The Da Vinci Opportunity, Section 1

How the Popularity of The Da Vinci Code Book
and Movie Can Be Helpful to Christians and Others

by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts

Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use or for use in a Christian ministry, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com. Thank you.

 

Are you looking for quick answers to specific questions about The Da Vinci Code?

If so, check out
The Da Vinci Code FAQ:
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
About The Da Vinci Code

Here It Comes, Ready or Not!
Part 1 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Monday, March 13, 2006

According to the official website of Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code film will be released in exactly "67 Days 6 Hrs 41 Min 56 Sec" and counting. On May 19, 2006, the movie will be shown throughout most of the world. (If you're feeling impatient, you can jet over to France or the United Arab Emirates, where the film will come out on May 17th.) The Da Vinci Code movie will be a huge blockbuster. No question about it. No need to solve arcane codes to figure this out. How do I know this? Consider the recipe for this film:
		Of course by the time you read this, the countdown will be lower.

Start with a bestselling novel (over 40 million copies in over 40 languages worldwide) that features a thrill-ride story and a controversial secret;

Add several parts all-star cast, including Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen (aka Gandalf), Alfred Molina (aka Doc Ock);

Then add one Oscar-winning director (Ron Howard);

Shoot in some fantastic locations, including the Musée de Louvre in Paris and The Temple Church in London;

Promote the film with a gripping trailer;

Then top it off with a publicity-generating lawsuit.

And, voilà, you have a certain blockbuster. I'd predict that The Da Vinci Code movie will end up high on the all-time worldwide box office chart, nearing a billion dollars in ticket sales.

On the one hand, this is good news. I love a cinematic thriller, even when I know how the story ends. And Tom Hanks is perhaps my favorite actor. Ian McKellen ranks right up there, whether he's playing Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings or Magneto in X-Men. Ron Howard has directed some of my favorite films, including Cinderella Man, A Beautiful Mind, and Parenthood. (Okay, I can forget about How the Grinch Stole Christmas.) So I fully expect that on May 19th, I will be in for an electrifying ride.

On the other hand, the advent of The Da Vinci Code movie is not good news. Central to its plot are fictional elements presented as if they were true that rub against my Christian faith. This is the case even though I'm not part of the Roman Catholic church (portrayed as sinister in the Dan Brown's story) or Opus Dei (a group within Roman Catholicism that's depicted as twisted and diabolical). The most unsettling elements of The Da Vinci Code are not incidental to Christian faith, however. They have to do with the very core of Christianity. They concern the mission, identity, and nature of Jesus, as well as the inspiration and truthfulness of the Bible.

For example:

Whereas orthodox* Christians believe that the kingship of Jesus was not about royal blood and earthly government, in The Da Vinci Code the ultimate significance of Jesus is precisely about these things.

FAQ: What elements of The Da Vinci Code are contrary to orthodox Christianity?

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus remained single throughout his life, The Da Vinci Code reveals that He was in fact married to Mary Magdalene.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus's death and resurrection were the center of His earthly mission, The Da Vinci Code sees His chief contribution as fathering a child by His wife, Mary.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that the Bible, though written by human beings, is divinely inspired, The Da Vinci Code reveals that it is merely a human invention.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that the New Testament gospels are reliable sources of information about Jesus, in The Da Vinci Code, the trustworthy gospels come from other collections, like The Dead Sea Scrolls or the Gnostic library from Nag Hammadi.

Whereas orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was fully God and fully human, The Da Vinci Code shows that Jesus was in fact a mere mortal, and that His deity was invented in order to augment the power of the fourth-century Roman emperor Constantine.

I could go on for a while longer with more examples of how The Da Vinci Code contradicts classical Christian belief, but I think you get the point. It's pretty obvious why an orthodox Christian like me would be unsettled by the release of The Da Vinci Code movie and its guaranteed popularity.

Then again, maybe you think I'm completely missing the point. After all, The Da Vinci Code was first a novel. It was written and sold as a work of fiction. Thank God, we don't have any of the complications of A Million Little Pieces, where a substantially fictional work was sold as if it were completely true. (For my comments on the James Frey and A Million Little Pieces controversy, click here.) No bookstore, to my knowledge, has placed The Da Vinci Code in the non-fiction section. So, you might wonder, if a novel contains information that is fictional, even if this information relates to an important historical figure like Jesus, what's the problem?

In my next post I'll explain why I think it's necessary to deal with some of the fictional elements of The Da Vinci Code from a historical point of view, treating them as if they were non-fiction, even though the novel and the film are clearly fictional.

