuting His Godhood. This promotion
of Arius' belief met resistance from Athanasius who subscribed to the Godhood
of Jesus. In an attempt to quell the controversy Constantine convened a council
of over 250 Bishops who by the use of Scriptures ratified the truth taught that
Jesus was indeed God and Arian's belief heretic. Did Constantine invent this
belief? Certainly not, it existed before he did (Philippians 2:6-7 and St. John
1:1, 14).
As was established earlier,
one of the major substantiating proofs of Christ Divinity is evidenced in the
scriptures. Having been out for "ducks" up to this point team Brown
attempts to use another strategy. Clearly the argument posited before annuls
his claims of the invention of Christ's Divinity by Constantine. His next play
therefore lies in his challenge that the 66 books of the Bible are indeed incomplete
and that Constantine choose to leave out certain books from the canon of the
Scriptures.
Second, was Jesus and Mary
Magdalene really married? Teabing declares that they were. He states that the
"Last Supper", a famous painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, is laced with
clues that authenticate his claims. Leonardo who was a member of the Prior of
Sion (who knew the truth of Jesus' marriage) was in the painting attempting
to lay clues to reveal the secret that the Church has held for ages. Although
there is clearly the absence of a literal cup on the table, Teabing states that
the cup that carries Jesus' blood was present in the person of Mary Magdalene,
which is the figure, seated beside Jesus. Neveu challenges the obvious, why
should one's imagination be stretched so far to assume that the claims of Teabing
are true based on this painting? And if such is indeed true, why should one
believe Leonardo? Teabing, filled with enthusiasm, proceeds to corroborate his
theory (although he propagates it not as a theory but as facts) by using books,
which he claims were strategically left out of the Canon by Constantine. As
such, he quotes from the gospel of Philip, which states that Jesus and Mary
were companions, companions he suggests means the same as spouse. To this Langdon
agrees. Finally, both men agree on something, thus giving the impression that
the seemingly subjective Teabing and the apparently objective Langdon have finally
crossed paths, it is at his point that Brown hopes for viewers to ponder what
he purports as truth.
According to the Encarta Encyclopedia, history disproves that Leonardo Da Vinci
(1452-1519) could have known about the Priory of Sion, since it wasn't founded
until 1956, 437 years after his death (Encarta Encyclopedia, Electronic Database
and wikipedia.org). The theory then that Leonardo was a part of this group whose
mission was to reveal the secret of the church is erroneous.
The next issue to be addressed based on the previous claim is, "are the
books contained in the Bible there by Constantine's choice and what of those
that were not included?" History proves that the New Testament Canon was
already widely circulated before the time of Constantine (approximately 200
years before). Consequently, Constantine did not compile the canon and by process
of illumination did not have sole choice on what to include and what to disregard
(http://www.jesusmystery.com/article.php?sec=2&arc=10).
Lastly, Brown asserts that
one reason for Constantine banning of Gnostic writings, was that he wanted to
repress women since Gnostic writings called for the liberation of women. If
that was indeed Constantine's desire, he did not have to ban these writings
since they presented and attempted to substantiate the belief that women were
inferior. In addition, Gnostic writings have never been given any form of credibility
by scholars, why then should one be attached to the bandwagon made by Brown
that he is to be sided with. History refutes these writing but substantiates
the New Testament scriptures. Which one should we believe?
In a world were the liberation of women is uppermost in most people's mind,
in an era where women are seeking promotions in every and any area of society
(including the church), what better way to promote disunity within the church
but to form a subtle mental alliance with women to revolt. As a woman, the writer
must confess that anyone who is unaware of Brown's ploys would be moved by Teabing's
remarks of how the Church tortured free thinking women and destroyed them. Teabing
and Langdon posit that fifty thousand women were captured and burned at the
state, some say millions. The graphic display of such torture done to women,
evident in the movie, is certain to impact the innate emotions of the feminine
specie and force her thoughts towards doubt, which is obviously Brown's plan.
Certainly, the writer does not suggest that women are inferior to men or that
they should remain silent and be subjected to their husbands. However, to proliferate
the idea that Mary was left to carrying on the Church and was fought out of
her position by Peter is in direct contrast to the Scriptures, which are historically
genuine in content.
For victory to be accomplished
one must meet one opponent on the battlefield. It is imprudent for Christians
to sit by and frivolously assert "a foolishness dat, nutten nuh go suh"
in reference to The Da Vinci Code. It is equally irresponsible for them to refuse
to be informed of the wiles of the enemy and the influences he can have when
given the opportunity. So, what is the good news? Brown's attack is a clear
avenue for missions, which is not just going out and telling people about Jesus,
but also a call for the church to "be prepared to give an answer to everyone
who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Pet 3:15).
Someone once said, one who
is interested in conspiracy will love the movie but one who is interested in
truth will search the Scriptures.
Reference List
Biblesoft. 1996. International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Electronic Database.
Cairns, Earle E. 1996. Christianity
through the centuries: A history of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing.
Microsoft Corporation. 1998.
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99. Microsoft Corporation.
Y Magazine. 2006. Was There
a Jesus Controversy. http://www.jesusmystery.com/article.php?sec=2&arc=10
Donna Ree is a third
year student of the Jamaica Theological Seminary.
