The Revd Carter was recently the guest on a sky television programme where he commented on the Dan Brown thriller The Da Vinci Code. The following is the text version of a talk the Revd Carter gave earlier in the year on this same subject and has been updated to take into account that the film has now been seen on cinema and is also available on DVD format in shops.

‘Teabing paused. ‘What happens to those people, Robert, if persuasive scientific evidence comes out that the Church’s version of the Christ story is inaccurate, and that the greatest story ever told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold?’ Langdon did not respond. ‘I’ll tell you what happens if the documents get out.’ Teabing said. ‘The Vatican faces a crisis of faith unprecedented in its two-millennium history.’ End Quote.

Since its release in April 2003, The Da Vinci Code, written by Dan Brown, has become one of the most widely read fictional books of our time. Its publisher called it “the all time best selling adult novel. According to the Daily Telegraph it became the biggest selling adult hardback fiction of all time. It has sold millions of copies and been translated into many languages. It was on the best seller list in some countries for many months. The Hollywood film version of The Da Vinci Code starring Tom Hanks also became enormously popular and watched by many people either at the cinema or on DVD.

Firstly, a word to fellow Christians, 'don't be too uptight about the film.' If you understand even basic Church history you will have enough information to show that the theory of Christ presented in the Da Vinci Code is purely literary fiction and cannot be presented as historical fact. So, use the Da Vinci Code to address questions people may have about the subject matter. The story in The Da Vinci Code can be a great discussion topic with non-Christian friends. But, we must know what we are talking about. That is the reason for this talk, to provide you with the information to be able to answer any questions in an informed and intelligent manner, as well as presenting you with a resource you can actually give to friends who are asking questions about The Da Vinci Code and its claims.

The basic premise of The Da Vinci Code is similar to that of a book called the Gnostic Gospels, about the Gnostic Gospels written by Elaine Pagels. Both books argue that there is an alternate history of Christianity, and of Jesus himself, which the Christian Church has skilfully suppressed, hidden and sought to destroy for nearly 2,000 years. The subject of book and film has sparked controversy. There is one area the story should cause some concern, and that is because it is an unrelenting attack on the Catholic Church in specific, and Christianity in general. It is a story that seeks to undermines the essential elements of Christianity, namely the biblical canon, the list of books accepted by the church for centuries as inspired by God, and challenges the authenticity of what they teach about Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

So, why the concern about The Da Vinci Code? Let me sum it up for you. The literary genre of The Da Vinci Code is supposedly Historical fiction. Historical fiction is when the characters and the story are totally or partially fictional, but they are set in an historical background that is well researched and therefore accurate and authentic. That is a genuine Historical novel. In The Da Vinci Code the characters and story are fictional, but so is the Historical background. Therefore its genre could be more accurately described as fantasy.

The Da Vinci Code tries to smuggle its view of Jesus and the Church by pretending it is based on researched scholarship and historical evidence. The main character of the book is Robert Langdon, an historian who consistently spouts conjecture, theory and gross historical inaccuracies, as though they were wellknown and wellaccepted historical facts. The effect of this literary device is to give an air of historical credibility to a piece of writing that would otherwise show itself to be mere fictional invention. If The Da Vinci Code was submitted as an academic work on history rather than a story of fiction, it would fail outright for its numerous fallacies and obvious historical errors.

There is little doubt that The Da Vinci Code has hit a cultural nerve, but the lack of historical authenticity would be laughable if it were not for the fact some people may and do believe that what the book states about Jesus and Church history is historically true. This is the most misleading aspects of this story, clothing itself in the mantle of an historical work.

There is some debate about the literary merits of The Da Vinci Code, but what is not debatable is the books impact, and also that of the film. Many people are fascinated by the possibility of a conspiracy. From a literary perspective, The Da Vinci Code is a fastpaced, page turner that tantalizes the reader with the possibility of the greatest conspiracy ever, built around a deceptive church and various secret societies seeking to either defend or expose the real truth about Jesus. The story unfolds as a mystery that spans some 2,000 years. It has fascinating digressions into the history of art, explanations of pagan cultic practices, insights into secret societies all set in a romantic setting with some interesting characters.

