Welcome/bienvendios, muchachos.

Well, once again I refer you to the multi-part series by Dr. Mark D. Roberts on The Da Vinci Code, which is still the rage around the world, even though the movie audiences in the USA seem to be dropping off pretty significantly. The section that Dr. Roberts deals with, in both prior and subsequent parts of his series, attacks the foundation of Dan Brown's whole monumental fraud, the notion that other documents, other manuscripts of the New Testament period, are correct renditions of "the historical Jesus," and that the well-known Four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are themselves the fraud, filled with gaping factual and historical discrepancies and falsehoods.

To understand those "other documents," you have to understand the philosophy or "theology" that inspired these other books, the concept called Gnosticism. A concept that only scholars in arcane theological institutions normally talk about, Gnosticism was built upon the notion that physical matter is evil and the spiritual world is completely good (I'm sure that Satan would be glad to hear that!). Salvation or eternal life was not based upon a God who would become a man and die for mankind's sins, as we Christians have believed for twenty centuries. That could not be possible, the Gnostics said, because a spiritual God would never corrupt himself by being united with human flesh. So, salvation was to be achieved by reaching a "higher form of knowledge, or "gnosis", hence the name Gnostics. Also, Jesus could not be, if he were possessed with divine essence, he could only be either a divine character who was not really human flesh, or a human being that simply attained a higher order of knowledge, leading others to that exalted level of consciousness (sounds like a lot of the eastern religions and New Age cults).

So, Dan Brown proceeded, with his book, and later through the movie, to use Gnostic teaching to claim that this religion that exalted the likes of Mary Magdelene was older and more authentic than traditional Christianity. However, the problems with that view are multiplied and great, as Dr. Roberts has discussed before, and as he does in part seven, shown below.


Opportunity #1: The Antiquity and Reliability of the New Testament Gospels (Section B)
Part 7 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Tuesday, March 21, 2006

In my last post, I began to evaluate The Da Vinci Code's claims about the gospels, both biblical and non-biblical. I showed that several of the statements made by Sir Leigh Teabing, the heavenly revealer in Brown's novel, were downright silly. This is fine in a fictional work, just so long as nobody takes the statements seriously. Unfortunately, as I have shown earlier in this series, many readers take Teabing's fantasies as, well, gospel truth. Hence my critique.

Yet not all of Teabing's claims about the gospels can be summarily dismissed. In particular, one of his non-silly notions concerns which gospels are the oldest and most reliable sources of information about Jesus. Brown's historian claims that "gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits" were "earlier gospels" than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These contained "the original history of Christ" and were embraced, not by orthodox Christians, but by those who were called "heretics." Efforts by Emperor Constantine and the Church to destroy these earlier gospels failed, however. Many of them were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Nag Hammadi Library. These authentic gospels "highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications" in the canonical foursome (p. 234).
		Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing

Three of Teabing's claims here are true:

1. The non-canonical gospels were indeed embraced by those who came to be known as heretics (Gnostics and others). There were many non-canonical writings, however, that were orthodox in theology, and were rejected by the so-called heretics.

FAQ: Are any of Leigh Teabing's supposedly historical claims about the gospels true?

2. Though no gospels appear among the Dead Sea Scrolls, some so-called "gospels" were found among the documents discovered in 1945 in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, though none of these gospels looks like what we find in the New Testament. None of the Nag Hammadi gospels, for example, contains much narrative description of Jesus's life or ministry. They are mostly collections of teachings or revelations from a heavenly savior. None of the Gnostic gospels speaks of "Christ's ministry in very human terms" as Teabing claims. In fact, the opposite is true.

3. There are indeed "glaring historical discrepancies" between the non-canonical gospels and the biblical gospels. Most centrally, many of the non-canonical gospels deny that Christ was actually crucified, while in the biblical gospels this is the apex of the narrative. Consider this passage from The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, a tractate from Nag Hammadi that purports to be a revelation of Christ. (If nothing else, you've gotta love that name, The Second Treatise of the Great Seth. Sure sounds more impressive than The Gospel of Mark.)

"I did not succumb to them as they had planned. But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. . . . For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. . . . Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance" (55:14-56:19).

There you have it. Christ doesn't suffer. As another is crucified in His place, he laughs. No doubt there is a huge discrepancy here between The Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the biblical gospels, where Jesus Christ truly suffered and died. And, given the fact that the earliest Christian beliefs we can identify, not in the gospels, but in the writings of Paul, were centered in the death of Jesus, things don't look so good for the historical credibility of the Great Seth and his Gnostic counterparts. It's much easier to believe that these texts, influenced by the flesh-denying theology of Gnosticism, were altered to reflect Gnostic bias, rather than that the biblical gospels got the story wrong.

This is the big problem that I have in the Jesus of "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth", a Jesus who doesn't love everyone enough to identify with all of us, and one who laughs to scorn his would-be captors and, at the one who wound up being crucified in his stead. Sure doesn't sound like a very exalting figure, next to One who would pray for His Father to forgive those who would murder Him, and would mercifully take even a repentent thief crucified next to Him to heaven.

And of course, the fact was that it was Jesus' crucifixion that is historically verified, as will be shown later, not this preposterous story, which is repeated throughout Christian history from before the time these "other gospels" were written. It is the Gnostic story that doesn't hold water, and it is the likes of Dan Brown that is "so great the con of man."

Adios para ahora. God bless.

Well, howdy. Yes, I am a Texan, get used to it. I'm proud of it, and anyone who reads me for at least a day will see elements of that come out. "Gig 'em Aggies! Get your guns out, Red Raiders! Hook 'em Horns! Go Cowboys!"

Well, I'm back for the sixth installment of Mark D. Roberts series on The Da Vinci Code. Well, the world will eventually tire of this series, but I don't think its effect will go away. Fortunately, neither will the truth about Jesus, which Dan Brown's slanderous fraud tries to discredit. Doc Roberts does a real job on it. Here's no. 6.

In my last post in this series I laid out seven opportunities that comprise The Da Vinci Opportunity. Beginning today, I want to take advantage of the first sub-opportunity:

The Da Vinci Code's claim that the Gnostic gospels present a more accurate picture of Jesus gives us

1. The opportunity to demonstrate the antiquity and reliability of the New Testament gospels, in contrast with the Gnostic gospels.

The Gospels According to The Da Vinci Code

To begin, let me sketch the picture of the gospels painted in The Da Vinci Code, largely by the historian Sir Leigh Teabing. According to this view, Jesus's life had been "recorded by thousands of followers across the land" (p. 231). In fact, when the Christian canon of Scripture was being identified in the fourth century, according to Teabing, "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament," yet only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen, because they fit the political agenda of Constantine (p. 231).

FAQ: What does The Da Vinci Code claim to be true about the gospels?

Yet among the rejected gospels were many that were "earlier" than the biblical foursome (p. 234). These gospels contained "the original history of Christ" (p. 234), which was rejected by the official Church and embraced only among those labeled as heretics. Even though Constantine and the Church tried to destroy the non-biblical gospels, which Teabing refers to as the "unaltered gospels" (p. 248), some of them did survive. Here's Teabing's account of this bit of fortuitous history:

"Fortunately for historians," Teabing said, "some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms. Of course, the Vatican, in keeping with their tradition of misinformation, tried very hard to suppress the release of these scrolls. And why wouldn't they? The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was complied and edited by men who possess a political agenda—to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base" (p. 234)

Teabing relates one other curious gospel tidbit. Among the mysterious Sangreal documents, which include "thousands of unaltered, pre-Constantine documents, written by the early followers of Jesus, revering Him as a whole human teacher and prophet," is the "legendary "Q" Document—a manuscript that even the Vatican admits they believe exists. Allegedly, it is a book of Jesus' teaching, possibly written in His own hand" (p. 256.

Weeding Out Some Silliness

Before I deal with the substance of the Brown/Teabing position on the gospels, I want to pull out a few silly weeds. By so doing, I'm not trying to score trivial points. Rather, when you see how much Brown has made up out of thin air when it comes to the details, you may be inclined to take his more substantial claims in the same vein. So, let me list some of Teabing's insights and show why I call them silly.

FAQ: What are some of the most wildly fictional claims in The Da Vinci Code about the gospels?

1. Jesus's life had been "recorded by thousands of followers across the land." Comment: There is absolutely no evidence for this. Plus, given that the culture in which Jesus ministered was predominantly oral, not written, it's highly unlikely that many of his followers wrote down what he said and did. 2. "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament." FAQ: Were "more than eighty gospels considered for the New Testament"? Comment: There is absolutely no evidence for this. When the canon of the New Testament was identified by the Church, there were only four gospels that were ever taken seriously for inclusion. We have no evidence that eighty gospels ever existed. In the Nag Hammadi Library, for example, there are only four documents with the name "gospel" attached (Truth, Thomas, Philip, and Egyptians; Mary is included in English versions of the Nag Hammadi Libary, but wasn't found there). The Early Christian Writings website, which uses the term gospel quite liberally, and includes most early Christian writings, has only twenty-one so-called "gospels." Even if we add in other documents that record esoteric teachings of the Savior, the total number of "gospels" might be as high as twenty five, if we count generously. In fact, most of the so-called Gnostic gospels are nothing like the biblical gospels, with stories of the human Jesus. Rather, they are collections of His supposed revelations.

3. There are gospels among the "Dead Sea Scrolls" that "were found in the 1950s."

Comment: There is absolutely no evidence for this. The Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which were discovered in the 1940s, contain no document anything like a gospel. There are no writings about Jesus in the Scrolls, which are Jewish sectarian writings, most all of which antedate Jesus. A few pseudo-scholarly writers and rogue scholars have seen in the scrolls cryptic references to Jesus, but I don't know of any serious scholar of any theological stripe who believes this.

4. Some gospels can be found among "the Coptic Scrolls" discovered "in 1945 in Nag Hammadi."

Comment: There is evidence for this. Here, at least, Brown has the date right. The Nag Hammadi collection was discovered in 1945. But, also, there were no scrolls in the collection, but only leather-bound papyrus codices (books). Many of the Nag Hammadi do feature Jesus, or better, the Savior, in one fashion or another. Four of the Nag Hammadi tractates are specifically called gospels.

5. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library tractates "speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms."

Comment: Though this is a subjective judgment, there is virtually no evidence for this. As I've already said, the Dead Sea Scrolls don't speak of Christ's ministry at all. And nobody who's ever read the Nag Hammadi Library would describe it as speaking of Christ's ministry in human terms. In fact, the opposite is true. If you don't believe me, thumb through a copy of The Nag Hammadi Library in English and see for yourself. Because the documents in this library are mostly Gnostic in character, they have no interest whatsoever in the human Jesus. In fact, they tend to be dismissive of the human Jesus. I'll say more about this later.

6. The "legendary 'Q' Document," which even the Vatican believes to exist, might well have been written by Jesus Himself.

Comment: Close, but no cigar. "Q" (from the German word Quelle, which means "source") is not legendary, but a scholarly invention which helps to explain the commonalities between Matthew and Luke. There may have been such a document, but nobody really knows. Most scholars who believe in "Q" actually think there were various versions of the document. I'm not aware of any scholar, in the Vatican or otherwise, who believes that "Q" actually exists today, even if it once existed. And I'm not aware of anybody, scholar or not, other than Sir Leigh Teabing, who believes that Jesus might have written "Q."

Let me say, once again, that Brown is writing fiction. I'm not criticizing him for making up this stuff. The silliness of many of Teabing's claims tip off the informed reader that Brown is having some good fun here, but not writing good history. Yet what about the claim that the non-canonical gospels are older than the biblical gospels, and contain "the original history of Christ." I'll address this in my next post.

This is where I see Dan Brown's (and Ron Howard's) lies really come apart! The man quotes his "scholarly" character Leigh Teibing that the Gnostic message, that Jesus really wasn't God, married Mary Magdelene, and had children, was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls! I am no historian, but I knew enough to know that there were no writings of any gospels, or anything that would pass for New Testament or New Testament-era writings of an instructional or recorded nature out of the caves of the community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Oh, boy, can you say gotcha!? Oh, yes you can!

Dan Brown, you are a BIG FAT LIAR!

Later dudes, Aloha!

Aslan lives forever!

Well, after four days, I'm back. Love my consistency. Well, I'll work on it. I'm going to share the fifth part of Dr. Mark Roberts series on The Da Vinci Code. I was impressed here, as I read it, on the utter lack of intimidation in his approach to the whole controversy, styling it an opportunity, not a threat to his faith. Indeed, it is as if Dan Brown has opened himself to a savage attack indeed, for the Crusaders of our time are men and women whose flame is the Word, and whose sword are their pens on paper, or I should say, their keyboards and monitors and bloggers page.

While the liars pipers' tune continues to draw multitudes from around the world, the truth is attacking in response. At least in America the crowds seem limited to the few devoted to the lie, or to the merely curious, as only 9% are believing its message as valid.

Onward Veritas! Semper Fidelus! Semper Vigilius!


Here's the article. Read and enjoy. Here's the best part.

In my last post I explained that, though The Da Vinci Code does indeed pose a threat to classical Christian faith, Christians should see it as much as an opportunity as a threat. The Da Vinci Code will get people talking about Jesus, the Bible, the role of women, and the nature of salvation. This conversation will allow Christians to explain ways in which The Da Vinci Code strays from historical fact and how it reflects careful historical inquiry. More importantly still, it allows Christians to discuss many crucial aspects of Christian faith with those who might otherwise be uninterested.

What follows are seven specific opportunities afforded to Christians by The Da Vinci Code. These don't exhaust the available options, but they are among the most salient ones, in my opinion. These are also the opportunities upon which I plan to focus throughout the rest of this blog series.

Seven Da Vinci Code Opportunities

The Da Vinci Code's claim that the Gnostic gospels present a more accurate picture of Jesus gives us 1. The opportunity to demonstrate the antiquity and reliability of the New Testament gospels, in contrast with the Gnostic gospels.

FAQ: What are the Da Vinci Opportunities, as you call them?

The Da Vinci Code's promotion of the Christ of the Gnostic gospels gives us

2. The opportunity to present the engagingly human Jesus of the biblical gospels, in light of which the other-worldly Christ of the Gnostic gospels pales in comparison.

The Da Vinci Code's hailing of Gnostic Christianity gives us

3. The opportunity to show how the orthodox Christian gospel is available and inclusive, in contrast to the esoteric, exclusive message of salvation in Gnosticism.

The Da Vinci Code's claims about Mary Magdalene and women in early Christianity give us

4. The opportunity to explain how the portrait of Mary Magdalene in the New Testament, which does not include her marriage to Jesus, affirms both Mary and women in general, and suggests the full inclusion of women in Christian life.

The Da Vinci Code's claims about the formation of the Christian canon and the involvement of Constantine in this process give us

5. The opportunity to show how the Christian Bible in fact came to be recognized, and why this supports confidence in Scripture.

The Da Vinci Code's claims about the lateness of the belief in the divinity of Jesus give us

6. The opportunity to demonstrate the antiquity of Christian belief in the divinity and humanity of Jesus.

The Da Vinci Code's favoring of Gnosticism gives us

7. The opportunity to showcase the compelling, creation-affirming, hopeful Christian "story" of salvation through Jesus, which stands brilliantly in contrast to the obscure, creation-denying, despairing "story" of Gnostic salvation.

But Haven't These Issues Been Addressed Already?

Seeing this list of opportunities, you might wonder if I'm simply plowing already turned up ground. After all, many "anti Da Vinci Code" books have been published already. So why should I bother to do this series? And why should anybody bother to read it?

I have read three of the books that refute historical claims of The Da Vinci Code. I have examined several others in bookstores, but did not buy them. The three books I've read cover to cover are:

Darrell Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everyone's Asking (Nelson, 2004).

