The Truth About the Da Vinci Code

Click here for a .pdf version of this document. Given the recent interest in the Da Vinci Code and similar works detailing a supposed conspiracy by the Roman Catholic Church to suppress certain accounts of Jesus’ life, I thought it might be helpful to set forth some relevant historical facts.

First, there was no central authority in the early church to suppress certain books and advance other books for reading and acceptance within the church. Rather, each bishop of each church oversaw the theology of that church. The truth or falsity of the written accounts was debated openly among the bishops and others. At no time during this process was there a central authority within the church that prescribed rules for all of the church. The first ecumenical council was not until 325 A.D.

Second, there is near unanimous consent in the early church, long before 325 A.D., over what historical accounts of Jesus’ life were accurate and accepted. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted early and widely. The so-called gnostic “gospels” were not. Even the gnostic Tatian, in the later half of the second century, included only the four gospels in his Diatessaron. The New Testament’s gospels survived because they had all the evidence of historical accuracy and were accepted widely, even by the gnostics. The so-called gnostic “gospels” did not survive because they lacked all of the evidence of historical accuracy, being written late in time by those who had no reason to know the true facts. Besides, they are very strange works, as anyone who has read them will attest.

Third, while some have attempted to state that the gnostic “gospels” were written around the same time as the New Testament gospels, such position has little support from historical documents. The first and foremost means of dating any book should be actual historical markers within the book and external historical markers in other writings. For instance, if the book describes an historical event, it should be dated after that event. Likewise, if another author cites the book, then the book must have been written before it was so cited. Further, if another author, with reason to know, gives us a date for the book’s writing, that evidence should not be lightly discarded. When there are no such internal or external markers, the dates assigned are largely conjecture.

Fourth, to the extent that Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci Code, seems to indicate that these gnostic gospels portray Christ as merely a man, Mr. Brown has confused gnostic teaching with Arian teaching. The gnostics taught that Jesus was divine and that He could not have been human. In contrast, Arius, who lived from 256-336 A.D., taught that Jesus was not divine. Arius gained a considerable following in his lifetime. It was this doctrine of Arianism that was addressed and rejected by the Nicene Council in 325 A.D, which Council was called by Constantine. While the gnostics produced several so-called “gospels,” the Arians produced no such gospel accounts.

The conclusion is this: the New Testament accounts we have today were written early (within the life-time of those who knew Jesus, those who walked with Jesus, listened to his words, and became his disciples). These accounts were accepted early and widely within the church. The accounts now being promoted (The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and others), were written later and were never mentioned by the early church or other early writings. They first appear on the scene in the middle of the second century, when they were carefully analyzed and soundly rejected by various bishops of various churches. One only needs to read them to understand why they were rejected. The bear no indicia of authenticity and what they state, frankly, is often strange (e.g., Mary Magdalene must become male to be saved, etc.).

Below is a chronology of the dates for the life of Christ and the early church through the second century, together with reasons for assigning such dates. Some may disagree with the dates. The biggest differences will be in the dates of the New Testament books, where some will say that the gospel accounts were not written until the second century. The evidence for such late dates is very weak, ignores the statements of the early church, and is based mostly on someone’s view of how theology developed (i.e., a book must be dated later because its theology is more complex). However, one has only to read Clement of Rome or Ignatius to understand that the early church had a very complex and developed theology. And to date the gospels into the second century runs into problems because early church writers, before then, quote passages from these gospel accounts.

The attached chronology does not include every book written and known today. Included are the more significant events and works dealing with the New Testament books as well as the more significant gnostic works that have gained new visibility with the Da Vinci Code and the recently released “Gospel of Judas.”

Finally, for those who somehow link Constantine to the books we presently accept, I note that Constantine does not appear on the scene until the early fourth century, long after the events cited below. The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., called by Constantine, did not address what books should be included in Scripture, although Constantine later ordered the works of Arius and the gnostics to be burned, a decree never carried out.

The chronolgy follows: