A Christian Response to The Da Vinci Code
Did Constantine replace the true Gospels?
The
Da Vinci Code claims that prior to Nicaea, there were thousands of Gospels
in circulation, most of them telling the supposedly true story about Christ
and Mary Magdalene. The reference here is to various Gnostic gospels that
were composed as alternatives to the orthodox gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John. But according to Dan Brown, it was Constantine who imposed
the four orthodox gospels on the church, thus creating the New Testament
as we know it, and had all the other gospels rounded up and burnt.
There is
no historical truth at all in this account. The gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John had been accepted in the church from the earliest times.
The early church fathers of the first three centuries continually quote
from these gospels, and only these, as apostolic and authoritative.
Tatian. In
the 2nd century, this Syrian Christian (died 172 A.D.) wrote a treatise
entitled the Diatesseron, which is an attempt to harmonise the four canonical
gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. One scholar has calculated that
Tatian's harmony incorporates 50 per cent of Mark, 66 per cent of Luke,
76.5 per cent of Matthew, and 96 per cent of John.
Irenaeus.
Also in the 2nd century, Irenaeus of Lyons comments on a particular text,
'Thus has Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very
same; for John omits this passage.' (Against Heresies 4:6). So again,
there we have the four canonical gospels, and those alone. Irenaeus knew
of no other canonical gospels.
Tertullian.
Writing in the very early 3rd century against the Gnostic Marcion, who
rejected all gospels except that of Luke, Tertullian affirms that in the
apostolic church it is very different: 'Of the apostles, therefore, John
and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke
and Mark renew it afterwards' (Against Marcion 4:2). So again, four canonical
gospels, the same four that we have today.
Origen of
Alexandria (died 254 A.D.) says in his commentary on John's gospel, 'Now
the Gospels are four. These four are, as it were, the elements of the
faith of the Church, out of which elements the whole world which is reconciled
to God in Christ is put together.' (On John ch.6) Origen names the four
gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Cyprian of
Carthage (Tertullian's greatest disciple, died 258 A.D.) Referring figuratively
to true Christians in the true apostolic church as trees, he says: 'These
trees she waters with four rivers, that is, with the four Gospels.' (Letter
72:10)
Dionysius
of Alexandria (200-65), comments on Luke 22:42, 'But we have gone through
these matters in sufficient detail on Matthew and John. With the permission
of God, we shall speak also of the account given by Mark.' So there are
the four gospels again.
Victorinus,
who died in the year 303 (22 years before the council of Nicaea) was so
sure of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, that
he wrote this:
'Therefore this world of ours is composed of four elements - fire, water, heaven, earth. These four elements, therefore, make up the fourfold set of times or seasons … of spring, summer, autumn, winter … And lo, there are four living creatures before God's throne, four Gospels, four rivers flowing in paradise…' (On The Creation of The World)
Victorinus
sees the fourfold nature of the canonical gospels repeated throughout
the universe!
And so we
could go on. The plain historical fact is that the church had long accepted
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as its four authoritative gospels, long
before Constantine came on the scene in the 4th century.
What about
the 'thousands' of other gospels that Brown alleges were in circulation,
depicting Christ as a mere mortal man, which Constantine outlawed, gathered
up, and burned? Again, this is pure fiction.
First, there
were not thousands of alternative gospels. There were a number of Gnostic
gospels, but by no stretch of the imagination could they be said to run
into thousands, or even hundreds.
Secondly,
and contrary to Brown, these alternative Gnostic gospels are dated considerably
later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The four canonical gospels were
written in the second half of the first century AD. No textual scholar
would dispute this. The majority of scholars, however, date the Gnostic
gospels from the middle of the second century at the earliest, and indeed
many of them are dated to the third, fourth, and fifth century. Bart Ehrman,
Professor of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of
North Carolina (and no friend of orthodox Christianity), is one of the
world's foremost academic students of the Gnostic gospels. In his celebrated
book Lost Christianities he judges that not one of the Gnostic gospels
were written prior to the early 2nd century at the earliest. The most
recently recovered Gnostic gospel, The Gospel of Judas, Ehrman dates to
around 140-160 A.D. - nearly one hundred years after the date which he
himself assigns to the canonical gospel of Mark.
So the church
did not reject the Gnostic gospels purely on the basis of their religious
teaching (though they do indeed teach Gnosticism rather than apostolic
Christianity), but also because they were written far too late in the
day to be seriously considered as authentic records of Christ's person
and teaching. The four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
were already accepted in the church long before the Gnostic gospels appeared
on the stage of history.
Thirdly,
Brown's depiction of these Gnostic gospels is the direct opposite of the
historical truth. Brown claims that they portray Christ as a mere mortal
man, whereas the four canonical gospels portray Him as a superhuman deity.
But some of the Gnostic gospels have survived to this day, and anyone
who cares to read them can see the facts for himself. The Gnostic gospels
portray Christ as a superhuman deity, a strange, mystical, ethereal being
who is not subject to the realities of a genuine human life. They give
us no historical account of Christ's ministry, for the simple reason that
the Gnostic religion taught that history was irrelevant to spiritual truth.
In the Gnostic
gospels, it would be impossible to find any hint of a merely mortal Jesus,
who did something so earthy as to marry Mary Magdalene and have a child
by her. The Gnostics despised and rejected marriage as something unspiritual,
so that the whole thesis of The Da Vinci Code would have been abhorrent
to Gnostic teaching.
On the other
hand, the four canonical gospels tell us about a real human Christ - a
Christ who hungers and thirsts, eats and drinks, becomes weary, falls
asleep, bleeds when beaten and whipped, and suffers a real and painful
physical death on a cross. Yes, they also testify to the true deity of
Christ - chiefly through His miracles and His claims about His own identity.
So in these gospels we see both the real humanity and the real deity of
Christ. He is both true Man and true God at the same time.
Back
to previous page 
Did
Constantine impose a new Bible on the Church?