FAQ: What books on The Da Vinci Code would you recommend?

Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford, 2004).

Ben Witherington, The Gospel Code: Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci (InterVarsity, 2004)

Herein is the simple fact; the attempt by those to hold Christendom guilty of a monumental con act are themselves the thief who, when pursued by his victim on a crowded street, turns and yells, "Stop thief!" In doing so he seeks to throw the unsuspecting upon the innocent and even turn him into the jailbird, while he escapes with his loot. Herein is the purpose of the argument, that the notion that Jesus' followers helped concoct a massive plot to deceive the nations, the deception of which is the cause of mankind's problems for two millenia, simply will not hold up to the light of day. More on why tomorrow, in installment six.

Long live Aslan!

Hi. I'm back for installment number four on The Da Vinci Code's expose by Mark D. Roberts. I imagine once I post this whole series on Technorati and Zillow that I will get identified as a big-time troublemaker by those who see this piece of ripe fiction as the ultimate expose of the world's most popular faith. I'm ok with that. I'm just upset, as Mel Gibson was today, that Dan Brown, Ron Howard, and company, continued to intersperse facts with fiction to give the image of truth in order to sell more tickets at the theater and books off the shelves, at the expense of people being openly deceived.

So, here is Dr. Roberts' next installment of his series on The Code. I am impressed, above all, at his balance and realism. He is realistically concerned about the attack Dan Brown's book and the movie represent to Christianity, not because his faith is attacked, but because the basis of that attack is patently false, and has been dealt with 20 centuries ago by several of the leading evangelists of the early Christian faith. On the other hand, Dr. Roberts sees a great opportunity to engage previously apathetic people worldwide on the central claims of the Christian faith. And that actually could result in more people embracing basic Christianity, rather than rejecting it. So, here's the next installment, hope you'll be wanting to read more later, as I forward more of the meat of his articles.

Given the various ways that The Da Vinci Code contradicts the core of classic Christian faith, it's no wonder that many Christians have considered the book and the soon-to-be released movie as threats to Christianity. After all, when one of the most popular books of all time claims that the Bible is merely a human document and that Jesus was only human, Christians rightly regard this as a danger to their own faith and to that of others. Moreover, if one is a Roman Catholic Christian, the offense of The Da Vinci Code is far greater still.

If The Da Vinci Code is a threat, then Christians need to play defense. We must fend off the threat. We should use reason and evidence to show that many of the apparently historical claims of The Da Vinci Code are, in fact, fictional in the extreme. For example, anyone who actually believes that the Gnostic gospels give us a more human Jesus than the biblical gospels has never read the Gnostic gospels. There's no question in my mind that part of what Christians must do in the face of the Da Vinci challenge is to defend orthodox Christianity. After all, when a central character in the story says that "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false," (p. 235) you've got to admit "them's fightin' words."
		If The Da Vinci Code is a threat, then we'd better be ready to play some good defense, or it will slip right by us.

But I'm convinced that The Da Vinci Code is far more than a threat to orthodox Christianity. It is also an opportunity of the first degree. Yes, I wish that this wildly popular novel and soon to be blockbuster movie presented a picture of Jesus more consistent with historical and theological truth, rather like The Passion of the Christ. But even if The Da Vinci Code itself isn't much of a help in leading people to a true understanding of Jesus and early Christianity, at least it gets them interested. After being exposed to Dan Brown's view of things, people are curious. They ask questions they might never have uttered before, like:

Was Jesus really married?

What was his mission really all about?

Are the New Testament gospels reliable sources of information about Jesus?

Is Gnostic-flavored Christianity really a tastier variety than bland vanilla orthodoxy?

Was Jesus divine?

When did people start believing this?

What can we really know about Jesus?

And why does He matter so much, anyway?

In my opinion, these are great questions. In fact, I believe they're some of the most important questions in life. If it takes something like The Da Vinci Code to get folks asking questions like these, then I am grateful to Dan Brown for his effort, at least to this extent. He's opened the door for serious discussion about Jesus. We Christians, and all truth-seekers everywhere, for that matter, need to thank him for the welcome and walk through the door.

Of course, as an orthodox Christian myself, I seem to be assuming that an open-minded discussion of Jesus and early Christianity will be helpful to the Christian cause. Folks who take the Dan Brown/Leigh Teabing side obviously believe that this conversation will favor their perspective. But, I must confess at the outset, I don't see it their way. In fact, as one who has spent a whole lot of life studying the documents from which we learn about Jesus and early Christianity, I'm utterly convinced that the evidence leans heavily in the direction of classical Christian faith. I'm not suggesting that I can prove that Jesus was divine. Such proof is beyond human capacity. But I am absolutely sure, for example, that I can show beyond any reasonable doubt that most Christians considered Jesus to be divine long before Emperor Constantine had anything to say about it. The Da Vinci Code's purported "history" of early Christian doctrine has everything to do with a thrilling novel and nothing to do with the facts. When it comes to the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code, my encouragement to orthodox Christians comes down to this: The facts are on our side.

In my next post I'll spell out in greater detail how I envision The Da Vinci Opportunity. I will explain the topics I intend to address in the rest of this series.

Well, I'll show you part five later today, LW. I think this will grow on you. Adios.

Long Live Aslan!

