The Da Vinci Code - the hoax behind the code

[ragingregi]

The Da Vinci Code - the hoax behind the code

This article is a response to the novel, The Da
Vinci Code, by Dan Brown. 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 Brown's 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 Brown's novel.

Despite Brown's claims, however, there are no
historical documents that claim that Jesus was
married - not even the "Gnostic gospels" that
Brown mentions in his novel.

The only specific evidence that 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 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 Mary Magdalene were supposedly married,
then why would the disciples bother to ask their
leader why he loved his her more than them?

Can you imagine a scenario in which a group of
men would ask a married man, "Why do you love
her (your wife) more than us?" Such a question
doesn't make any sense if the two are supposed to
be married. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense if
the two were merely engaged, or even if they were
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. 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 presents itself
as a 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.

It is for these reasons, and others like them, that
the Gnostic texts were rejected by early Christians
as being divinely inspired. In fact, there is evidence
that early Christian church leaders were rejecting
Gnostic writings as early as the middle of the
second century, which is when some scholars
believe that the Gnostic texts first began to appear.

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
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 preHebraic 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 Dan Brown's 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 A.D. 96 through 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 did not 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. It
would have been extremely difficult for Constantine
to have altered, shaped or otherwise influenced the
New Testament.


7. Fiction: The Vatican demonized pagan worship.

The Da Vinci Code, page 37: "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 Dan Brown's
storyline. The historical evidence, however,
strongly contradicts Brown's claim. 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
Dan Brown was on to something.


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

Da Vinci Code, pages 232-233: "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.



Hey guys is this accurate?

 

[Chad]

Amen Soldier. No need for any code. We have Truth, no secrets hidden in the Bible, the INFALLIBLE LIVING WORD OF GOD.

 

[mymakersdaughter]

Yes we carry the truth with us in our Bibles, the living word of God. We live in a world of deception and many follow it. It causes me great concern when recently they were filming the Da Vinci Code with Tom Hanks, they were using a church, the nuns where booing and heckeling that they were using the Church. Even the Priest who's Parish it was, was very upset and felt it was wrong as it is not truth. The real funny part is that the priest who was against it accepted $100 000 dollar donation so they can film there. Wonder what his take was of the 100 000 grand? Betcha he didn't tell too many people about the money...

 

[Amen!]

Actually I think it is worth mentioning how fraudulent The Da Vinci Code is over and over again. Although it is listed as a work of fiction, people are ingesting it as though it were the breath of life. I know because I have experienced "discussions" where the other party spewed this garbage verbatim, as if it were scientifically, indisputably evidenced. Christianity exposed! :angry: He literally thought he was going to drop my jaw with the "truth" of Christianity.

At the time, I didn't have a clue about the truth or origins of his references to Mary Magdelene being Jesus' wife or the timeframes of Christian doctrine versus paganism or the alleged persecution of women by the Catholic Church, etc. I knew only JUST enough to recognize 'something was amiss'. Only now, reading ragingregi's thread, do I remember and recognize this past argument as a word-for-word recitation of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code".

There are people out there who need us to expose these lies for what they are. There are too many instances of Christians who are already armed with the truth waving off what is, to them, obvious works of the Deceiver and forgetting that they have a responsibility to those who aren't as discerning as themselves.

Thank you, ragingregi for fighting back.

GBU all!

Amen!

 

[ragingregi]

Thanks Amen.

When Dan Brown's fiction novel started to gain popularity back in 2003 I didn't buy myself a copy for I heard stories about it being a blasphemy against Christianity. I know for some reason this is another big sums of money making scheme. And now, for sure Dan Brown is laughing endlessly to the bank because his book is controversial enough to get people's attention.

By the way guys, on a side note, is it wrong if I read the book? I know this is nothing to believe in, because the so-called facts claimed by the author aren't true, but will it be wise for a Christian like me to familiarize myself with the book since there are alot of talks about it and so I as a Christian can leave an opinion about it when asked by non-Christians and not become ignorant? A relative of mine, who's a hardcore Buddhist, lent it to me with sarcasm. I read it to equip myself with knowledge and for future purposes. But mind you I will never shell out my own money for these stuff. Only when people I know have it then I'll take the opportunity to serve the Lord by borrowing it and familiarizing myself with them. Also, will it be wrong if I watch the Da Vinci Code movie in 2006? Again I'm not gonna spend my own money, I'll just see if anyone I know has it in pirated dvds then...

 

[wizeone]

The Bible is true, its the word of God. The da vinci code is ridiculous. Not worth mention. God bless.

actually I think its quite a good work of fiction personally. But the operative word there is fiction. It is easily verifiable that it isnt true

 

[wizeone]

Thanks Amen.

When Dan Brown's fiction novel started to gain popularity back in 2003 I didn't buy myself a copy for I heard stories about it being a blasphemy against Christianity. I know for some reason this is another big sums of money making scheme. And now, for sure Dan Brown is laughing endlessly to the bank because his book is controversial enough to get people's attention.

By the way guys, on a side note, is it wrong if I read the book? I know this is nothing to believe in, because the so-called facts claimed by the author aren't true, but will it be wise for a Christian like me to familiarize myself with the book since there are alot of talks about it and so I as a Christian can leave an opinion about it when asked by non-Christians and not become ignorant? A relative of mine, who's a hardcore Buddhist, lent it to me with sarcasm. I read it to equip myself with knowledge and for future purposes. But mind you I will never shell out my own money for these stuff. Only when people I know have it then I'll take the opportunity to serve the Lord by borrowing it and familiarizing myself with them. Also, will it be wrong if I watch the Da Vinci Code movie in 2006? Again I'm not gonna spend my own money, I'll just see if anyone I know has it in pirated dvds then...

Ragingregi. Its a good work of fiction, but so long as if you read it you keep that in mind, you'll be fine. Personally I think its an awesome starting point for talking about christ, because if someone asks you about it, you can tell them why its not true

 

[scrappy]

the thing that upsets me the most about this work of utter trash is not the book but the film, for this will reach to more and more people

not only that but the way that some churches have decided to take the money offered to allow the filming to happen in their own buildings.

sorry if i am confused here, but would you allow someone to make a film about satan in your front room?

i know i would not

so why are these churches allowing their buildings to be used to make this film, when all it will do is spread deception and lies. and what have they got to show for it but money!

surely our Lord and His wisdom and works, His love and life is worth more than a few pounds!!

Matthew 22:21
then He said to them, "give to caesar what is caesar's, and to God what is God's."

surely these places of worship, surely the people, the churches that praise within them are worth more than the sale of the rights agreed by the councils that run them.

i do aplaud westminster abbey for its refusal to be a part of this disgrace

i wish that the following would re think their stance and refuse to allow this to happen

lincoln cathedral
rosslyn chapel, midlothian, scotland
the temple church, holburn, london
winchester cathedral

i for one have had no desire to read this muck and i will not, nor any of my family be lining the pockets of the film companies in watching it either

God bless

scrappy