*Note: When I speak of "orthodox" Christians I mean those who affirm the classic Christian faith as contained in the Nicene Creed and The Definition of Chalcedon. The contents of these confessions, which have largely to do with the nature of God and Jesus, have been affirmed by Christians for sixteen centuries. To be sure, there are some Christians, or people who claim to be Christian, at any rate, who do not affirm these core beliefs. These folk are not "orthodox" (which means, literally, "right believing.") "Orthodox" Christians, with a capital 'O', are those who belong to one of the branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Orthodox Christians are also orthodox, in that they affirm classic Christian doctrine as contained in the historic creeds.

Send an e-mail link of this page to a friend. E-mail Mark D. Roberts

Visit the guestbook. Go to the homepage.

But It's Just Fiction!
Part 2 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Tuesday, March 14, 2006

"But," you might want to respond, "it's just fiction! It's a novel, for God's sake. It's going to be a fictional movie. Why get so worked up about fiction? Why refute fiction as if it were fact? Why get so worried about apparently factual elements of a fictional story?" I can't tell you how much I wish every reader of The Da Vinci Code, and every viewer of the upcoming film, had this perspective. If everybody who was exposed to Dan Brown's story concluded, "Well, that was a great ride, but his stuff on Jesus was a lot of hooey!" then I could start blogging on something else, rather than exercising myself on this topic for the next several weeks. But, I'm sad to say, millions upon millions of readers and viewers of The Da Vinci Code will not reject its treatment of Jesus and early Christianity as wildly creative fiction. In fact, they will believe that Dan Brown has revealed the truth about Jesus. And they'll believe this passionately.
		The Da Vinci Code? What, me worry?

I know because of the e-mail I have received in response to my online article Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Real Evidence, and the published version of this piece that forms an appendix to my book, Jesus Revealed. I've received dozens of notes from people who not only reject my view that the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis of Jesus having been married, but also are just plain angry with me. They have found the "evidence" of The Da Vinci Code to be so persuasive, and they are so attached to the idea that Jesus is married, that my rather sober treatment of the historical evidence carries no weight whatsoever. The folks who have written to me didn't take Dan Brown's view of Jesus as clever fiction, but as hardcore fact.

They're not alone. Lest you think my blog readers are a bunch of crazies, consider the following evidence:

In a beliefnet.com survey, 27% of respondents said that Mary Magdalene was "Jesus' wife."

Not to be outdone, one in three Canadians who read The Da Vinci Code believe "there are descendants of Jesus alive today and a secret society exists dedicated to keeping Jesus' bloodline a secret."

A more recent Canadian survey found that 17% of all Canadians and 13% of all Americans are of the opinion that “Jesus’ apparent death on the cross was faked” and that "Jesus was also married and had a family." If accurate, this means that tens of millions of North Americans believe Dan Brown's fictions to be true.

There's no denying the fact that millions of people have been influenced by The Da Vinci Code to believe things about Jesus that are contrary to orthodox Christian belief, and that are, as we shall later see, highly improbable and unsupported by the available historical evidence.

Furthermore, the first page of The Da Vinci Code contains a claim about the factuality of the material in the book. It reads: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" (p. 1). Yet it is in the description of ancient Christian documents that Dan Brown makes some of his wildest claims about the Bible and Jesus. The first page of the book suggests that he is speaking historical truth.

Curiously enough, Dan Brown seems not to have read his own first page. His own website asks Brown, "But doesn't the novel's 'fact' page claim that every single word in this novel is historical fact?" [MDR note: What a ridiculous question!], Here is Brown's answer:

If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.

Hmmm. Actually, his "FACT" page says that "all descriptions" of these things are true, not that they merely exist. When Teabing describes an ancient document, Dan Brown the author suggests that his description is factually true. Dan Brown the webmaster suggests only that the document exists. Will the real Dan Brown please stand up?

No. As I mentioned earlier, the secret I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new.

Notice, Dan Brown "reveals" a secret that is really true, and that has been known for centuries, but not widely.

In an interview with bookreporter.com, Brown revealed more of his personal beliefs regarding Jesus and early Christianity. Question: Is this book anti-Christian? Answer:

No. This book is not anti-anything. It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate.

Note: Brown wrote "to explore certain aspects of Christian history."

Bookreporter.com Question: What do you think of clerical scholars attempting to "disprove" The Da Vinci Code? [MDR note: It's not just clerical scholars, but academic scholars as well.] Answer:

The dialogue is wonderful. These authors and I obviously disagree, but the debate that is being generated is a positive powerful force.

Note: Brown could have said. These folks are crazy. My novel is just a novel. What's their problem? Instead he said, "These authors and I obviously disagree." Upon what do they disagree? On the historical facts. Brown really believes the stuff he puts into the mouth of Leigh Teabing.

In an interview in a National Geographic documentary on The Da Vinci Code, Brown added:

I began as a sceptic. As I started researching Da Vinci Code I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer.

