Gary Burger

Taking some time off

2006-05-26T13:44:00.000-04:00

I will not be posting for a couple of weeks in order to spend vacation time with my family and attend to other projects.

Gary Burger

The Last Supper, Part 4 (of 4)

2006-05-23T08:17:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Summary and Conclusion

To summarize, it was common for Leonardo and other artists of the period to depict certain men with feminine features. There is at least one other disciple at the table who does not have a beard. It is actually difficult to tell if even Jesus has a beard. If so, it was a small one. Depicting a man without a beard sometimes symbolized the man's innocence. This is because both male and female bodies were often depicted in very different ways in the past then how they are depicted in today's culture. You've probably seen pictures of angels who are supposed to be male, but they have smooth faces and long curly hair. They simply don't fit our stereotypes. They were never intended to. There is symbolism involved in using feminine features to depict innocence and Robert Langdon should know this! I leafed through a book of paintings of The Last Supper done from early Christianity up to our time at Barnes and Noble one evening. One only needs to look at paintings of The Last Supper before the Renaissance period, during and after. The figure of John always looks like a female, but never understood to be Mary Magdalene.³

Dan Brown also misinterprets the compositional patterns of Jesus and the Disciples. He claims that Jesus and the supposed Mary Magdalene form a large V which he explains both symbolizes a chalice or cup and also the shape of a woman's womb. However, Da Vinci only used the large V shape for compositional spacing, balance and emphasis. There are other V shapes among the rest of the disciples, as well. Are we to interpret those as having special significance beyond compositional usage, too? Probably not. The problem with conspiracy theorists is they only use the part of the picture that fits their preconceived view and ignore what does not fit. It is unfortunate for the general public that the biased liberal news media and especially book critics let him get away with his misinterpretation of Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper. They should have protected us from this scam. Instead, they promoted it. Caveat Emptor! "Let the buyer (of news and novels) beware!"

Addendum

After I wrote this article I watched the DVD "The Da Vinci Code Decoded" by The Disinformation Company.⁴ In it Lynn Picknett describes her interpretation of Da Vinci's painting The Virgin of the Rocks. She looks at the column of rocks behind Mary and sees a phalic symbol. What a hoot! She and Dan Brown and others are obcessed with sex and sexual symbols. I wonder what Sigmond Freud would have to say about that. Anyway, if a red-blooded male like me has to be told what the rocks look like (they don't look phalic to me) and if the real art historians have never caught it and Leonardo never mentioned it in his notes, then I think it is safe to say she is reading into the painting what she wants to see. The rest of the content of the DVD is just ridiculous, and the articles on this web site debunk what they think they have decoded. It affirms to me that The Disinformation Company is guilty of spreading disinformation.

References

¹ Secrets of the Code. ed. Daniel Burstein. New York: CDS Books. 2004. 225
² Janson, H. W. History of Art: A Survey of the Major Visual Arts from the Dawn of History to the Present Day. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 1974. 348.
³ Editors of Phaidon Press. Last Supper. New York: Phaidon Press. 2000.
See also: Steinberg, Leon. Leonardo's Incessant Last Supper. Zone Books. 2001.
⁴ "The Da Vinci Code Decoded." The Disinformation Company. 2004.

The Last Supper, Part 3 (of 4)

2006-05-22T06:55:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Second interview: art historian Diane Apostolos-Cappadona of Georgetown University (from Secrets of the Code)

What do you think, specifically, about The Da Vinci Code's supposition that the "John" character is really Mary Magdalene?

Initially, my reponse was this is a very interesting interpretation, to say that there was a woman at the table. It fits nicely with feminist theology or the postfeminist era of theology. However that doesn't make it true."

... "There is a tradition of John being seen in our eyes... as soft, feminine, and youthful."

... "However, if you look carfully at the Leonardo painting, you will notice other disciples who do not have beards or who could be construed as possessing feminine features. However from my work in gender studies, I would caution that gender is a cuolturally and socially conditioned concept. What you and I accept today as being masculine or feminine is most likely not what would have been accepted in Florence or Milan during the firgeenth century....If you look carefully at Christian art, in particular at the depictions of male and female bodies, faces, and gestures, then the Last Supper is not such an extraordinary presentation?"

