Changes

Where did all of these ideas come from?  According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources.  Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, numerology(the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess.  Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from?  According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and [[Holy Blood, Holy Grail]] as sources.  Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions ''[[The Woman with the Alabaster Jar]]'' and ''[[The Goddess in the Gospels]]'', both by [[Margaret Starbird]], who uses, among other things, numerology(the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess.  Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the [[Gnostic gospels]] (Welborn 63)

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene.  According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the pagan Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) But these “symbols” are nothing but Dan Brown’s gloriusly riduculous imagination: Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]   

[[Image: littlemermaid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene.  According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea ([[Georges de la Tour]]’s [[Magdalene with the Smoking Flame]]). (Starbird) But these “symbols” are nothing but Dan Brown’s imagination: Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.]]   

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever.  There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”.  (Ehrman 160)  It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute.  This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]].  In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.”  (Van Biema)

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever.  There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”.  (Ehrman 160)  It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute.  This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the [[Middle Ages]] and [[the Renaissance]].  In 1969, the [[Catholic Church]] issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.”  (Van Biema)

The Da Vinci Code states that “over eighty” gospels were censored.  First of all, there were nowhere near that many gospels, this number is total fabrication on Dan Brown’s part.  There are about two dozen non-canonical gospels in existence—most found by accident fairly recently, like the [[Nag Hammadi]] and [[Dead Sea Scrolls]].  Brown states that the reason Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen was that they were the ones that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and downplayed his humanity the most.  We’ve also seen this to be untrue with the Gnostic gospels, but what about the rest of the non-canonical gospels?

The Da Vinci Code states that “over eighty” gospels were censored.  First of all, there were nowhere near that many gospels, this number is total fabrication on Dan Brown’s part.  There are about two dozen non-canonical gospels in existence—most found by accident fairly recently, like the [[Nag Hammadi]] and [[Dead Sea Scrolls]].  Brown states that the reason Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen was that they were the ones that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and downplayed his humanity the most.  We’ve also seen this to be untrue with the Gnostic gospels, but what about the rest of the non-canonical gospels?

Bart Ehrman in his book Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, critiques six typical examples of [[non-canonical gospels]].  The gospels he discusses include [[The Infancy Gospel of Thomas]], [[The Gospel of Peter]], [[The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter]], [[The Coptic Gospel of Thomas]], and [[The Gospels of Philip and Mary]].  Each one presents a consistently more divine picture of Jesus that the canonical gospels.  Some even stand directly against the view that Jesus was human and deemphasize his humanity.  (Ehrman 400-71)

Bart Ehrman in his book Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, critiques six typical examples of [[non-canonical gospels]].  The gospels he discusses include [[The Infancy Gospel of Thomas]], [[The Gospel of Peter]], [[The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter]], [[The Coptic Gospel of Thomas]], and [[The Gospels of Philip and Mary]].  Each one presents a consistently more divine picture of Jesus that the canonical gospels.  Some even stand directly against the view that Jesus was human and deemphasize his humanity.  (Ehrman 49-71)

==='''Part IV: Constantine and the Council of Nikaea'''===

==='''Part IV: Constantine and the Council of Nicaea'''===

----

----

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

''…for inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precedes error.'' –Tertullian in ''Against Markion''

''…for inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precedes error.'' –Tertullian in ''Against Marcion''

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

The [[Council of Nicaea]] (325 AD)—presided over by Roman Emperor [[Constantine]]—was the first cumenical gathering of Christians.  In The Da Vinci Code, Danielle Brown makes some startling assertions about the Council Constantine.   

The [[Council of Nicaea]] (325 AD)—presided over by Roman Emperor [[Constantine]]—was the first ecumenical gathering of Christians.  In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes some startling assertions about the Council Constantine.   

