"the Da Vinci Code" - The Hoax Behind The Code

This was written as an essay/article.

Do not critisize. simply state your opinions.


"The Da Vinci Code" - the hoax behind the code

This article is a response to questions that people have asked us in regards to the novel, The Da Vinci Code. The novel was published in 2003 and has sold millions of copies. The novel, which is fiction, claims that the New Testament of the Bible is false and that Christianity, as we know it today, is radically different from the "original" Christianity. This article seeks to explain that the theory behind The Da Vinci Code, is false.

1. Fiction: Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus.

This claim is the backbone of the novel. The The Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that they had children, and that their descendants included a line of kings in France, as well as some of the main characters in the novel.

Despite the claims, however, there are no historical documents that claim that Jesus was married - not even the "Gnostic gospels" that the novel mentions. (The Gnostic texts were written a century or more after the New Testament. The Gnostic texts borrow some names and ideas from Christianity but the texts are not Christian and they are not used by Christians.)

The only specific evidence that author Dan Brown cites to support this claim of a marriage is a passage from one of the Gnostic texts - the so-called "gospel of Phillip." And that lone piece of evidence actually undermines Brown's claim.

The main problem with the "Phillip" passage is that it clearly shows that even in the context of this Gnostic text, Mary Magdalene and Jesus could not have been married. If you read the passage, as shown on page 246 of the hardcopy version of The Da Vinci Code, you'll see for yourself:

"the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'"

If, in the context of this Gnostic text, the Savior and Magdalene were supposedly married, then why would the disciples bother to ask why he loved her more than them?

Can you imagine a scenario in which a group of men would ask a married man, "Why do you love your wife more than us? And, for that matter, why do you keep kissing your wife?" Such a question wouldn't make any sense. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense even if the two were merely engaged or simply dating.

The only way that the question would make sense in the Gnostic text is if there was no reason for Mary Magdalene to be treated any differently than the men. And the only way that this could be true is if Mary Magdalene was supposed to have the exact same relationship with the "Savior" as did the "other disciples." In other words, only if she was not married, or otherwise intimately involved.

There are other problems with Brown's marriage theory:

• Despite Brown's "translation" of that key passage from the Gnostic gospel of Phillip, the word "mouth" doesn't actually appear in the original text. According to page 49 of The Da Vinci Deception, by Erwin W. Lutzer: "You should know that because of the poor quality of the papyrus, a word or two is missing in the original. The text reads, 'Jesus kissed her often on the [blank].' So scholars fill in the blank with the word mouth, face, or forehead, etc. Actually, for all we know the text might have said 'the hand' or even 'the cheek' since the statement implies that he also kissed his other students – presumably on the cheek as is still done in the Middle East."

• Brown claims that the Aramaic word for "companion" literally meant "spouse." That is not true according to various Aramaic scholars. And, even more importantly, the Gnostic gospel of Phillip was not written in Aramaic. It was written in Coptic.

• None of the Gnostic gospels ever claimed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Even the so-called Gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene fails to makes such a claim.

• Finally, consider this from page 41 of The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, by Richard Abanes, in regards to the Gnostic Phillip text: Ironically, if this text does anything, it cuts out the very heart of any assertion about Mary and Jesus being wed. It does so by adhering to one of the basic tenets of ancient Gnosticism, which declares that all physical matter was inherently evil. Consequently, sexual relations were intrinsically debasing! The Gospel of Phillip goes so far as to say that marital relations defile a woman.


2. Fiction: The Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls are "the earliest Christian records."

The The Da Vinci Code claims that the New Testament is a forgery and that the Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the original Christian texts.

This claim, however, is flatly contradicted by an overwhelming amount of scholarship by Christians and non-Christians. Many scholars believe that the New Testament was written during the first century and that the Gnostic texts were written no sooner than the second century. And, the Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain any gospels of any kind. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any Christian writings of any kind.

There are four New Testament Gospels, which are named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Many scholars believe that these were written during the century in which Jesus lived. The Gnostic gospels are generally believed to have been written later – about 100 to 300 years later. These Gnostic texts borrow some elements from Christianity, including the names of Jesus and his apostles, but these writings are not Christian.