Can you be more specific?

"... No I do not believe that there is a woman in the Last Supper and I do not believe in any way that it's Mary Magdalene. I think that the V that's there-the one Dan Brown defines as a symbol of femininity-is there, first of all, to emphasize the Christ figure and to emphasize the reality of the perspective within that fresco."

What role does artistic form and perspective play in this?

"Perspective is extraordinarily important in Renaissance art generally, and in Leonardo's art in particular. The apostles are all grouped into triangular formations. For example, there is the triangle composed of the so-called Mary Magdalene-John, the gray-bearded figure behind [who is Judas], and the foreground figure [who is Peter]. Dan Brown has omitted any discussion of pyramidal composition in Leonardo's oeuvre, of the four triangular groupings which are important to form the compositional balance for the central triangular figure who is Jesus. Centrally positioned, Jesus is in a pyramidal posture, and it is this pyramidal composition that is one of Leonardo's great gifts to Western art."

Additional problems

There is another problem with Dan Brown's treatment of The Last Supper painting that did not come out in either of these interviews. His reference to The Last Supper being a fresco is another point that shows his lack of knowledge and research about the painting (Chapter 55, p. 235) The painting is not a fresco. A fresco is made by applying watercolor to wet plaster, Da Vinci used a different technique using a mixture of oil, pigment and egg yolk.² This may seem to be a silly and picky point, but it is just one of many inaccuracies in a book that begins with the claim: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In other words, it is part of Brown's pattern of weak research, and making up and distorting facts to support a bad conclusion that he pawns off on an ignorant public who is lapping it up because they, too, seem to want his conclusion to be true.

The Last Supper, Part 2 (of 4)

2006-05-21T08:24:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

First interview: art historian Denise Budd of Columbia University (from Secrets of the Code)

Is anything known about Leonardo that would suggest he was a member of the Priory of Sion or similar secret society?

"There's no real evidence at all that Leonardo da Vinci was a member of the Priory of Sion or any other secret organization. The documents that Dan Brown relied upon ... appear to be twentieth-century forgeries."

Besides sometimes writing backwards, did Leonardo use codes or coding?

"There is evidence of codes in some of his writing; one example is the so-called Ligny memorandum, in which he interspersed names and places in scrambled letters. And he may have worked as a spy when he was a military engineer for Cesare Borgia. But the backwards writing is not a particularly difficult code to crack. That was a function of Leonardo's left-handedness.

Leonardo is known for peppering his works with symbolism and, some say, heritical ideas, in his Virgin of the Rocks paintings, for example. Do you agree?

"No, I don't. The Virgin of the Rocks was a religious commission for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception for the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan-not for nuns, as Brown says. ... One of the reasons that Dan Brown argues that the painting is heretical is because he misreads the work, confusing the figure of St. John the Baptist with Christ, and vice versa. The composition shows Mary-with her hand suspended over her son, creating a dominant axis-embracing Chrst's cousin St. John, who kneels in reverence. The Baptist is the first to recognize Christ's divinity, which he does in the womb, so this composition falls completely within the norms of tradition.... During the Renaissance, an artist was not generally given free rein on important commissions. There would have been specific guidelines. And presumably, Leonardo worked within that framework."

(For a close up picture of The Virgin of the Rocks that you can zoom in to examine the details for yourself Click Here.)

What about Dan Brown's thesis about the Last Supper?

"There is no disembodied hand as Dan Brown suggests. The hand with the knife-which is the hand Dan Brown says "threatens Mary Magdalene"-that's Peter's hand. And Peter's not threatening Mary Magdalene nor trying to suppress the feminine side of the church. Peter is holding the knife, which is a premonition of the violent reaction he will have during the arrest of Christ, when he dcuts off the ear of the Roman soldier. So that is a fairly standard iconographic tool."