Hi. After a one day absence I am back, to lay on information from older, wiser heads than mine. The Da Vinci Code must be opposed, and no I am not open-minded. As I said a few days ago, I am not openminded to the notion that gravity doesn't exist and that reality is just a state of mind. I am closed minded about that. I live like certain things are absolutely true every day of my life, and so does everyone else, whether they admit it or not. It's the same thing with The Da Vinci Code. Jesus did not marry Mary Magdelene, he did not have children, the apostles did not deliberately concoct a brand new religion out of whole cloth through fraud and artifice to gain political power, and the Bible was not a mere creation of a collaboration of men. Most of all, the assertions that ALL scholars, Christian and otherwise, believe these stories are just deliberately told lies out of the arrogance of Dan Brown and believed on by people who just want an excuse to turn against a faith that they think infringes on their freedom to live life as they please. I am not open-minded about such drivel, because the evidence is so freaking overwhelming as to make their claims laughable, and the logical conclusions they would have to make to support them are so fanciful as to be simply bizarre at best and patently dishonest at worst.

This rant is not, as some would say, "seeker-sensitive", but sometimes the best thing to give a person the truth, full-blown, and "pump up the volume!" As anyone knows in dealing with a stubborn donkey you want to train, you start by smacking him with a stick! Why? To get his attention, silly! So here's the stick.

Now for the sugar. Here's the third portion of the series by Mark D. Roberts. Here he gives his own extensive background justifying his status as an expert on The Code, namely the research done for years at Harvard University on the Nag Hammadi scrolls, the Gnostic gospels that are the foundation for Dan Brown's assertions made through Robert Langdon and Leigh Teibing's characters in The Code.

Where I'm Coming From
Part 3 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Wednesday, March 15, 2006

For those of you who aren't from my part of the world, sorry for the Californianism. At least I didn't entitle this blog entry, "Where I'm At." My point in this post is to talk about what others might call my background, or still others my agenda, or even my bias. I want to explain my perspective as I approach The Da Vinci Code, so you can weigh my insights judiciously. My regular blog readers know most of this already, but others deserve to know where I'm coming from, as we say out West.

Academic Background

As an undergraduate, I majored in philosophy. During my junior year I took a religion course entitled, "Christians, Jews, and Gnostics." It was taught by Professor George MacRae of Harvard Divintiy School. Professor MacRae had been active as a member of the academic team that had translated the Nag Hammadi Library (sometimes called the Gnostic gospels). Thus I was able to read several of those documents with one of the world's experts in the material. It was a fascinating exercise.

My experience in this undergraduate course was part of what led me to seek a Ph.D. in New Testament. I stayed on at Harvard because the New Testament faculty at that time was one of the strongest in the world. I should hasten to add that I'm speaking here in terms of secular academia. Folks from conservative Christian backgrounds would have considered the Harvard New Testament faculty to be unbalanced, heavily weighted in the direction of liberal, critical scholarship.

While in grad school, I spent more time studying ancient documents outside of the New Testament than the New Testament writings themselves. I read most of the Nag Hammadi Library texts, sometimes with those who had made the definitive translations. I also worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls with one of the premier scroll scholars, a man who had been part of the original translation team. In one course I had the privilege of studying, not the actual scrolls, which were locked safely away, but photographs of those scrolls which had not yet been published or translated into English.

It never occurred to me that my years of reading the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi codices, and other extra-biblical writings would ever have any practical significance. Who in the world would care about "The Temple Scroll" or "The Thunder, Perfect Mind"? Now, thanks to Dan Brown, my knowledge of the Gnostic gospels turns out to be quite timely.

Since finishing my Ph.D. in New Testament, I've done quite a bit of teaching on the seminary level. I've been able to keep up with some of the scholarly literature in my field, especially that which pertains to Jesus. In 2001 I wrote the manuscript for my book Jesus Revealed. Although a popular more than a scholarly book, my research for this book caught me up on the academic study of Jesus and the gospels, including the Gnostic gospels.


One of my proudest days, when I finally received my PhD degree, after 12 years as a grad student, and 17 years of paying some sort of tuition at Harvard. Yikes!




So, when I examine the historical evidence for Jesus, and when I speak about the early Christian gospels, I'm relying on my academic background, and can speak with a measure of authority. Though I'm not as current on scholarship as if I were teaching in an academic institution, I can address the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code with a fair amount of scholarly mettle. This doesn't mean my opinions will always be right, of course. There is a wide range of disagreement among scholars about many things pertaining to Jesus and early Christianity. My voice falls in this range as one option among many. But, as I speak about these things, at least you can be assured that I actually have some idea what I'm talking about, whether I'm right or wrong.

Religious Background

I've been a Christian for more than forty years, having "accepted Jesus into my heart" at a Billy Graham crusade in Los Angeles in 1963. I grew up in an evangelical Presbyterian church. In college and grad school I sojourned in other Christian traditions for a season, including Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, and Mennonite. In the end, I found my religious home in the tradition were I was raised, evangelical Presbyterian.

Will my Christian faith influence the way I evaluate the historical evidence for Jesus and the early Christian gospels? Of course it will, to some extent. I'm postmodern enough to realize this. No scholar is immune from the influence of his or her personal convictions. But I'm also rather modern in the sense that I value truth in a more or less absolute sense. Thus I try as a historian to evaluate evidence with as little bias as possible. One of the reasons I've laid out my personal faith here is so that you can do the same. If my historical arguments seem to be "privileging" orthodoxy, at least you'll know why.