First, Brown states that the Council was held to “strengthen the new Christian tradition.” This is not correct.  The Council was held to reinforce and unify Christian teachings that had already been in existence since the days of Jesus.  (religionfacts.com)  No new teachings were strengthened at the Council of Nicaea, in fact it was the new teachings—most prominently Aryanism—that were brought under attack at the Council.  (Latourette 120-160)   

First, Brown states that the Council was held to “strengthen the new Christian tradition.” This is not correct.  The Council was held to reinforce and unify Christian teachings that had already been in existence since the days of Jesus.  (religionfacts.com)  No new teachings were strengthened at the Council of Nicaea, in fact it was the new teachings—most prominently Aryanism—that were brought under attack at the Council.  (Latourette 120-160)   

Second, Brown states that “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon” at the Council of Nicaea.  This is true.  Among other things, the date of Easter was voted on at the Council.  So was the divinity of Jesus.  But not, as Brown suggests, the issue of whether or not Jesus was divine—just the manner of his divinity.  “The debate and vote concerned whether Jesus was divine in the same sense as God the Father, or if he was a lesser deity created by the Father.” (religionfacts.com)  Additionally, Jesus’ divinity was not determined by a “relatively close” vote as Brown states, but an overwhelming majority; there were a mere two dissenters out of the entire group of about 500 bishops.  (Welborn 45)

Second, Brown states that “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon” at the Council of Nicaea.  This is true.  Among other things, the date of Easter was voted on at the Council.  So was the divinity of Jesus.  But not, as Brown suggests, the issue of whether or not Jesus was divine—just the manner of his divinity.  “The debate and vote concerned whether Jesus was divine in the same sense as God the Father, or if he was a lesser deity created by the Father.” (religionfacts.com)  Additionally, Jesus’ divinity was not determined by a “relatively close” vote as Brown states, but an overwhelming majority; there were a mere two dissenters out of the entire group of about 500 bishops.  (Welborn 45)

Third, Brown makes this startling claim: “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal.”  This is entirely incorrect.  In their book, ''[[Cracking the Da Vinci Code]]'', [[James Garlow]] and [[Peter Jones]] list a dozen examples of church leaders—apart from the Bible—who spoke directly of Jesus’ divinity from 105 A.A.D. to 305 A.D.—historical proof of Christians who believed Jesus was divine at least two centuries before the Council.  [[Clement]] said in 150 A.D., “It is fitting you should think of Jesus Christ as God,” and [[Novation]], “He is not only man, but God also.”  (Garlow and Jones 94)

Third, Brown makes this startling claim: “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal.”  This is entirely incorrect.  In their book, ''[[Cracking the Da Vinci Code]]'', [[James Garlow]] and [[Peter Jones]] list a dozen examples of church leaders—apart from the Bible—who spoke directly of Jesus’ divinity from 105 A.D. to 305 A.D.—historical proof of Christians who believed Jesus was divine at least two centuries before the Council.  [[Clement]] said in 150 A.D., “It is fitting you should think of Jesus Christ as God,” and [[Novation]], “He is not only man, but God also.”  (Garlow and Jones 94)

Fourth, Brown states that "Establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base…"  Brown states that the divinity of Christ was an invention by power-hungry Constantine seeking to unify the Roman Empire under the banner of Christianity.  If it hadn’t been for Constantine, Christianity would never have survived throughout history.  We certainly would not have the great and powerful establishment know as [[“the Vatican”]] (which Brown apparently thinks is the sum total of Christianity) that we have today.  Gradually, Christianity would have fizzled out and died and few would even remember the mortal prophet Jesus today.

Fourth, Brown states that "Establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base…"  Brown states that the divinity of Christ was an invention by power-hungry Constantine seeking to unify the Roman Empire under the banner of Christianity.  If it hadn’t been for Constantine, Christianity would never have survived throughout history.  We certainly would not have the great and powerful establishment know as [[“the Vatican”]] (which Brown apparently thinks is the sum total of Christianity) that we have today.  Gradually, Christianity would have fizzled out and died and few would even remember the mortal prophet Jesus today.