After reading the book one person who is not a Christian said to me that ‘Christianity is based on a flawed book as the Bible gives an inaccurate account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.’ This is the effect of the story, it is causing the suspicion that the Bible, the New Testament Gospels in particular, are not reliable historical books. More disturbingly Christians have even been led to doubt the reliability of the New Testament, and in turn, their faith which is based upon it. One Christian confessed to me, ‘my faith has really been shaken by reading the book, is it true what Dan Brown writes?’ From a pastoral point of view this is my greatest concern. It is for this reason I have extensively researched this subject and felt it was right to produce this talk.

So, is it true what Dan Brown writes? The answer is no. The book and the film is a work of pure fiction even though it tries to convince the reader and viewer that what they are reading or watching is well researched historical fact. I need not tell the story of The Da Vinci Code here, because I assume if you are listening to this talk it is because you have either read the book or watched the film and now want some accurate facts to be able to understand or expose the misrepresentation of the Christian Gospel.

Dan brown describes himself as a Christian but removes himself from those who accept the Bible as historical fact. He says on his website, I quote. ‘we’re each following our own path of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions... End Quote. He also states that, ‘it is my belief that the theories discussed by these characters may have merit.’ He is certainly trying to impress the reader and now the viewer that the evidence produced is factual. The book starts with a ‘fact page’ which claims ‘All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.’

Claim 5. It claims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they had a daughter called Sarah and that the French Merovingian Kings descended from this line and Christ’s descendants are still alive today. It describes the Holy Grail as being not, as commonly believed, the cup Jesus drank from at the last supper, but this genealogical line that he fathered.

Basically, The Da Vinci Code suggests that the Church has been hiding these several truths for 2,000 years and that this is the greatest conspiracy ever duping millions of people into an errant and false Christian faith. The story claims that people have tried to secretly expose this conspiracy through the media of art, music and literature. Brown uses the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci to suggest that he was trying to get this message across that Christianity was a lie.

Now I am going to examine seven major claims of the story, and contrast them with historically accurate facts. You can go to the history books for yourself and you will find that what I am saying is accurate. I will show that The Da Vinci Code may be interesting and enjoyable as a work of fiction and a story, but its claims about Jesus and the Church should not be taken seriously as these claims are historically very errant and clearly false. (Pause)

The Church was teaching that Jesus was God who became flesh, and that He had always been divine being of the same substance (The Greek word is homousios) as the Father and was Co-eternal with Him. A man called Arius was teaching that Jesus was divine, but had been only appointed so by God during his lifetime and was therefore lesser than God, not of the same substance (homousios) as God nor was he nor Co-eternal with Him.

The issue at the Council of Nicea was not as Dan Brown states to deify Jesus, it was to confirm once and for all the exact nature of Jesus’ divinity. The question debated, decided and declared at Nicea was this: was Jesus Co-eternal with God the Father or was He only appointed as Divine by the Father during His earthly lifetime. The claim Brown makes that the subject discussed, decided and declared at Nicea was to bestow divinity upon Christ whom the Church had believed until then was only a man, is entirely false from a historical point of view.

In the novel Brown states that the issue in the meeting to deify Christ was decided by a close vote. Again, this is historically false. A statement of faith was drawn up at Nicea now know as the Nicene Creed. Only 17 of the 200 Bishops initially refused to sign. Constantine threatened them with exile, so 15 signed it and only two still refused. The final vote to adopt the creed was about 198 for, 2 against, hardly a close vote when 99% of those were in favour of the Orthodox creed stated at Nicea. Check the history books if you do not want to take my word for it, but certainly don’t take Dan Browns word for it.

So, Brown is wrong in his history about Nicea in suggesting that it bestowed divinty upon Jesus. But what else does he use to suggest Jesus was only considered a man by the Church before Nicea. Well, he uses a set of documents discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt , in 1945, often referred to as the Gnostic gospels, which paint Jesus as just a good teacher and Sage rather than the divine suffering Messiah. This brings us to claim number 2. (Pause)

If the consequences and impact of The da Vinci Code were not so significant, from an historical point of view this claim could be as laughable as it is ridiculous. One can look at the New Testament Gospels themselves as well as to the writings of Paul, the unknown author of the epistles to the Hebrews and the letters of the Apostle John and his revelation to realise that the belief that Jesus was divine was considered a fact by the early Church, the first followers of Jesus.

The fact is Constantine did commission 50 copies of the Bible around 325 AD. Due to the exorbitant cost of hand copying such a large document on parchment, only an emperor could afford to do this. But, Constantine ’s Bible is a reflection, not of his ideology or theology, but of the existing view of the Church at that time. Many churches still possessed originals or copies of the apostles’ writings. Many of the sectarian, heretical writings that Brown alludes to as being rejected by Constantine had been widely rejected by the churches prior to Constantine ’s rule as well as some during it.

On (p. 231) Brown writes, I quote “More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion…The Bible as we know it today was collated by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine the Great.” End Quote. The historical facts are that there are not some 80 gospels in existence. Only half that many are known to have existed and most of these were called Gnostic gospels. The Gnostic gospels are not historical stories about the life of Jesus, but rather explanations of the Gnostic worldview. I will be dealing with this more in depth shortly.

Historically it is not true that the New Testament was “chosen” or selected by an individual or group. This premise in the story is historically false. Both the Eastern and Western church had reached a gradual agreement over which books should be considered sacred and included in the Canon. The criteria was apostolicity. If a book could not be proved to have come from the pen of an apostle, ‘One who had seen Christ,’ it was rejected.’

Constantine had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with deciding the Canon of Scripture nor did he form any group or committee to do so. The biblical canon was an issue already decided at least 100 years before Constantine was even born. The main parts of the New Testament, the four Gospels and the letters of Paul had been accepted since around AD130 and were given equality with the Old Testament somewhere between AD170-200. The Muratorian fragment of (AD170) shows that sixty one out of the sixty six books of the Bible were considered sacred 100 years before Constantine was even born. The date of Constantine’s birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as late as 288, but the issue of the biblical Canon was not an issue being discussed or decided during his lifetime as The Da Vinci Code states.

The idea that Constantine rewrote the gospels or chose some that represented his re-branded view of Jesus is simply very bad history and academically ridiculous. Yet Brown writes on (p. 234), I quote ‘ “Fortunately for historians…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” End quote. Even his dates are wrong as the facts are that the first cache of the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 with more caves discovered in the following decade. None of these caves held any “gospels” or any other kind of Christian manuscripts. We will return to this subject of the Dead Sea Scrolls shortly when I talk about the sources Dan Brown uses to back up his story.

Whilst on this subject, the book also makes a false claim about the Christian Sabbath. On (p. 232233) Brown writes, I quote “Christianity honoured the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan’s veneration day of the sun.” End Quote. Not true. The earliest Christians were Jewish and did celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday, but “the Lord’s day” has always been Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Christ. Consider the words of Justin Martyr, fully 200 years prior to Constantine, “On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” The lessons we are hopefully learning by now is that The Da Vinic Code is a work of pure fiction, its history is not accurate. We may enjoy it as a good and interesting story, but it is not a book of historical facts about Jesus or the Christian Church. (Pause)

On p 237 of the novel brown writes, I Quote, Sophie made her way closer to the painting, scanning the thirteen figures - Jesus Christ in the middle, six disciples on His left, and six on His right. ‘They’re all men,’ she confirmed. ‘Oh?’ Teabing said. ‘How about the one seated in the place of honour, at the right hand of the Lord? Sophie examined the figure to jesus immediate right, focussing in. As she studied the person’s face and body, a wave of astonishment rose within her. The individual had flowing red hair, delicate folded hands, and the hint of a bosom. It was, without a doubt...female. ‘That’s a woman!’ Sophie exclaimed. Teabing was laughing. ‘Surprise, surprise. Believe me, it’s no mistake. Leonardo was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.’ End Quote

Also, listen to another quote that exposes the craftiness of the novel in trying to convince the reader that what they are reading is historical fact. On p239 of the Novel Brown writes, I quote ‘It’s a matter of historical record,’ Teabing said, ‘and Da Vinci was certainly aware of that fact. The Last Supper practically shouts at the viewer that Jesus and Magdalene were a pair.’ end Quote.

Now when it comes to theology, psychology and Church history or other subjects I could mention I do know what I am talking about. But when it comes to Art, even Christian Art, it is simply not my field of expertise. So I will merely repeat what experts in this field have said about Brown’s claims about the painting. In a lecture given by three art historians at the Georgia Museum of art, University of Georgia in January 2004, the experts of the period stated that Dan Browns claims that Leonardo Da Vinci painted a woman as one of the apostles is simply wrong, and so is the claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. .

There it is, its not just the Church refuting Dan Brown, respected and qualified art historians for that period of Christian art state his theory about Da Vinci depicting Mary as an apostle is simply wrong. This in itself undoes the theory that Leonardo Da Vinci was trying to secretly uncover the historical plot of the Christian Church to both cover up the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene, and that she and not Peter was the one Christ appointed to be head of the Christian Church. Brown’s case for this rests on Da Vinci’s painting of the last supper. Art historians say he is wrong. (Pause)

Claim 5. The Da Vinci Code claims that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they had a daughter called Sarah and that the French Merovingian Kings descended from this line and Christ’s descendants are still alive today . It describes the Holy Grail as being not, as commonly believed, the cup Jesus drank from at the last supper, but this genealogical line that he fathered

The claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is a major claim in The Da Vinci Code. Running alongside this claim is the theory that many in the early and later Church knew that Jesus was married but tried to cover it up and did so by falsely labelling Mary as a prostitute when she was no such thing . This is a major assumptions in the storyline. In addition to wrongly using Da Vinci’s art to support this claim, other evidence Brown produces come from two extra-biblical gospels. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and The Gospel of Philip, both are Gnostic gospels that the Church has believed to be heretical and we will see why when we look at the sources Brown uses shortly.

Let us first examine the text used in The Gospel of Philip. This is one of the Nag Hammadi documents found by two farmers in upper Egypt in 1945. They were digging when they found a jar. They smashed it hoping to find treasure inside. Instead they found Papyrus Codices. One of these men, called Muhammed Ali, wrapped them in his tunic and took them home. It was some time before these documents came to light. This gospel teaches that ‘gnosis’ (the secret knowledge of the true God) was the only way to salvation, and that Jesus was the secret emissary of God. The Da Vinci Code relies on a passage from this gospel to try to prove that Jesus was married to Mary. The text used is this: Where there is a word or words missing from the texts I will say the word blank.

The facts are that virtually all historical scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, think that these extra-biblical Gnostic Gospels contain nothing of value about the historical Jesus. The text does not state that Jesus was married. The original manuscript has a blank at the point where it states Mary was actually kissed by Jesus. Culturally a kiss on the lips was reserved for husbands and wives. A Kiss on the cheek was a cultural greeting. The text does not state what sort of kiss it was. A kiss on the cheek would have been Jesus merely greeting Mary as the context of the text suggests. There are literally volumes and volumes of early writings about Jesus, and not one states that Jesus was married. Historically the celibacy of Jesus was the basis for arguing that priests should be single. Had Jesus been married and the early Church knew of this as Brown claims, the Apostle Paul would have made mention of this in his letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul argues that spouses of Christian Ministers should be properly supported by the Church because the Apostles themselves had wives. Paul does not mention that Jesus was married, if this had have been the case, he would have mentioned this and not just referred to the Apostles wives as this fact would have clinched his argument for him.

However, if Jesus had have been married theologians generally agree that there would not actually be a theological problem with this. It would not undermine or negate the Churches teaching about Jesus in any regard. The Church teaches that Jesus is both divine and human at the same time. A marriage would fit in nicely with his full humanity and would not make him appear more human not less divine.

Yet The Da Vinci Code states that the Holy Grail which is traditionally thought to be the cup Christ drank from at the last supper, is not that but is the Royal Blood line of Jesus, that Jesus and Mary had a daughter called Sarah from whom the French Merovingian Kings descended from. The legend of the Holy Grail is itself a fascinating one and too lengthy to go into here, but, you must realise that this idea of the Grail being the Royal blood line and Mary and Jesus having a daughter together is just pure fiction invented for the sake of the story. It is not history so don’t believe or think for one moment it is. (Pause)

Now, there is a bit of truth to this, but the phrase radical feminist is going too far. In a culture that treated women abysmally, in that they were to be ignored, used and abused sexually and forbidden education, Jesus did stand up to this and spoke up for women and treated them equally. For that, among other things, he should be admired. We will re-visit this subject in a short while.