There are major differences between the New Testament Gospels and the Gnostic gospels. The New Testament Gospels contain details about life in the land of Israel during the first century. They also contain several references to Old Testament passages, prophecies and theological concepts. For Christians, the New Testament is the continuation of the Old Testament. In contrast, the Gnostic texts contain very little detail to suggest that their authors had ever been to the land of Israel, or that they were even alive during the first century. And the theological concepts of the Gnostic texts sharply contradict those that are found in the Old Testament.

Consider this from pages 26 and 27 of The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, by Richard Abanes:

"But were the Gnostic gospels written prior to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Most scholars, Christian and non-Christian, would answer no. They date the Gnostic gospels (for example, those in the Nag Hammadi collection) to about A.D. 150 to 250. Although many of these texts are Coptic translation of earlier Greek texts (that are no longer extant), most scholars agree that the material itself still does not date previous to the mid 100s to the early 200s.

"In other words, the Gnostic texts were written after the books of Matthew (about 65 to 100), Mark (about 40 to 75), Luke (about 60 to 80), and John (about 90). They [the Gnostic texts] were late arrivals, which is one reason why church leaders rejected them. ... These Gnostic gospels not only disagreed with the older [New Testament] Gospels, which were already accepted by Christians, but they lacked authority since their authors were neither a) apostles of Jesus nor B) persons associated with apostles of Jesus. ... No one really knows who wrote the [Gnostic] texts."

As for Brown's claim about the Dead Sea Scrolls - these scrolls were found in 1947, not in the 1950s as Brown mistakenly claims on page 234 of The Da Vinci Code. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies and fragments of Old Testament books and various religious and secular writings. But they do not contain any gospels, and they do not contain any references to Jesus. In fact, many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written centuries before the time of Jesus.


3. Fiction: Christianity stole its ideas and concepts from paganism.

The Da Vinci Code, on page 232: claims: "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian god Mithras - called the Son of God and the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 was also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

This sequence of claims has puzzled many critics of Brown's book as to their possible origin, if indeed they have an origin outside of the author's imagination.

Serious scholars who have studied the Mithraic traditions, including Franz Cumont, paint a very different portrayal. They don't mention any death of Mithra, and they certainly don't mention any type of resurrection for Mithra.

Some Christians do celebrate Christmas on December 25 as a time of year to commemorate the birth and life of Jesus. But that doesn't mean that they believe that Jesus was born on that particular date. In fact, the Bible does not mention a specific birth date for Jesus.

For comparison, consider the American holiday called "Presidents Day." The holiday occurs on a day in February, but that doesn't mean that Americans believe that all presidents were born on that particular day in February. Of course not. It is simply a day that is set aside to commemorate American presidents.

As for the claim that the myths known as Osiris, Adonis and Dionysus were born on December 25, I have been unable to track down any scholarly source that actually makes that claim.

In regards to some of the other claims involving Mithra and Christianity, consider the following from page 87 of de-coding Da Vinci: The facts behind the fiction of The Da Vinci Code by Amy Welborn:

"Mithras was a god with many forms. By the centuries after Christ, his cult was primarily a mystery religion, popular among men, especially soldiers. Mithraic studies do not find any attribution of the titles 'Son of God' or 'Light of the World,' as Brown claims. There is also no mention of a death-resurrection motif in Mithraic mythology. Brown seems to have picked this up from a discredited nineteenth-century historian, who provided no documentation for his assertion. The same historian is the source for the Krishna connection to which Brown alludes. There is not a single story in actual Hindu mythology of Krishna being presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh at his birth (see Miesel and Olsen, Cracking the Anti-Catholic Code)."


4. Fiction: The sacred name for God has a paganistic origin.

The Da Vinci Code, on page 309, claims: "The Jewish Tetragrammaton YHWH - the sacred name of God - in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah"

This is perhaps one of the most embarrassing errors within Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. The word Jehovah isn't the name for God. In fact, that word doesn't appear in the Bible in either the Hebrew text of the Old Testament or in the Greek text of the New Testament. The word Jehovah is a made-up English word.

The ancient Jews began a tradition that they would not pronounce the name of God (YHWH), as a way of showing respect. Instead, when they read aloud from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and they came across the name for God (YHWH), they would substitute another word – the Hebrew word for "Lord," which is "Adonah." This is similar to the practice of addressing a king as "Lord," rather than as "king."