The last claim Brown makes is that Constantine personally compiled that Bible as we know it today at the Council.  He included books that emphasize Jesus’ divinity, and excluded books that mention his humanity.  We have already seen that the books excluded from the Bible, including the Gnostic texts, do not emphasize Jesus’ humanity whatsoever.  In fact, they do the opposite.  What Brown fails to note is that the Bible itself speaks much more, and in great detail about Jesus’ humanity.  Once again, perhaps if Brown had bothered reading the Bible while conducting research, he wouldn’t have made this flagrant error.

The last claim Brown makes is that Constantine personally compiled that Bible as we know it today at the Council.  He included books that emphasize Jesus’ divinity, and excluded books that mention his humanity.  We have already seen that the books excluded from the Bible, including the Gnostic texts, do not emphasize Jesus’ humanity whatsoever.  In fact, they do the opposite.  What Brown fails to note is that the Bible itself speaks much more, and in great detail about Jesus’ humanity.  Once again, perhaps if Brown had bothered reading the Bible while conducting research, he wouldn’t have made this flagrant error.

The Gnostic Jesus ”shares wisdom, reveals secrets, and wanders around in a gently spiritual fog, and talks, and talks.  And talks.”  (Welborn 57)  In the Bible, Jesus is described as “eating, drinking, being angry, frightened, lonely, grieving, suffering, and dying.”  The poignantly human descriptions of Jesus found in the four Biblical gospels starkly contrast to the mystical, unapproachable and verbose Jesus of the Gnostic gospels.  Only someone totally ignorant of the Bible would dream of saying its depiction of Jesus doesn't ignore his humanity. (Welborn 57)

The Gnostic Jesus ”shares wisdom, reveals secrets, and wanders around in a gently spiritual fog, and talks, and talks.  And talks.”  (Welborn 57)  In the Bible, Jesus is described as “eating, drinking, being angry, frightened, lonely, grieving, suffering, and dying.”  The poignantly human descriptions of Jesus found in the four Biblical gospels starkly contrast to the mystical, unapproachable and verbose Jesus of the Gnostic gospels.  Only someone totally ignorant of the Bible would dream of saying its depiction of Jesus ignores his humanity. (Welborn 57)

Brown asserts that it was not until after the Council of Nicaea that the world saw the list of books we know today as the Bible.  Historian Kurt Aland identifies this as error in the following excerpt:

Brown asserts that it was not until after the Council of Nicaea that the world saw the list of books we know today as the Bible.  Historian Kurt Aland identifies this as error in the following excerpt:

''The canon was not imposed from the top… and then accepted by communities.  The organized church did not create the canon; it recognized the canon that had already been created. '' –[[Kurt Aland]]

''The canon was not imposed from the top… and then accepted by communities.  The organized church did not create the canon; it recognized the canon that had already been created. '' –[[Kurt Aland]]

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

The gospels were well established long before Constantine was born.  In fact, 750 years before Constantine, Christian leaders dealt with issues radical Marcion raised about the canon, which proves a list of books very close to ours was in existence centuries before Constantine.   

The gospels were well established long before Constantine was born.  In fact, 150 years before Constantine, Christian leaders dealt with issues radical Marcion raised about the canon, which proves a list of books very close to ours was in existence centuries before Constantine.   

Brown also states that the four chosen gospels were “embellished” to further demonize Mary Magdalene, emphasize Jesus’ humanity and so forth.  By the fourth century there were hundreds—maybe thousands of copies of those four gospels in existence.  It is impossible that some authority ordered every copy altered.  Today, among surviving ancient copies of these gospels no “embellished” versions exist.  (Garlow and Jones 147)

Brown also states that the four chosen gospels were “embellished” to further demonize Mary Magdalene, emphasize Jesus’ humanity and so forth.  By the fourth century there were hundreds—maybe thousands of copies of those four gospels in existence.  It is impossible that some authority ordered every copy altered.  Today, among surviving ancient copies of these gospels no “embellished” versions exist.  (Garlow and Jones 147)