On (p. 248) Brown states, I quote “Jesus was the original feminist”. End Quote. Indeed, Jesus is very supportive of women, as he makes clear in his discussion with Mary and Martha about where a woman belongs, that her place isn’t only in the kitchen but with the men learning at the feet of Jesus.(Luke 10:40ff), Paul echoes Jesus’ position on women when he wrote to the church at Galatia and says that “there is neither male nor female but all are one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28 ). Paul’s other statements to the Colossians that a wife must submit to her husband is not undergirding male dominance in a relationship, it is a statement that has to be understood in context. The Greek verb submit is ‘hypotasso,’ this means to co-operate and respect the position of another. In the culture of the day the husband was the legal head of the household with supreme authority over all people and possessions in the family. Christians were being wrongly accused of disturbing the Social stability of the day. Paul advises Christian women that it is wise for them to co-operate with their husbands and respect their legal authority as this is fitting in the Lord. He then instructs husbands to love their wives and not to be harsh with them. This was radical in its day. Marriage in the ancient world and in fact up until the 20th century was rarely based on love. It was a social contract with political and social implications. If the couple grew to love each other that was considered fortunate, but it was not the basis of marriage in the ancient world. Paul’s statement for a husband to love his wife and not be harsh with her due to his legal right to be so, was a social step forward. Then a wife could co-operate and respect her husband due to his love for her rather than his legal status over her.

I mention this in brief because much of what Brown reacts to in his novel is an overly authoritarian masculine Church. He is right that the Church has often misrepresented Jesus in this area. The history of the Church has often been discriminatory toward women. Brown highlights this and we would not disagree. But much more is now understood about the ancient world and many modern theologians are now able to understand New Testament statements in their historical context. The New Testament itself gives women a dignity and respect that was as revolutionary as it was radical in its day. The New Testament teaches that both men and women are of equal worth and value to God

The trouble is with The Da Vinci Code is that whilst on one hand it paints the Church as the great oppressor of women, on the other hand it contrasts this with the Pagan Concept of the Sacred Feminine, stating that this concept actually elevated women within pagan cultures giving them the respect and value they deserved. He goes so far as to infer that the deplorable pagan practice of temple prostitution, was a way of actually honouring femininity and women in pagan culture. What he does not mention was that often these prostitutes were vulnerable young girls who had just reached puberty, had been sold into slavery or were prisoners of war, and faced a life of brutal rape and sexual degradation at the hands of any man who paid money and they had absolutely no choice about it. The claim that the Sacred Feminie in Pagan rituals elevated women in practice, should not be taken seriously. (Pause)

The Church does not pretend or claim to be perfect. Although overwhelmingly a force for good in history, there have been some dark episodes that many contemporary Christians regret we have to explain and would not try to excuse. Yet, one thing the Church cannot be accurately accused of is knowing historical truth’s about Jesus it kept hidden. The Christian Church throughout its history has genuinely believed Christ was and is Divine. Even those who take a less Orthodox and more liberal view, do so through genuine scholarship because they have reached those convictions.

The idea of The Da Vinci Code is that the church has been hiding the real truth about Jesus, though the secret of who He really was had been kept throughout the centuries by a clandestine brotherhood of which Leonardo Da Vinci was a member. The book suggests that Christianity is the biggest fraud in history. The Church and its message is not a fraud. That which has been taught about Jesus historically has always been what the Church has believed about Him. People may not accept the Church’s testimony about Christ as is their right, but to accuse the Church of fraud in its beliefs is simply wrong. The Da Vinci Code stating the church has purposefully misrepresented Christ and made up a story it has tried to sell to the public whilst hiding the real truth, again is just pure fiction that makes a good gritty story for some people but lacks the reality of being factual. Don’t believe it. The Church has authentically represented who Christ is throughout 2,000 years of history. (Pause)

The Q document does exist. The Vatican admits this. The Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, mark and Luke. Q is the hypothetical source of passages in the synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke, not Mark, where sayings of Jesus are similar to each other. The new suggestion in The Da Vinci Code is that Q was actually written by Jesus himself. There is no evidence to suggest this. Again, a fictional invention

Brown put much emphasis on the Gnostic documents, as though they were a credible witness to the events of Jesus’ life. He claims that the Gnostic voice was squelched by the leaders of the early church, and that the real historical Jesus is someone very different from the picture given to us by the New Testament. There is nothing wrong reading some of the Gnostic writings on Jesus. But the reader must know what they are reading. The Jesus in these writings is nothing more than a mouthpiece used to promote a peculiar vision of the world. They are not historically reliable documents. Gnosticism is considered by the vast majority of scholars to be something foreign to the time of Jesus and Christian Gnosticism is probably a secondcentury invention. Unlike the New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels are not reliable historical documents witnessing to the events that transpired in Israel early in the first century.