Over time, the vowel sounds for the Hebrew word "Adonah" were fused with the consonants for the name of God (YHWH), and a new word was created - "Yehovah." (This hybrid word, which didn't exist until roughly 500 years ago, was often mistakenly pronounced by English speakers as "Jehovah," even though there is no J sound in the Hebrew language).

Therefore, any theory, however ill-intentioned or well-intentioned, that involves either the word "Jehovah" or the word "Yehovah" is completely meaningless, because there is no such word in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament or in the Greek text of the New Testament.

Brown, however, isn't the first person to mistakenly think that Jehovah was an actual word. And given the popularity of his novel, he won't be the last.


5. Fiction: The Vatican killed an "astounding 5 million women" during the witch hunts

This is important to the The Da Vinci Code, because in order for novel's storyline to work, the Catholic Church must be portrayed as an evil, oppressive institution that hates, oppresses and feels threatened by women.

But, despite Brown's claims that there were 5 million women burned to death by the Vatican, the fact is many scholars, including those who are not Christian, say that the witch hunts were generally done by local governments and individuals. Many scholarly sources estimate that the number of people killed by the witch hunts is between 20,000 to 100,000. And, some sources estimate that 20 to 25 percent of the victims were men.

Here are some additional details from page 36 of The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code:

It also should be noted that these persecutions were actually "a collaborative enterprise between men and women at the local level." Adam Jones, professor of international studies at the Center for Research and Teaching Economics (Mexico City), has cited many sources showing that most of the accusations of witchcraft "originated in 'conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another.'"

For instance, Jones quotes Robin Briggs (author of Witches & Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft) as saying that "most informal accusations were made by women against other women." In Malevolent Nurture, Deborah Willis of the University of California, Riverside, confirms that "women were actively involved in making witchcraft accusations against their female neighbors." She adds, "To a considerable extent, then, village-level witch-hunting was women's work."


6. Fiction: Emperor Constantine shaped the New Testament.

This is essential to the plot in The Da Vinci Code because it requires that the reader can believe that Constantine replaced the Gnostic writings with what we now call the New Testament. But, Constantine could not have had a hand in shaping the New Testament for two reasons: He wasn't born soon enough and he didn't live long enough. Based on writings from early church leaders, which date from the year 96 through the year 112, 24 of the 27 books that are part of today's New Testament were already regarded by early Christians as being authoritative, a full 213 years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicea. And, the Council of Nicea didn't canonize anything. The canonization process occurred a full 70 years later, on a different continent. In addition, there were several writings by early church leaders, who died long before Constantine was even born, that collectively quote thousands of New Testament passages.


7. Fiction: The Vatican demonized pagan worship.

The Da Vinci Code claims "As part of the Vatican's campaign to eradicate pagan religions and convert the masses to Christianity, the church launched a smear campaign against the pagan gods and goddesses, recasting their divine symbols as evil.... Venus' pentacle became the sign of the devil."

Many people might not realize this, but there is a great deal of historical evidence that shows that pagans tried to eradicate Christianity and that pagans copied Christian symbols and ceremonies in the hopes of surviving the rapid spread of Christianity, especially during the first three centuries after the time of Jesus. During that era, the pagans had tremendous resources, including the support of emperors, who by default, where designated as high priests of pagan religions. Their efforts to eradicate Christianity were remarkably unsuccessful, and Christianity was able to become the first religion to spread to followers worldwide. Even today, it can be argued that Christianity is still the only worldwide religion.

As for Brown's claim about the pentacle, even that contradicts historical evidence. The fact is, many Christians actually embraced the pentacle! "The truth is, during the later medieval era (the 1100s to the 1500s), Christians used the pentagram and pentacle as a reminder of Christ's five wounds (hands, feet, side, back, head). They also used it as a symbol for "the five books of Moses" and "the five stones used by David against Goliath," according to page 32 of The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code.

There is nothing about a symbol, such as the pentacle or pentagram, that is inherently good or evil. Its meaning depends on who is using it and for what purpose they are using it. Some school teachers will mark a student's homework assignment with a star (a pentacle) to show that the student did excellent work. In this context, there is nothing demonic about the pentacle, it simply represents "stellar" work. But, when the founder of the Church of Satan needed a symbol for his religion during the 1960s he chose to use a pentacle, which he turned upside down. A pentacle, then, is what one makes of it.