The title of this blog series, The Da Vinci Opportunity, intentionally shows my hand. I see the popularity of The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity, not only to discuss Jesus and early Christianity, but also for Christians to explain why we find the Jesus of the gospels to be so compelling, and why we can have confidence in the New Testament portrayal of Jesus. I'll have more to say about this in my next post.

You can find Dr. Roberts' series here, along with his own website here.

More to come later.

Long live Aslan!

Well, hello. I'm back, after a day's absence, to go on with what I'm wanting to share about The Da Vinci Code. I have been referring everybody to what is in Dr. Mark D. Roberts website's series on The Code, and in part two he deals with the common beg-off a lot of people who want to deflect criticism of the Dan Brown novel and movie say, namely, "It's Only Fiction." In the article by the same name, Roberts exposes the deadly nature of underestimating this book-film's effect, which has already, according to Box Office's figures as quoted in The Drudge Report, the largest opening weekend international film audience (outside U.S.) in history.

The most important point Roberts makes is that Dan Brown engages in dialecticism. "Dia-what!" you say? Dialecticism. It's the act, when making an argument in debate, or in trying to start a revolution, of first making a challenge or outrageous argument, then, when your opponent responds strongly or with indignation, you recoil--you say, "I didn't mean that, I meant this." Your opponent then looks and feels silly, like he's overreacted, he compromises, to appear reasonable, at which point you have gained ground on him, he's given up power to you that isn't rightfully yours. It's a point from which you make your fresh attacks.

That's what Dan Brown and Tom Hanks and Ron Howard and Ian McKellen (Gandalf of Lord of the Rings, sadly) are doing with The Code. The book is written, an apparently outrageous claim is made that Christianity's core beliefs are a gigantic fraud, something that has not held serious popular belief in Western Civilization in about 1,700 years. Devout and educated people, both who hold to the faith, and those who don't (as I'll later recite), respond with outrage, and with logical and verified factual information to discredit an obvious lie. The Code cabal then respond with apparent surprise at what they now "admit" to be a fiction. The public then looks upon the Christian advocates as if they are a bunch of bigots and paranoid fanatics, who then feel oblige to back off and let Brown and cabal perpetuate the fraud unmolested.

At the end a monstrous lie has tens of millions in North America, and hundreds of millions worldwide, believing that a piece of fiction is historical fact, and Christians have to waste their time, unsuccessfully, trying to debunk a myth that has multitudes believing that history which has been almost uncontested for 2,000 years is a fraud. The sense of violation of hundreds of millions of devout Christians resembles the humiliation felt by a rape victim.

But I'll quote Dr. Roberts here.

If everybody who was exposed to Dan Brown's story concluded, "Well, that was a great ride, but his stuff on Jesus was a lot of hooey!" then I could start blogging on something else, rather than exercising myself on this topic for the next several weeks. But, I'm sad to say, millions upon millions of readers and viewers of The Da Vinci Code will not reject its treatment of Jesus and early Christianity as wildly creative fiction. In fact, they will believe that Dan Brown has revealed the truth about Jesus. And they'll believe this passionately.



The Da Vinci Code? What, me worry?

I know because of the e-mail I have received in response to my online article Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Real Evidence, and the published version of this piece that forms an appendix to my book, Jesus Revealed. I've received dozens of notes from people who not only reject my view that the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis of Jesus having been married, but also are just plain angry with me. They have found the "evidence" of The Da Vinci Code to be so persuasive, and they are so attached to the idea that Jesus is married, that my rather sober treatment of the historical evidence carries no weight whatsoever. The folks who have written to me didn't take Dan Brown's view of Jesus as clever fiction, but as hardcore fact.

They're not alone. Lest you think my blog readers are a bunch of crazies, consider the following evidence:

In a beliefnet.com survey, 27% of respondents said that Mary Magdalene was "Jesus' wife."

Not to be outdone, one in three Canadians who read The Da Vinci Code believe "there are descendants of Jesus alive today and a secret society exists dedicated to keeping Jesus' bloodline a secret."

A more recent Canadian survey found that 17% of all Canadians and 13% of all Americans are of the opinion that “Jesus’ apparent death on the cross was faked” and that "Jesus was also married and had a family." If accurate, this means that tens of millions of North Americans believe Dan Brown's fictions to be true.

There's no denying the fact that millions of people have been influenced by The Da Vinci Code to believe things about Jesus that are contrary to orthodox Christian belief, and that are, as we shall later see, highly improbable and unsupported by the available historical evidence.
Yet you can't exactly blame the readers of The Da Vinci Code for taking many of its claims about Jesus as historically valid. In the unfolding of the story, "facts" like the marriage of Jesus and the unreliability of the biblical gospels are "revealed" as common knowledge among informed Christians. At one point the novel's historian-guru Sir Leigh Teabing notes, "The vast majority of educated Christians know the history of their faith," which includes the "fact" that Jesus was just a mortal who was elevated to deity by the Roman emperor Constantine to augment his power (p. 234).

FAQ: Why do people believe that fictional elements of The Da Vinci Code are historically accurate?

Furthermore, the first page of The Da Vinci Code contains a claim about the factuality of the material in the book. It reads: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" (p. 1). Yet it is in the description of ancient Christian documents that Dan Brown makes some of his wildest claims about the Bible and Jesus. The first page of the book suggests that he is speaking historical truth.

Curiously enough, Dan Brown seems not to have read his own first page. His own website asks Brown, "But doesn't the novel's 'fact' page claim that every single word in this novel is historical fact?" [MDR note: What a ridiculous question!], Here is Brown's answer:

If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.

Hmmm. Actually, his "FACT" page says that "all descriptions" of these things are true, not that they merely exist. When Teabing describes an ancient document, Dan Brown the author suggests that his description is factually true. Dan Brown the webmaster suggests only that the document exists. Will the real Dan Brown please stand up?
In fact, the real Dan Brown has made known his personal views on the purportedly historical background to his novel. And there's little doubt that he believes the stuff Leigh Teabing feeds to Sophie Neveu is historical fact. For example, Brown's website asks him, "The topic of this novel might be considered controversial. Do you fear repercussions?" Brown answers:

FAQ: Does Dan Brown himself believe that his fictionalized "history" of Jesus and early Christianity is true?

No. As I mentioned earlier, the secret I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new.

Notice, Dan Brown "reveals" a secret that is really true, and that has been known for centuries, but not widely.

In an interview with bookreporter.com, Brown revealed more of his personal beliefs regarding Jesus and early Christianity. Question: Is this book anti-Christian? Answer:

No. This book is not anti-anything. It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate.

Note: Brown wrote "to explore certain aspects of Christian history."

Bookreporter.com Question: What do you think of clerical scholars attempting to "disprove" The Da Vinci Code? [MDR note: It's not just clerical scholars, but academic scholars as well.] Answer:

The dialogue is wonderful. These authors and I obviously disagree, but the debate that is being generated is a positive powerful force.

Note: Brown could have said. These folks are crazy. My novel is just a novel. What's their problem? Instead he said, "These authors and I obviously disagree." Upon what do they disagree? On the historical facts. Brown really believes the stuff he puts into the mouth of Leigh Teabing.

In an interview in a National Geographic documentary on The Da Vinci Code, Brown added:

I began as a sceptic. As I started researching Da Vinci Code I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer.

So, the reader who takes Teabing's revelations as historical fact, and who reads the "FACT" page as indicating that the novel is based on supposedly solid historical data, is not naïve and mistaken. In fact, this reader is tracking perfectly with Brown, who believes his novel reveals a secret about Jesus that is historically true, and a perspective on early Christianity that tells the real story.

Given the influence of The Da Vinci Code, and the tendency for millions of readers to believe the Dan Brown/Leigh Teabing view of Jesus and early Christian history, it's necessary to deal with part of The Da Vinci Code as if it were a work of non-fiction. The "What, me worry?" approach isn't possible for those of us who care about the truth, not to mention the truth about Jesus, His nature and mission.

So, here we are at last, having to confront the fact that so many people seem to have such an antipathy toward the Christian faith that they figure they have permission to trash it any time or any way they want that they'll deliberately write books and make movies geared to directly outrage Christianity, and buy the copies to read them or the tickets to view them. And when challenged with facts, they simply shout down those confronting them with accusations of bigotry, making the devout skulk away, leaving the young to be picked like carcasses of dead cattle in the desert. And if you don't believe me, read this.
So, I am fighting mad. And I am not backing down. If that makes me a bigot, then being a bigot is, in this case, the most shining virtue of all. Jesus is God, both God and man. The Da Vinci Code is a fraud. And judgment is coming.

Part three is coming, with a little less heat (anger), and a lot more light (fact). Adios.

Long live Aslan!

This is the first of the series on The Da Vinci Code by Dr. Mark D. Roberts, professor of theology at Biola University in Orange County, California (the OC, recent addition), and at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. There is a huge amount of information on The Code that Dr. Roberts has come up with, but with a realistic respect for the fact that he, as I, have to overcome the fact that some people are going to say, "Well of course he feels that way, he's a preacher, he's a devout Christian man! Why should I accept what he says? Dan Brown may be the one in the right. What's he going to do, just quote Bible verses to me?" Well, let's see what he does.

In article one, this is the part that really reaches out, in my mind, to somebody that doesn't have much value for taking sides without sufficient evidence, but will make an evaluation based on impartial fact. Doc Roberts lays out the basic problems with the movie, asserting AS FACT that a number of things are true that attack the core of the 2,000-year old Christian faith:

"On the other hand, the advent of The Da Vinci Code movie is not good news. Central to its plot are fictional elements presented as if they were true that rub against my Christian faith. This is the case even though I'm not part of the Roman Catholic church (portrayed as sinister in the Dan Brown's story) or Opus Dei (a group within Roman Catholicism that's depicted as twisted and diabolical). The most unsettling elements of The Da Vinci Code are not incidental to Christian faith, however. They have to do with the very core of Christianity. They concern the mission, identity, and nature of Jesus, as well as the inspiration and truthfulness of the Bible.

For example:

"Whereas orthodox* Christians believe that the kingship of Jesus was not about royal blood and earthly government, in The Da Vinci Code the ultimate significance of Jesus is precisely about these things.

FAQ: What elements of The Da Vinci Code are contrary to orthodox Christianity?

"Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus remained single throughout his life, The Da Vinci Code reveals that He was in fact married to Mary Magdalene.

"Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus's death and resurrection were the center of His earthly mission, The Da Vinci Code sees His chief contribution as fathering a child by His wife, Mary.

"Whereas orthodox Christians believe that the Bible, though written by human beings, is divinely inspired, The Da Vinci Code reveals that it is merely a human invention.

