Four Big Lies Of The Da Vinci Code

By Dr. J.Alan Branch

March 2006

The Da Vinci Code has sold millions of copies and is scheduled for release as a major motion picture on May 19.  Beyond the multiple conspiracy theories that Dan Brown embraces, I would like to summarize the four big lies of The Da Vinci Code.

Big Lie #1: The Deity of Christ Is a Fourth Century Myth

Brown contends that the doctrine of the deity of Christ was invented by Constantine at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) in an effort to unify a religiously diverse empire.  Brown also postulates an early Christianity which venerated Jesus as a mortal prophet, but not as deity.  The character Teabing states, “Until that moment [Council of Nicea] in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet .  . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.”

This is perhaps the most ludicrous and easily refutable claim in a book full of absurdities.  All twenty-seven books of the New Testament books can be dated to the First Century and each one of them references the Deity of Christ in some manner. It is one thing for Dan Brown to reject the Deity of Christ; it is quite another thing for him to claim that early Christians did so as well. To claim that early Christians saw Jesus as merely a “mortal prophet” leads me to believe Brown is either ignorant of the substance of the New Testament or he is intentionally misrepresenting the facts. 

Big Lie #2:  The Gnostic Gospels Are Reliable Sources About Jesus

Brown claims many other gospels were unfairly omitted because they rejected Christ’s deity and celebrated his humanity. Clearly, Brown has the Gnostic gospels in mind.  Sadly, this claim may be the most enduring influence of The Da Vinci Code.

Gnosticism was a highly complex movement with many different expressions.  Essentially, it was a system of pagan ideas expressed in Christian terms.  Beginning in the Second Century, Gnostics began to write what they called “gospels” in order to communicate their worldview.  These so-called “gospels” were forgeries which claimed the authorship of some significant figure from the New Testament, the most well-known being “Thomas.”  Simply put, pagan thought hi-jacked Christian terminology and used it as a vehicle to transport a non-Christian worldview.  Brown is quite mistaken when he says the Gnostic Gospels had a more “human” Jesus.  In fact Gnosticism in both incipient and fully developed forms postulated a Jesus who only appeared to be human (see I John 4:2).

None of the Gnostic Gospels passed the tests for canonicity.  None could be connected directly to one of the apostles.  None were universally read in the churches.  None of them were judged to be consistent with the tradition recognized as normative by the church (1 Corinthians 15:1-11). 


Big Lie #3:  Jesus Was Married

Brown claims Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and says the gospel of “Phillip” supports this claim.  In fact, “Phillip” only makes passing reference to what may have been a kiss between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. 

Let’s review the facts.  First, neither the New Testament nor any of the early church fathers nor the Gnostic Gospels make any reference to Jesus being married.  Second, Phillip is a forgery written at least a century after our canonical Gospels.  Finally, the text that Brown cites from Philip is actually incomplete in the original manuscripts. The translation “kissed her often on her mouth” is an interpretive step since the words I have in italics [on her mouth] are actually missing in the original text   Some actually prefer reading the text to mean a kiss on Mary’s cheek or forehead. 

Big Lie #4:  The Early Church Approved of Goddess Worship

This claim is closely related to Brown’s rejection of the Deity of Christ.  There is simply no evidence that the early church engaged in goddess worship.  Brown’s infatuation with goddess worship most likely has its origins in the sexually libertine ethic advocated by his book than in historical reality. 

It is not clear how many of these themes will be repeated in the motion picture.  What is clear is that The Da Vinci Code has been devoured by a Biblically illiterate public succeptable to even the most fanciful claims.

Send this Column to a Friend






Past Columns

Return to top