"Dan Brown uses the absence of a chalice as an introductory point to bring Mary Magdalene into the picture. Yet if you look at the picture, you'll see that Christ's hands are spread out on the table. His right hand is reaching toward a piece of bread, and his left hand is actually, quite clearly, reaching toward a cup of wine. And that's the hand that's pointed down. The institution of the Eucharist is clearly presented in the bread and the wine. Now it's not a chalice per se, like a chalice in your modern church practice, but there's a cup of wine. It's what you would expect to see at the Last Supper."

And what about the idea that the painting depicts Mary Magdalene instead of John the Baptist?

"As far as the Magdalene, clearly there is no dispute. That figure is St. John the Evangelist. St. John is Christ's favorite and he is always shown by Christ's side. The major difference between Leonardo's Last Supper and earlier Florentine examples of the scene is that Leonardo put Judas among the disciples, not on the other side of the table. But the figure of John is always by Christ's side, he is always beardless and he's always beautiful. And in some instances, he is so innocent that while Christ is making the announcement that he will be betrayed, Joyhn actually sleep0s. A perfect example of this 'feminine' characterization of Joh is in Raphael's Crucifixion in the London National Gallery, painted around 1500."

(For a close up picture of The Last Supper that you can zoom in to examine the details for yourself Click Here.)

Tomorrow I will relate the second interview in Secrets of the Code, art historian Diane Apostolos-Cappadona of Georgetown University.

The Last Supper, Part 1 (of 4)

2006-05-20T08:58:00.000-04:00

This post begins a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Worthwhile links:

For a close up picture of The Last Supper that you can zoom in to examine the details for yourself Click Here.

For a close up picture of The Virgin of the Rocks that you can zoom in to examine the details for yourself Click Here.

Introduction

Dan Brown asserts that the figure in Leonardo Da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper," traditionally understood to be John the Disciple, is, in fact, Mary Magdalene. The quote is too long to include here but is found in Chapter 58, beginning on p. 243. He asserts that the figure on Jesus' right side is Mary Magdalene and not John the Disciple. He points to the feminine features of the face and hands, as well as body posture. While this conjecture might find fans among radical feminists, it fails to impress art historians, especially those who are experts on the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci and Renaissance art in general. Brown and other conspiracy theorists have seen in the painting only what they want to see and ignore certain facts about Renaissance art, especially traditions involving paintings of the Last Supper.

In this article I will relate the main points of interviews with two female art historians whose answers, in my opinion, put Brown's interpretation in the category of pathetic. The interviews are found in Dan Burstein's book, Secrets of the Code.¹ Although I took a couple of Art History classes in college and still enjoy it I will not try to paraphrase their responses. I would rather let them speak for themselves by quoting them at length, especially because they are women. First, I will relate the interview with Denise Budd of Columbia University. Second, I will relate the interview with Diane Apostolos-Cappadona of Georgetown University. The questions are asked by Dan Burstein and the answers appear in quoted text.

Tomorrow I relate the first interview, with art historian Denise Budd of Columbia University

The Gnostic View of the Feminine, Part 5 (of 6)

2006-05-19T20:43:00.000-04:00

This post concludes a six day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the Gnostic view of the feminine are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Conclusion

It is extremely unfortunate that for many centuries so many Christians and churches have held views that do not measure up to the high value that God places on the feminine aspect of His image which He placed into humanity. That was not a result of careful understanding of the biblical view of the feminine. Many people today are looking outside the traditional Church for support of an intuitive (God given) conviction that women are of equal value to God and His glorious purposes as men. Some, like Dan Brown, claim that early groups like the Gnostics held a primitive and correct view of this equality, and chauvinistic orthodox leaders persecuted them out of existence for it. Yet when one takes the trouble to actually read and study the Gnostic texts it becomes abundantly clear that they were even worst.

The Gnostics held the feminine nature as responsible for the evil in the world. The Bible shows us that we are individually responsible for the choice we make to rebel from God and collectively we bring evil into the world. In Gnosticism the only hope for salvation is to abandon the feminine and become masculine in spiritual character. The Bible shows us what we already intuitively know—that whatever gender we are and no matter how good we try to make ourselves, we just can't measure up to God's standard of perfect holiness. Through Jesus Christ we have the equal opportunity to receive God's grace, mercy and forgiveness.

