Dealing with Da Vinci—the lure of ‘other’ gospels. –Pastor Bob Leroe, Cliftondale Congregational Church, Saugus, Massachusetts Scripture reading—Psalm 119:89-96
Dan Brown’s provocative book, The Da Vinci Code, has topped the best-seller list for over half a year and has inspired TV documentaries; the movie will be out in 2005, directed by Ron Howard. In the guise of a thriller, Brown has raised serious questions about the legitimacy of Christianity. This work of fiction paints a revisionist view of Jesus, a modern spin claiming that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, but instead married Mary Magdalene; they had several children, and moved to France. In the novel, the “Holy Grail” turns out to be, not the chalice used at the Last Supper, but the bloodline, the children born of the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The heroes of the book go in search for Mary’s tomb, which promises to reveal hidden secrets that will shake the Christian world. It all sounds preposterous, even blasphemous, but many people are buying it as fact. Brown offers an alternative, speculative view of history that lacks historical evidence.
Dr. Karen King, professor of Church History at Harvard, authored a book, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala. In it she disputes any theory of a married Jesus as myth and legend completely devoid of any historical basis. King also disputes Brown’s claim of accuracy for the supposed “facts” within his fiction. Unfortunately, King’s scholarly book isn’t a bestseller, while Dan Brown’s book is causing many people to wonder if the truth about Jesus has been suppressed. Brown bases his conspiracy theory on the “Gnostic Gospels” discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. They are a collection of unconventional writings about Christ.
It should come as no surprise that the writers the Holy Spirit used to produce the NT weren’t the only ones writing about Jesus. We know that Paul wrote letters that weren’t included. Not everything “made the cut”. As evangelical Christians, we believe that God superintended the process by which godly church leaders determined what to include in the canon, i.e. the list of writings that were declared the inspired word of God. Some writings were turned down because they contained false teachings, or were late (post-1st Century works) or because the authorship was questionable.
Although the non-canonical Gnostic writings were rejected, there was no secret conspiracy afoot to suppress them. They were simply never considered Scripture. The Gnostic writers claim their writings reveal secret knowledge, but many of them simply quote and reinterpret existing Bible passages. A common Gnostic theme is that all knowledge worth knowing comes from looking within one’s own self to discover the divine…all of which sounds suspiciously like the message of the Eastern Hindu and Buddhist religions. The Gnostic gospels present a Jesus far different than the One found in the New Testament; he is an enlightened Revealer, an “Illuminator,” but not a crucified Redeemer.
Armchair theologians have pondered what would happen if some ancient writings surfaced that contradicted the Christian message, what that might do to faith. Well, ancient writings have been found, but they do not make the Scriptures false. They provide a useful standard of comparison with the Biblical writings. The truth of the Bible contradicts the error of all other writings. Go to any bookstore and you’ll find plenty of books that reject God’s written revelation. In my study I have books about the Bible, and while they’re very useful, the Bible alone is God’s word. It is appalling that some scholars are treating these writings as accurate historical documents. They are lumping all ancient religious manuscripts together, denying that there is a definitive written word from God.
How did the “Gnostic Gospels,” which the Da Vinci Code relies on, come about? Gnosticism was a philosophical system Christians and some Jews adapted from Greek influences. Gnosticism was a complicated worldview that stated, among other things, that the flesh was evil. Some Gnostics taught that, because the flesh was evil everyone should be ascetic and celibate; others claimed that the flesh was an illusion and it didn’t matter what we did with our bodies. Because of their view of the body, the Gnostics denied that Jesus came in the flesh, and they in turn rejected His virgin birth and bodily resurrection. They claimed that Jesus only appeared to be a man. They copied some of His sayings, and added ones of their own. They borrowed from a mix of religious ideas and traditions. The most well-known example is the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in the 1890’s. Rather than a narrative, it contains a collection of detached, haphazard sayings. According to tradition, Thomas became a missionary to India, which may connect the “Gospel” bearing his name to Eastern religions (no scholars believe the disciple Thomas is the author). Among snatches of material from reliable sources are inserted some rather enigmatic, mystical and cryptic statements.
Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown claims that the Gnostic writings prove Jesus was just a man; yet they in fact say that Jesus was more divine than human. As for Jesus’ connection to Mary Magdalene, the Gnostic Gospel of Philip describes her as a “companion” and “friend” of Jesus, which could be said of all His disciples. Brown reads too much into the word “companion”. He is guilty of wanting to revise and reinvent Jesus to accommodate his own wishful thinking. An article in US News and World Report quotes a reader of The Da Vinci Code admitting: “I knew that many of the things in Brown’s book weren’t true, but I just wanted them to be.”
Absent from Thomas and other similar writings is the reason Jesus came--to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin. Because the Gnostic writers denied the humanity and sacrifice of Jesus, they devised alternative accounts. They also rejected the Old Testament. Their view was that ‘secret knowledge’ was the key to salvation. Yet the Good News is no secret! It is for all people. The NT writers and the early Christian church rejected Gnosticism, and it deservedly died out.
The Gnostic writings are 2nd & 3rd Century at the earliest, whereas the NT writings were authored in the 1st Century by the Apostles and their close co-workers. The Gnostic gospels are at best secondary sources lacking the authority of Holy Scripture. Their authorship, late date, and content show that they are uninspired and unreliable. The Gnostic writers excluded themselves from the NT. The editor of Christian History magazine suggests a better title for the Gnostic Gospels is: “The Hidden Texts of Comparatively Late Fringe Groups”. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians expressly refutes Gnostic teachings as heresy: “Don’t let anyone lead you astray (take you captive) through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which comes from human reasoning rather than according to Christ” (2:8).
The early church fathers and canonical councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, had good reason to reject the Gnostic writings. We don’t have to worry that God may be looking down with regret that some books failed to get included in the Bible, or with concern over any books that shouldn’t have been added. We have a reliable Word that we can trust.
The agenda of scholars who claim these extra-biblical writings are valid is to cast doubt upon the entire Bible. By claiming that these writings are legitimate, though they contradict the NT, they are in effect suggesting that all Christian writings lack divine authority. They do not believe there is an authoritative account of Jesus (whom they reject as God-the-Son) and they admit harboring animosity towards the organized Church. Their efforts are causing anxiety among Christians and causing doubt to fester.
The early church overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus as their risen Savior and Lord. The deity of Christ is supported throughout the New Testament and is echoed by early creeds and councils. The Council of Nicea in 325 AD responded to the heretical claims of Arius, an Alexandrian pastor who was teaching that Jesus was not God-in-flesh. The Council reaffirmed the historic Christian view, but did not invent the doctrine of the divinity and eternality of Christ. Also it wasn’t what Dan Brown calls a “close vote”. Only 2 of 300 bishops chose not to sign the Nicene Creed.
Ultimately we have to return to and trust our authoritative historical documents--the writings of the New Testament. Though written by many, they provide a coherent, unified Message, without contradiction, upholding the Lordship of Jesus and His redemptive work.
The current controversy over the historicity of Jesus gives us opportunities to engage people in conversation about the message of the Bible. The “real” Jesus is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We need to point people to the authoritative sources. When the issue is raised we gain an opening to talk about the historical, Biblical Lord Jesus in a caring and constructive way.
Prayer: Sovereign Lord, equip us to clearly address false teachings when our faith comes under attack. Help us to respond with compassion; it’s easy to be argumentative, which is how the world handles conflict. Help us to speak the truth in love, even when we’re stirred up over the ways evil is being called good. Your power is in us, and Your word upholds us. Cause us to put on Your armor and fight the good fight of faith; in Your strong and mighty Name, Amen.
*Bulletin Insert>>
The Canon of Scripture—The Bible is a collection of sacred writings which were complied by councils of godly church leaders and scholars, who determined which books would be accepted and included in the Bible. They prayed for the leading of the Holy Spirit as they developed criteria, the standards for inclusion. The word “canon” means literally “rod” or “rule” and came to mean how we appraise writings.
These standards of canonicity were:
> Inspiration—did the content appear to be from God, or merely the words and opinions of people? Did they bear the mark of divine authority?
>Universality—did the writings reflect the unified views of the entire body of believers, or just the beliefs of a special interest group (like the Gnostic writings)?
>Apostolicity—were they written by a known prophet, disciple, apostle, or co-worker? Some writings falsely claimed to be by people from Bible times, like the Gospel of Thomas.
> Orthodoxy—are the doctrines/teachings/values in line with the rest of Scripture?
> Antiquity—the writings are from Bible times, not composed long after the times they are writing about.
