The Da Vinci Code has become a world wide phenomenon, it sold over 7 million copies in hard back alone, millions more since its release in paperback. Even in the weeks leading up the Christmas it was still in the best seller tables. This summer sees the release of the big budget film adaptation of the book. Chances are if you haven't read it you know someone who has and it has caused quite a stir, not least because some have been hailing it as a serious re-examination of Christianity. The central pillar of the plot is that a secret society of which Leonardo Da Vinci was a member has proof that the Bible is untrue and that the church knows it and is covering it up. The characters trot out various facts and figures to back up such a statement.

"What happens if persuasive scientific evidence comes out that the church's version of the Christ story is inaccurate, and the greatest story ever told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold"
The Da Vinci Code

One of the statements is based around how we come to have our New Testament. Brown in the Da Vinci Code says that in fact the Bible we have is the result of the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea meeting and picking and editing books to give an impression of Jesus that they wanted to give. We're just going to look at three questions the Da Vinci Code raises:

1. Did Constantine collate the Bible in the 4th Century?
2. Did Constantine alter the Bible?
3. Did Constantine commission a new Bible that omitted gospels that spoke of human traits?

1. Did Constantine collate the New Testament in the 4th Century?
Constantine had nothing to do collating the NT, it was done much earlier.

• For example the Apostle Peter recognises Pauls' writing as scripture when he writes his second letter in AD 65-8.
• And there are records of early church leaders quoting from the gospels we have in the early second century.
• One of the most important, historically speaking, documents on the New Testament is from 170AD and is called the Muratorian fragment. It lists as recognised scripture (the Bible) all 39 Books in the Old Testament and 22 out of the 27 in the New, including the 4 gospels, a century before Constantine was born let alone called the Council at Nicea.
• Yes the canon of scripture - the final books - was finalised in the 4th Century, in fact 30 years after Constantine's death. But by the time of Constantine's reign there were only a few debated books, and they were not altered, in fact what made it in or out of the Bible was based on agreement with the books that had been accepted for a century or more.

2. Did Constantine alter the Bible?

"To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history...Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made him God like."
The Da Vinci Code

No he didn't, in fact the burden of historical fact backs up the New Testament as the most reliable historical record we have:

• Documents from 100BC show that nothing significant has been done to alter or edit the Old Testament.
• And documents predating Constantine by more than a century show that the large portions of John, Luke, 1 and 2 Peter and Jude they contain are similar to our books.
• There are thousands of very early (pre-Constantine) manuscripts in museums and libraries around the world which prove that the New Testament documents we have, have been reliable passed on.

"The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."
Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum and a leading expert on ancient manuscripts.

3. Did Constantine commission a new Bible that omitted gospels that spoke of human traits?

"Until [the time of Constantine], Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal, not the Son of God...Jesus' establishment as the Son of God was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea"
The Da Vinci Code

• No! The gospels record Jesus human ancestry (Matt 1), that he grew hungry (Luke 4:2), that he felt tired and slept (Mark 4:38), and most significantly that he died (John 19:28-30).
• No! Ancient secular historians record Jesus earliest follower's belief that he was divine and rose from the dead long before Constantine lived.
• The charge of blasphemy that led to the crucifixion was based on the fact that he was making himself out to be like God though he appeared to be a mere man.

Did the Council of Nicea vote on Jesus divinity in 325AD?

• These beliefs were held by the church long before the Council of Nicea in 325AD.
• In fact belief that Jesus was divine and that Christians should worship no other was what led to conflict with Rome over emperor worship.
• At Nicea the bishops simply upheld a 3 century old conviction that Jesus was divine in the face of a heresy to the contrary.

The Da Vinci Code is a gripping read - but that is what it is - it is not a serious re-examination of Christianity. It is a fictional novel. Its claims about the Bible are false and easily disproved. The Bible and Mark's gospel that we are looking at are the most reliable documents we have. So what will they tell us about who Jesus is?

Christianity & Culture