References

¹ Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage-Random House. 1979. 150.
² King, Karen L. (ed.) Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
³ ibid. p. 110.
⁴ ibid. p. 171.
⁵ ibid. p. 174.
⁶ ibid. p. 301.
⁷ ibid. p. 21.
⁸ ibid. p. 95.
⁹ ibid. p. 95.

Reply to Comments by Sophia

2006-05-18T10:02:00.000-04:00

Sophia,

By the way that is a lovely name:)

You've posted quite a few comments, for which I am grateful. Since the following turns out to be rather long I am posting it rather than putting it in the smaller Comment window. I have some questions about some of comments. Could you please clarify some things for me? I have written my questions and comments after each of your comments. I put all of your comments in italics so readers won't get confused between your comments and mine.

1) I've read a number of "scholarly" works that are pure speculation. Much of it is limited by prejudice and ivory tower restrictions.

Which scholarly works are you referring to, how are they pure speculation and how have prejudice and ivory tower restrictions biased their views?

"Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism" edited by Karen King is very informative. Many of the scholars who contributed to that volume are well-known female historians and theologians who are liberal in their leanings. They can't be accused of simply parroting what dead white males have said for centuries. Every one of them has studied the gnostic texts in the Coptic for themselves. Have you?

2) Degradation is a social construct. What is degrading in one culture is elevating in another. Serving as a baby maker could be considered just as menial as prostitution.

Ok, so some women see baby making as menial as prostitution. That is unfortunate, but what is your point? Taken in the context of my posts I would assume it has something to do with different views of sex by different people/groups like the ancient gnostics, ancient orthodox Christians, modern neo-gnostics (such as yourself?) and modern orthodox Christians, etc. Am I right? Again, I'd like to know your point.

More later...

3) With respect to contempt for the body, gnosticism values that which is not subject to growth and decay. From that perspective, the body is of relatively little value. Certainly, it serves as a channel for the eternal, but it is not itself eternal.

The doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh has proven to be a stumbling block for Christians. It has prevented people from climbing out of the pit of carnal mindedness.

How is that doctrine a stumbling block for Christians and prevented us from climbing out of the pit of carnal mindedness? What do you mean? Can you give me an example? The doctrine actually shows the value that God places on the human body, both Jesus' and ours.

4) We do not dismiss, nor do we misinterpret the sacred texts from the Jewish experience. True misogyny exists not in textual reference, but in life practice. You may perceive misogyny in the gnostic literature, but in practice, both ancient and modern gnostics behave more positively towards women than their detractors.

Who is/has misinterpreted what sacred texts from the Jewish experience? Are you referring to ancient gnostic texts like the ones found in the Nag Hammadi Library? Who has interpreted them from the Jewish experience? I and most scholars do not. We interpret them from what they say themselves. We use the same common sense and objective methodologies used to interpret any piece or genre of literature to find out what the author means not what we want her/him to mean. It appears that modern day followers of gnosticism prefer to read into those texts what they want them to mean not what the original author would have meant. What is your proof that even though ancient gnostic literature (and mythology) is misogynistic to the core, they actually behaved more positively towards women than their detractors? The ancient orthodox Christians that were their immediate detractors were not as misogynistic as they were. The biblical Christianity based in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles was a breath of fresh air, a revolution in the treatment of women. There are numerous scholarly works on this. If you are talking about modern day detractors you'll have to get specific because it is simply not true that all modern day detractors are misogynistic. Ask my wife and kids if I am misogynistic and they will say "absolutely not." I am only one of many husbands and fathers who are not only devoted to biblical Christianity but also deeply devoted to loving, caring, providing for and bringing out the best in the women in their lives.

The important aspect of Christ's position on the initiation of women is that he practiced it. Not only do we see it exemplified in the gnostic literature, but we also see it in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. The acceptance of women disciples does not represent misgyny. The overt policy of failing to accept female students, is defacto misogyny. It's not the texts that justify such action, but their misrepresentation.