So who "demonized" the pentacle? According to some scholars, and according to some modern pagan sources, it was a French occultist who lived during the 1800s. In other words, it was a pagan who "demonized" the symbol.


8. Fiction: Constantine and the Vatican demonized Mary Magdalene and sought to degrade women as part of a "power grab."

These claims are very important to the storyline. The historical evidence, however, strongly contradicts them. Mary Magdalene is held in special regard by the Catholic Church, in part because she was the first person to witness the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the Catholic Church wanted to tarnish the image of Mary Magdalene, and if it was willing to rewrite scripture to do it, then why would it allow Mary Magdalene to be the first person to have witnessed the most important event in all of Christianity, which is the resurrection?

Another problem for Brown's theory is that the Vatican exalts Mary Magdalene – as a saint! In fact, several churches are named in honor of Mary Magdalene, who is also honored with an annual celebration by Catholics.

And if someone can still think that Brown's theory is somehow true, that the Vatican allegedly hates women, then consider its regard for another woman named Mary – the mother of Jesus. And when you're finished contemplating that, apologize to yourself if you even momentarily thought that the Da Vinci Code was on to something.


9. Fiction: "Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans."

Da Vinci Code claims that "Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans. Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan's veneration day of the sun."

Actually, long before Constantine was even born, there were Christian writings that made it clear that there was a Sabbath, which corresponds to Saturday, and a "Lord's Day," which corresponds to Sunday. Since the early beginnings of Christianity, Christians had an affection for the first day of the week (Sunday) because this is the day on which Jesus was resurrected. Early references to the "Lord's Day" include Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, which are books in the New Testament. These were written during the first century and predate the birth of Constantine by more than 200 years! Outside of the New Testament, there are early Christian writings that confirm that Christians celebrated a "Lord's Day" (Sunday). These writings include those by Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis. Both lived during the Second Century (during the 100s), and both had already died before Constantine was even born.

As a side note, there seems to be a general confusion about how Christians view the Sabbath. Christianity has always regarded the last day of the week (Saturday) as being the Sabbath. That has never changed. But, Christians often go to church on the first day of the week (Sunday) because that corresponds to the day on which Jesus was resurrected. In other words, Christians didn't "move" the Sabbath to Sunday. They didn't move the Sabbath at all. The Sabbath always was, and still is, Saturday. Christians do not view Sunday as being the Sabbath. They never did. They view it as a separate day, the Lord's Day.

As for the claim that Sunday was tied to pagan worship of a pagan god, please, be aware of the fact that each of the days of the week - all seven of them, whether it's Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday - were tied to the pagan worship of various pagan gods.

 

TOO MUCH TO READ!

number one: christians don't use the gnostic gospels because the church leaders who compiled the bible we know today omitted them. mostly because they do not portray jesus as anything more than a mortal prophet. regardless of WHY they are not in the bible, this does not make them any less important. the bible was written to portray a certain version of the past: the christian point of view. I'll bet there are hundreds of christian writings from before christ's time that aren't in the bible. they've either been destroyed, or no one knows about them because the majority of christians don't read anything more than the bible (which has been translated and re-translated so many times that it is most DEFINITELY not the same book as it was 17 centuries ago)

number two: how can you say they (the gnostic gospels) aren't christian? they were written by christians, by people who either knew jesus or talked to people who did. it would be different if they were written by buddhists... I believe the gospel of judas was recently discovered. was he christian? did he know jesus? if someone today writes a book about jesus' life, the book isn't christian, by the reasoning you provide here. the reason you say they aren't christian is because they aren't in the bible, or because they "contradict christianity." thats like taking the constitution and the bill of rights and saying that nothing else is a law because it's not in those texts. many laws were written after those documents were penned. many laws have slightly altered the purpose of those original tenets. the law evolves, and so does christianity. if it did not evolve, it would have been abandoned long ago.

maybe the church didn't demonize satanic symbols, but your witch hunt theory has holes. if even 1 person was killed by someone who was a christian, and who was representing the church, or under its orders, thats an ATROCITY. every human being has the right to life. I though the bible taught that... ever heard of the spanish inquisition? your claim that the church didn't kill that many people is irrelevant. they killed people.