So, the reader who takes Teabing's revelations as historical fact, and who reads the "FACT" page as indicating that the novel is based on supposedly solid historical data, is not naïve and mistaken. In fact, this reader is tracking perfectly with Brown, who believes his novel reveals a secret about Jesus that is historically true, and a perspective on early Christianity that tells the real story.

Given the influence of The Da Vinci Code, and the tendency for millions of readers to believe the Dan Brown/Leigh Teabing view of Jesus and early Christian history, it's necessary to deal with part of The Da Vinci Code as if it were a work of non-fiction. The "What, me worry?" approach isn't possible for those of us who care about the truth, not to mention the truth about Jesus, His nature and mission.

Send an e-mail link of this page to a friend. E-mail Mark D. Roberts

Visit the guestbook. Go to the homepage.

Where I'm Coming From
Part 3 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Wednesday, March 15, 2006

For those of you who aren't from my part of the world, sorry for the Californianism. At least I didn't entitle this blog entry, "Where I'm At." My point in this post is to talk about what others might call my background, or still others my agenda, or even my bias. I want to explain my perspective as I approach The Da Vinci Code, so you can weigh my insights judiciously. My regular blog readers know most of this already, but others deserve to know where I'm coming from, as we say out West.

Academic Background

As an undergraduate, I majored in philosophy. During my junior year I took a religion course entitled, "Christians, Jews, and Gnostics." It was taught by Professor George MacRae of Harvard Divintiy School. Professor MacRae had been active as a member of the academic team that had translated the Nag Hammadi Library (sometimes called the Gnostic gospels). Thus I was able to read several of those documents with one of the world's experts in the material. It was a fascinating exercise.

My experience in this undergraduate course was part of what led me to seek a Ph.D. in New Testament. I stayed on at Harvard because the New Testament faculty at that time was one of the strongest in the world. I should hasten to add that I'm speaking here in terms of secular academia. Folks from conservative Christian backgrounds would have considered the Harvard New Testament faculty to be unbalanced, heavily weighted in the direction of liberal, critical scholarship.

While in grad school, I spent more time studying ancient documents outside of the New Testament than the New Testament writings themselves. I read most of the Nag Hammadi Library texts, sometimes with those who had made the definitive translations. I also worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls with one of the premier scroll scholars, a man who had been part of the original translation team. In one course I had the privilege of studying, not the actual scrolls, which were locked safely away, but photographs of those scrolls which had not yet been published or translated into English. It never occurred to me that my years of reading the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi codices, and other extra-biblical writings would ever have any practical significance. Who in the world would care about "The Temple Scroll" or "The Thunder, Perfect Mind"? Now, thanks to Dan Brown, my knowledge of the Gnostic gospels turns out to be quite timely. Since finishing my Ph.D. in New Testament, I've done quite a bit of teaching on the seminary level. I've been able to keep up with some of the scholarly literature in my field, especially that which pertains to Jesus. In 2001 I wrote the manuscript for my book Jesus Revealed. Although a popular more than a scholarly book, my research for this book caught me up on the academic study of Jesus and the gospels, including the Gnostic gospels.
		One of my proudest days, when I finally received my PhD degree, after 12 years as a grad student, and 17 years of paying some sort of tuition at Harvard. Yikes!

So, when I examine the historical evidence for Jesus, and when I speak about the early Christian gospels, I'm relying on my academic background, and can speak with a measure of authority. Though I'm not as current on scholarship as if I were teaching in an academic institution, I can address the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code with a fair amount of scholarly mettle. This doesn't mean my opinions will always be right, of course. There is a wide range of disagreement among scholars about many things pertaining to Jesus and early Christianity. My voice falls in this range as one option among many. But, as I speak about these things, at least you can be assured that I actually have some idea what I'm talking about, whether I'm right or wrong.

Religious Background

I've been a Christian for more than forty years, having "accepted Jesus into my heart" at a Billy Graham crusade in Los Angeles in 1963. I grew up in an evangelical Presbyterian church. In college and grad school I sojourned in other Christian traditions for a season, including Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, and Mennonite. In the end, I found my religious home in the tradition were I was raised, evangelical Presbyterian.

Will my Christian faith influence the way I evaluate the historical evidence for Jesus and the early Christian gospels? Of course it will, to some extent. I'm postmodern enough to realize this. No scholar is immune from the influence of his or her personal convictions. But I'm also rather modern in the sense that I value truth in a more or less absolute sense. Thus I try as a historian to evaluate evidence with as little bias as possible. One of the reasons I've laid out my personal faith here is so that you can do the same. If my historical arguments seem to be "privileging" orthodoxy, at least you'll know why.