You are absolutely right about Jesus not being misogynistic. However, you can't really use the ancient gnostic texts to support that because, for example, conversations between Jesus and Mary Magdalene were fictitious, allegorical conversations written 100 - 250 years after Jesus died and laden with symbolism to keep outsiders from understanding gnostic ideas. Mary represented the elite gnostic who received private subjective knowledge (gnosis) while the disciples represented those who claimed all true knowledge about God was made public for everyone to know in an objective way. The conversations were not actual conversations between Jesus and Mary.

What institutions have an overt policy of failing to accept female students any more? My daughter, as qualified as she is, will have a difficult time getting into a top college because of all the other highly qualified females she is competing against.

When using a value-laden word such as "evil" it is better to expound on the nature of that evil. After all, there are numerous evils.

So what is it about the body that gnostics perceive as "evil?" Nothing that anybody else would disagree with. The body is subject to growth and decay. It is an ephemeral entity. It's physical blemishes are often mistaken for manifestations of spiritual degradations. The list of evils is endless.

The ancient gnostics believed that the body is evil and worthless. In biblical Christianity the body is not evil, only actions we choose to do are good or evil. That is why Christians began hospitals, humanitarian organizations, child labor laws, abolished slavery, fought for women's rights, instituted prison reforms, etc. That is why medical missionaries set up hospitals in third world countries. The body is a good creation of God and has value, therefore it is worth being treated when it is ill.

We won't go into the negative side of sexuality. The gnostic practice of sacred sexuality demonstrates the capacity to transcend those negativities.

Please tell me where in the ancient gnostic texts I can find this practice of sacred sexuality? What did it mean to them? What does it mean to neo-Gnostics? What does it mean to you? And do you mean experiencing the divine through orgasm as Dan Brown thinks it means? In his interpretation, its all about the man and what he gets out of it. Isn't that misogynistic? Where are feminists? They should be all over his case? They and he don't even seem to realize how misogynistic his (wrong) interpretations are of gnostic sacred sex and temple prostitution.

The evils of the body and bodily intercourse can be seen in our experiences with computers. They are great until they break down. When they network together, they can become degraded. On the other hand, we can craft our storage systems to survive breakdowns and our networking systems to survive problems of interconnectivity.

What does this have to do with sacred sex?

The last quote from the text of Zostrianos sheds light on that which gnostics saw as detrimental in physical sexuality. The text demonstrates a misunderstanding that was common in the ancient world, that male and female were opposites, rather than complements.

Plato represents a different view of the degraded Sophia. In his work, she is simply less mature than her higher manifestation. Such a concept is difficult for those cultivated in Christian prejudice, who have been indoctrinated into a monolithic paradigm of eternity.

Please tell me where I can find that quote in Zostrianos. I do find at Zostrianos 131:5 "Flee from the madness and bondage of femaleness and choose for yourselves the salvation of maleness." Sounds misogynistic to me. What about to you?

I am very interested in your answers and comments.

Grateful for the dialog,

Gary Burger

The Gnostic View of the Feminine, Part 5 (of 6)

2006-05-18T09:58:00.000-04:00

"The role played by women in gnostic sects is in fact something that we do not know with certainty for all, or even most, gnostic groups."⁷

This is significant to The Da Vinci Code because Dan Brown misuses a portion of a Gnostic Gospel of Mary to assert that Jesus meant to leave Mary Magdalene in charge of the Church instead of Peter. For more on this please read Dan Brown's Assertions About Mary Magdalene(assertions 3 and 4).

Gnosticism's peak appears to have been in the late second century and it probably died out sometime in the fourth or fifth century. One of the reasons was the effective logic of orthodox church apologists like Irenaeus, who took them to task. However, most people of the day were not well educated and would not have been able to read or follow their reasoning. For the same reason, the average person would not have been attracted to the highly literary and esoteric nature of Gnosticism. Even beyond this, it is reasonable to think there were probably stronger sociological reasons. One reason could be that with its misogynistic stance, it did not attract many women and therefore did not propagate biologically.

Douglas M. Parrott writes about what it must have been like to be a woman in a Gnostic sect.