you can't argue that many MANY early christian paintings depicted halos in the exact same way as sun-disks, which were pagan. if you say "they merely adopted a different style," you're proving my point first (they borrowed from paganism) and second, if the halo was so unique, why was it depicted that way? he's not saying christianity borrowed anything spiritual from paganism, but in order to help ease the conversion of pagans, they had to make it seem familiar to those they hoped to convert.

my final point is that this topic is pointless, meant to catch people off guard and force the "christian" point of view. if someone wants to argue effectively, they have to find a similar book and spend time researching quotes. your original post was planned ahead and "looks" official, despite only bothering to present one side of the proof. (you don't cite the reasoning of dan brown and similar scholars nearly as exhaustively as the scholars you support.) I vote that a mod delete this post as pure flamebait. if you want a fair argument, allow your opposition to gather as much evidence as you (ie: read one book) and then debate it formally. but please don't come in here and present 15 pages of one-sided quotes and then expect us to "discuss." you haven't given us anything to discuss, you're trying to make it look like dan brown is a crackpot, and you did it in a way that no one will want to refute the argument, making your side the default "winner."

oh yeah, lemme quote you before I'm done:

you yourself say it's fiction. he makes a few guesses, connects a few dots, looks at things in a new light, and NEVER CLAIMS IT'S THE TRUTH.

 

thats insane amount of type

 

wow dude, sorry i dont want to read that

 

That is definitely too much to read unless you're really bored. I got the gist of it and personally I don't care either way. I'm not religious so I don't read anything into any of it.

It's a book and it's a movie. I could really care less if it's true or not. I liked the book. That's all I have to say lol.

 

Yeah. Well it should be important to those that are hiughly into
politically stricken controversy.

Alot of people seem to think that it may be too long to read, the
ones that do read it hopefully like it.

 

i still think it was a ood book

 

You didnt read my article you shouldnt post on it.

 

I'm only going to comment on Jesus and Mary being married, because I was too lazy to read it all.

1. Back in those times if a Jewish man was a bachelor at that age, then they were breaking a divine comandment the mitzvah which was to multiply and be fruitful. Jesus was a RABBI a holy Jewish man, and he was a practicing Jew.

You have to remember Jesus never sought to create an entire new religion only a new branch of Judaism and it was simple things like eat ham and the what not. All the stuff in Christianity is based off after Jesus' death really, not all but most.

2. Mary and Jesus were very close, Mary was his closest follower. She was at his tomb, much like a grieving widow would be at her husbands grave.

I don't know, I think it's very possible that Jesus and Mary were married. What would it really change anyway? Would it discredit the church? Probably a little but seeing as how it's one of the richest organizations on the planet I'm sure it'll do fine.

 

I guess I don't see why it's such a politically charged topic. a man wrote a (fictional) book positing an alternate view of history. now people seem obsessed with proving something they never felt the need to prove before. and if they can't prove that, that just say he's trying to discredit the church. it shouldn't be a political debate. and if you really wanna get down to it, don't we have a lot more important issues to discuss in politics than a work of fiction? the only people that care are the ones that have something to lose from society taking a closer look at an institution previously thought untouchable. makes you wonder... personally, I say we let people read dan brown, then let them read the bible, then let them make decisions based on what information each source is willing to give them. then we let them forget the whole thing and concentrate on, oh... world hunger, the middle east, the monkey running our government, NSA wiretapping, the list goes on and on...

 

Wow soo much reading. To be honest I really could care less about all this Da Vinci Code stuff. Let things remain how they are and let people believe what they want to believe. I'm Jewish but hardly the religious type. I just celebrate the teadition. I truly could care less about all this stuff. Its a novel meant for entertainment not to rewrite history. Thats all I have to say.

 

How is the movie ?

 

Movie critics have posted exquisite reviews on the movie. Personally I have yet to see the movie.

 

yeah too much too read this late at night.

personally i think all those people who are getting their knickers in a knot over this fictional book and movie need to get a life. it is a fictional book, like harry potter, no one (nearly no one) believes there are wizards etc but people for some reason believe a fictional book that is about christianity, maybe there are some truth to the book but in whole it is a fictional novel.

Much like the bible its a book written hundreds of years after the events, ofcourse it fictional or loosly based on real facts.

 

oh my god! is that all really true....... wow now i dont belive in anygod. thanks . i know i wasted my time reading that book.