"Whereas orthodox Christians believe that the New Testament gospels are reliable sources of information about Jesus, in The Da Vinci Code, the trustworthy gospels come from other collections, like The Dead Sea Scrolls or the Gnostic library from Nag Hammadi.

"Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was fully God and fully human, The Da Vinci Code shows that Jesus was in fact a mere mortal, and that His deity was invented in order to augment the power of the fourth-century Roman emperor Constantine.

"I could go on for a while longer with more examples of how The Da Vinci Code contradicts classical Christian belief, but I think you get the point. It's pretty obvious why an orthodox Christian like me would be unsettled by the release of The Da Vinci Code movie and its guaranteed popularity."

Says it right nicely, I say. I'll be back tomorrow, to give my contribution to an effort to meet a lie with the strength of an ocean with the truth, perhaps with only a proverbial broom in my hands, but who knows what my God may do?

Hi, it's me. The main thing that's going on is, as people all over the world can tell you, the worldwide rush to see The Da Vinci Code. According to sources on The Drudge Report, the U.S. audience alone is going to be far above the $60 million box office receipts expected this first weekend. And the worldwide audience is probably going to be far above that. We're talking Titanic-like, which is amazing, and for me, more than a little chilling. The movie, everybody, is fiction, and it seems like so many around the world can't wait to embrace it as fact. I don't think the effect of this movie can be overstated, and I don't have much use for people who try to mollify people like me with "Get over it, it's just a movie. You must be pretty insecure about your beliefs to get so upset about this movie. Like maybe you're afraid there may be something to it."

I don't like deception. I know what deception can do to people. I know what it does to the innocent. And I have seen more than enough of evil people deliberately perpetrating lies passed off as fact, and shouting down and slandering those who seek to present the real truth. Whether about U.S. elections, or about 9/11, or Iraq, or about whether The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic, or about The Code, and the novel it is based on, deception has lately become stock in trade in ways I have never seen before in my two-score and ten years.

Well, I am not standing by anymore. I am jumping into the fray, and we'll be saying my piece. Often. Not out of hate, no, we have enough of that, except hate of falsehood and evil. But for love, love of people, compassion, a desire that people live in truth, which is the foundation for a liberated soul, a world truly experiencing peace.

So, here goes. I start with referring you to the articles on The Da Vinci Code as written by Dr. Mark D. Roberts, who I mentioned last time. His research on the Code is second to none, and will expose the lies in the book and film. I'll put my two cents and perspective interspersed in what I copy, and will send more info along via link as well for anyone to see.

Hope it helps. If the way I write is obnoxious or rude, I apologize for my overwrought zeal in advance. But if someone is simply angry at the content of what I say, well, sorry, no apology there. You'll just have to confront the facts. And I have to confess, I'm not open minded here. You don't take an open mind to what you know are lies. You close your mind, shut like a steel trap. You would do that to someone who said that Galileo was wrong and that the sun revolves around the earth. It's time to do that with people who try to pass off that a 2,000-year-old faith embraced by more people than any other is a fraud at its foundation, and spread that false accusation to make a big fat haul of money.

So, here goes. I start with Dr. Roberts first article tomorrow. See you later. Ciao. In the meantime, look him up. You can start early.

Well, hi. I'm back. Been a little more than one day, yeah (ok, try a week, but who's counting?). Anyway, I'm wanting to talk about the fact that I have been noticing that Hollywood has abandoned all pretense of its attitude toward the faith I hold dear. No, no. They couldn't wait to get their hands on The Da Vinci Code and just smear that stuff all over the movie screens of the entire godforsaken planet! It just infuriates me to no end, but not for Hollywood, but my culture. We have so many who have renounced God, that it's a pleasurable thing to show and attend this movie, just to tweak the Christians. Yes, I honestly believe that there are so many people who think that just because devout members of my faith have honest disagreements over things like abortion, homosexuality and capital punishment that we're fair game to be completely disrespected and mocked to scorn. Such would not have been tolerated 20-30 years ago.

But I don't want to stay there. Instead, I would rather talk about the many, many, many people who have read the book, will see the movie, and will, because of Dan Brown and Universal Pictures' compelling powers of communication, have serious doubts about the whole Christian faith. I have no disrespect for them, honest doubt or skepticism, based upon the information one has is not to be belittled, but is healthy and worthy of honest discussion. Courtesy and respect, such is what my mama taught me.

So, I'll be filling in with more info in the next few days, sharing what I know, and drawing from some really smart guys, too. Hope that what I do helps.

Here's the first link I'll point you to, by one of the most brilliant thinkers about this kind of subject anyone will meet. His name is Dr. Mark D. Roberts, a professor at Biola University in southern California. His website is truly informative, especially on The Da Vinci Code.

See you later.

Long live Aslan!

Hi, I'm back. I'm saying this a lot on my blogs, which have been waiting for me, but it's a nice feeling to be back in the saddle. I will say more in the days to come, as I adjust the direction of this blog. But we have finished our move, in a city about 30 miles north of my old one (still in the San Diego area). It's nice to know I'm not 5 miles from Mexico, where the favorite sport seems to be drug trafficking and marketing cars stolen from all over southern California, especially the South Bay area of San Diego. It was a nice place, a really nice home and neighborhood there, but I'm really happy with my new home. Gail loves it, too. Well, talk again at the world tomorrow. Ciao.