It is clearly naive of Brown to contend in his novel that these documents are a reliable witness to the events of the life of Jesus. What Brown does is to re-create history using unreliable sources to back up the ideology in the story. In fact this was exactly the problem we see with early Gnosticism itself. Gnostics unashamedly hijacked historical figures of an earlier period and reinvented them in service to their peculiar philosophy. Brown has done this in The Da Vinci Code.

The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of thirteen ancient codices that contain over fifty texts. It was discovered in Upper Egypt in 1945. This discovery included a large number of Gnostic scriptures. It includes such scriptures as the “Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, and the Gospel of Truth”. The discovery and translation of these texts was completed in the 1970’s and led to a major reevaluation of the nature of Gnosticism. When broken down according to subject matter the texts have six major categories.

The Da Vinci Code mostly uses three of the Gnostic gospels, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip and The Gospel of Mary with just hints from others. The Gnostic Gospels are ones that do not try to show Jesus as more human and less divine, in fact they were written for the opposite effect. They were written to show Jesus as less human and more divine. That The Da Vinci Code maintains that they show a more human Jesus, is as much a distortion of these texts as New Testament documents themselves are distorted. It is hard to define Gnosticism as there are endless varieties, but suffice to say it was the greatest challenge to the early Church in that there was a radical dualism between the spiritual and material, similar teachings of which are around today in many contemporary churches.

This document is a fraud as it claims to be written by the Apostle Thomas although he had been dead a long time before this was even written. Although historical in form, it consists of a series of pithy sayings and parabolic discourses of Jesus and parts of the sermon on the Mount. The Da Vinci Code claims that evidence from the Gnostic Gospels show Jesus as more sympathetic to women than the New Testament Gospels suggest. In fact, again the opposite is true. The gospel of Thomas teaches that the only way for a woman to be saved is to become a man. I quote, Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’ End Quote. This is one of the reasons, in addition to the false claim to be written by Thomas, as to why the early Church called this gospel heretical. We have already seen that Jesus respected the dignity and equality of women and the writings of Paul were a huge social leap forward. Brown alludes that gospels such as this were destroyed so that the Church could progress with its anti-feminine agenda and suppress the role of Mary Magdalene as head of the Church assigned to her by Christ, yet this gospel is extremely anti-feminine in itself. It is wrong to suggest that the Gnostic Gospels were pro-feminine, as we have heard through that quote they were not.

As I said earlier this is one of the Nag Hammadi documents found by two farmers in upper Egypt in 1945. This gospel teaches that ‘gnosis’ (the secret knowledge of the true God) was the only way to salvation, and that Jesus was the secret emissary of God. The Da Vinci Code relies on a passage from this gospel to show Jesus was married to Mary, a claim I have already disproved and discussed earlier.

It is the sole passage in this gospel that The Da Vinci Code uses to make the claim of Christ’s marriage to Mary Magdalene. Yet, Brown also surprisingly states in the novel that the Gospel of Thomas was written before the New Testament. This in itself is a school boys error. He is obviously is unaware that it actually quotes the New Testament ending that speculation there and then. This shows how little authentic historical facts there are behind the novel.

And Peter said, “Did the Saviour really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?” And Levi answered, “Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the Saviour made her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Saviour knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.” End quote.

The Da Vinci Code draws the conclusion from here that it was Mary, not Peter, who was the original leader Jesus wanted for the Church but she fell prey to a male plot led by Peter to take this authority away from her. Again, very paltry textual evidence for this theory. The Da Vinci Code suggests Mary was an apostle to the apostles until Peter plots against her. Here Brown misrepresents Hippolytus, a church father of the alter second century, by applying the term ‘apostle to the apostles’ to him.. When Hippolytus referred to Mary as an Apostle it was in the context to refer to all the women who had seen the resurrected Christ. It was a generic term describing these women, not a title or an office given to them or to Mary and he does not use the phrase ‘apostle to the apostles’. The exact phrase ‘apostle to the apostles’ is not actually used until the ninth century. Once again, an example of distorted history in The Da Vinci Code.