The title of this blog series, The Da Vinci Opportunity, intentionally shows my hand. I see the popularity of The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity, not only to discuss Jesus and early Christianity, but also for Christians to explain why we find the Jesus of the gospels to be so compelling, and why we can have confidence in the New Testament portrayal of Jesus. I'll have more to say about this in my next post.

Send an e-mail link of this page to a friend. E-mail Mark D. Roberts

Visit the guestbook. Go to the homepage.

A Threat or an Opportunity?
Part 4 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Thursday, March 16, 2006

Given the various ways that The Da Vinci Code contradicts the core of classic Christian faith, it's no wonder that many Christians have considered the book and the soon-to-be released movie as threats to Christianity. After all, when one of the most popular books of all time claims that the Bible is merely a human document and that Jesus was only human, Christians rightly regard this as a danger to their own faith and to that of others. Moreover, if one is a Roman Catholic Christian, the offense of The Da Vinci Code is far greater still.

If The Da Vinci Code is a threat, then Christians need to play defense. We must fend off the threat. We should use reason and evidence to show that many of the apparently historical claims of The Da Vinci Code are, in fact, fictional in the extreme. For example, anyone who actually believes that the Gnostic gospels give us a more human Jesus than the biblical gospels has never read the Gnostic gospels. There's no question in my mind that part of what Christians must do in the face of the Da Vinci challenge is to defend orthodox Christianity. After all, when a central character in the story says that "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false," (p. 235) you've got to admit "them's fightin' words."
		If The Da Vinci Code is a threat, then we'd better be ready to play some good defense, or it will slip right by us.

But I'm convinced that The Da Vinci Code is far more than a threat to orthodox Christianity. It is also an opportunity of the first degree. Yes, I wish that this wildly popular novel and soon to be blockbuster movie presented a picture of Jesus more consistent with historical and theological truth, rather like The Passion of the Christ. But even if The Da Vinci Code itself isn't much of a help in leading people to a true understanding of Jesus and early Christianity, at least it gets them interested. After being exposed to Dan Brown's view of things, people are curious. They ask questions they might never have uttered before, like:

Was Jesus really married?

What was his mission really all about?

Are the New Testament gospels reliable sources of information about Jesus?

Is Gnostic-flavored Christianity really a tastier variety than bland vanilla orthodoxy?

Was Jesus divine?

When did people start believing this?

What can we really know about Jesus?

And why does He matter so much, anyway?

In my opinion, these are great questions. In fact, I believe they're some of the most important questions in life. If it takes something like The Da Vinci Code to get folks asking questions like these, then I am grateful to Dan Brown for his effort, at least to this extent. He's opened the door for serious discussion about Jesus. We Christians, and all truth-seekers everywhere, for that matter, need to thank him for the welcome and walk through the door.

Of course, as an orthodox Christian myself, I seem to be assuming that an open-minded discussion of Jesus and early Christianity will be helpful to the Christian cause. Folks who take the Dan Brown/Leigh Teabing side obviously believe that this conversation will favor their perspective. But, I must confess at the outset, I don't see it their way. In fact, as one who has spent a whole lot of life studying the documents from which we learn about Jesus and early Christianity, I'm utterly convinced that the evidence leans heavily in the direction of classical Christian faith. I'm not suggesting that I can prove that Jesus was divine. Such proof is beyond human capacity. But I am absolutely sure, for example, that I can show beyond any reasonable doubt that most Christians considered Jesus to be divine long before Emperor Constantine had anything to say about it. The Da Vinci Code's purported "history" of early Christian doctrine has everything to do with a thrilling novel and nothing to do with the facts. When it comes to the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code, my encouragement to orthodox Christians comes down to this: The facts are on our side.

In my next post I'll spell out in greater detail how I envision The Da Vinci Opportunity. I will explain the topics I intend to address in the rest of this series.

Send an e-mail link of this page to a friend. E-mail Mark D. Roberts

Visit the guestbook. Go to the homepage.

The Opportunities of The Da Vinci Opportunity
Part 5 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Friday, March 17, 2006

In my last post I explained that, though The Da Vinci Code does indeed pose a threat to classical Christian faith, Christians should see it as much as an opportunity as a threat. The Da Vinci Code will get people talking about Jesus, the Bible, the role of women, and the nature of salvation. This conversation will allow Christians to explain ways in which The Da Vinci Code strays from historical fact and how it reflects careful historical inquiry. More importantly still, it allows Christians to discuss many crucial aspects of Christian faith with those who might otherwise be uninterested.

What follows are seven specific opportunities afforded to Christians by The Da Vinci Code. These don't exhaust the available options, but they are among the most salient ones, in my opinion. These are also the opportunities upon which I plan to focus throughout the rest of this blog series.

Seven Da Vinci Code Opportunities