The facts are that contrary to the distinguished claims in The Da Vinci Code that these Gnostic Gospels disprove and challenge the real history about Jesus, virtually all historical scholars think these extra-biblical Gnostic Gospels contain nothing of value about the historical Jesus at all. They are pure myth, and Browns use of them is a distortion of these gospels themselves.

Earlier, I quoted (p. 234) of Browns novel. I Quote again. “Fortunately for historians…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” End Quote. The first cache of the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 with more caves discovered in the following decade. None of these caves held any “gospels” or any other kind of Christian manuscripts at all so again it is pure fiction and fantasy for Brown to claim they did.

Due to the time it took to piece together, translate and publish these documents many theories were intensified and suggested including the ones that the Scrolls contained information damaging to and even undermining the teaching of the Church about the historical Jesus. It is no longer possible to suggest this for the factual reasons I have stated. The Scrolls have all been pieced together, translated and are available in most good bookshops. I have a copy in my personal library and have read them with great interest. They contain no mention of John the Baptist, Jesus, or the Apostle Paul. They have interesting cultural information about the time of the New Testament and a lot of references to the Old Testament, but they are not Christian documents at all. The Da Vinci Code wrongly includes the Dead Sea Scrolls as early Christian documents that undermine the teaching of the Church and were therefore hidden and destroyed by the Church. This is simply not true. Go and buy or borrow a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls for yourself and this out. None of the scrolls found in the caves held any “gospels” or any other kind of Christian manuscripts at all. It is pure fiction and fantasy for Brown to claim they did, it is not historical fact. (Pause)

The Church has been built upon the teachings of the Apostles as contained in the New Testament. Therefore we need to ask the question, can the Bible, the New Testament part, be trusted? Have the Bible texts been corrupted? How do we know Jesus of Nazareth really existed? These are valid questions. The answer can be found through a process called textual criticism.

The evidence of the reliability of the New Testament as an historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian Church when compared to other historical documents us unapproachable. If we contrast the New Testament with the Gnostic gospels which The Da Vinci Code relies on, we see that the New Testament is a reliable historical document, whereas the manuscript evidence for the gnostic gospels is poor. No serious historian would rate the gnostics gospels as being more reliable that the New Testament.

The fact that people may now ask questions about Jesus and other Christian matters to which they formerly gave less thought is a good thing. But, we must remind them that The Da Vinci Code is just a work of fiction not an accurate portrayal of history. As Christians we need to be informed about our history and our faith which is why part of Christian Discipleship is to be a student of the Scriptures as well as Church history.

The New Testament teaches us that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, the Christ, God incarnate, who suffered and died to redeem humanity, and who rose again. He is the one that all people are invited to put their faith in and the one to whom they can surrender their lives and walk with in faith and trust. I recommend that Jesus to you. He is one whose presence I have and do experience as a daily reality, He is one whom I know and seek to follow. You can know Him too and have the Christian experience that so many millions of people throughout history and today testify too, that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead and is engaged in a very real living relationship with all of those who call on His name and put their faith and trust in Him.

If you are a Christian I hope this talk has informed and instructed you in your faith. If you are not a Christian I would like to encourage you that the historical and contemporary Churches teaching about our Lord Jesus Christ is reliable and true. I hope you will seriously look into the Greatest story that has ever been told, the historical story of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the Revd Sean Michael Carter the Minister of Walmer Baptist Church. We have other audio CD products available.Our contact details are on this audio CD. If you would like information on these do contact us at Walmer Baptist Church, Dover Road Walmer.

Work	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Time Span Since First Written	Number of Copies
Herodutus	488482 BC	AD 900	1,300 years	8
Thucydides	460400 BC	AD 900	1,300 years	8
Tacitus	AD 100	AD 1100	1,000 years	20
Caesar's Galic wars	5850 BC	AD 900	950 years	9
Livy's Roman History	59 BC AD 17	AD 900	900 years	20

Work	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Time Span Since First Written	Number of Copies
The New Testament	AD40100	AD 130 Fragments AD 350 Full Manuscripts	300 years	5,000 + Greek 10,000 Latin 9,300 Others Total 24,300