"To enter a gnostic group, once she knew everything about it, a "thinking" woman ... would have had to somehow to discount the common belief about the nature of the female, which she would have found at every turn. ... But the constant emphasis on the defect of femaleness, and the like, and the use of the image of an out-of-control female to talk about the soul, must have been a special burden to them."⁸

Parrott goes on to suggest that,

"this problem was influential in the final outcome of the struggle between the orthodox and the Gnostics. Women may have been put down badly in the orthodox churches, but at least they were not burdened with a conception of themselves that was essentially degrading."⁹

I could fill another page or two with more quotes to show that the consensus of these scholars was (to repeat a quote from above) that Gnosticism was "ultimately misogynist in the extreme."

These statements should warn us to be careful not to read into a few choice passages from the Gnostic texts what we want them to mean. If we could use a time machine to bring Gnostic leaders like the author of the Gospel of Mary into the present day, they would no doubt speak against psuedo-historians and novelists hijacking their writings to say things to which they were actually radically opposed.

Tomorrow I will conclude this series and provide the citations for the endnotes.

The Gnostic View of the Feminine, Part 4 (of 6)

2006-05-17T08:42:00.000-04:00

"According to this view, the gnostic experience is ultimately misogynist in the extreme."³

Karen King the editor summarizes, "The gnostic myth of the fall and restoration of Sophia can be perceived as essentially gender related: female weakness/error/imperfection is strengthened/corrected/completed by male intervention."⁴

King also wrote, "When gender imagery is used with regard to the creation of the lower world, it is the feminine (in the guise of Sophia) that is consistently made responsible for deficiency and is associated with the corruption of the material realm. ... We see here again the common association in antiquity of the male with (positive) heavenly or spiritual qualities, the female with (negative) material aspects."⁵

This is significant to The Da Vinci Code because Dan Brown asserts that Gnosticism portrayed the goddess Sophia and the feminine divine in a positive light. In addition, he incorrectly portrays Mary Magdalene and the novel's modern day character Sophie as symbolic or posibly incarnations of the goddess Sophia.

Frederik Wisse analyzed the Nag Hammadi texts for similarities:

"Thus, finding a number of texts associated with Gnosticism that differ greatly in character and content but agree more or less in their view of femininity is a remarkable and significant fact that would permit one to speak of a trend or tendency." The view of femininity he discovered was antifeminine. "The reader of these texts is expected to be able to escape the bondage of femininity." One of the books, Zostrianos, teaches that "Femininity in the meaning of sexuality and procreation is something that can enslave everyone, and its opposite, masculinity, does not appear to be a natural quality of males but a state that all must seek in order to be saved."⁶

Tomorrow I will continue with more of these findings by Gnostic specialists.

The Gnostic View of the Feminine, Part 3 (of 6)

2006-05-16T07:38:00.000-04:00

This post continues a six day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the Gnostic view of the feminine is wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

The Nature of the Feminine in Gnosticism at First Glance

Gnostic literature is full of references to female characters, who play prominent literary roles. One such figure is Sophia, who is, to the Gnostics, a sort of goddess, and sometimes consort to Jesus. Jesus' mother Mary, his sister Mary and Mary Magdalene also figure prominently. What is more, Jesus prefers to reveal secret revelations to Mary Magdalene instead of the male disciples. For this reason some have asserted that the Gnostics were feminists and gave positions of church leadership to women as much as, or more than, to men. The literature speaks, as I mentioned, about the goddess Sophia. This has led some people, like Dan Brown, to assert that early Christians worshipped her, but the male rulers of the Church forced them to stop.

Today, people should learn more about Gnosticism before using it to support these conclusions, for a more careful analysis of the Gnostic texts leads to a very different understanding. Not only did the Gnostics believe that the body, and therefore sexuality and sexual intercourse is evil, but that femininity itself is evil.

Tomorrow I will continue by relating the findings of the scholars who specialize in the study of Gnosticism.

The Gnostic View of the Feminine, Part 2 (of 6)

2006-05-15T14:07:00.000-04:00

This post continues a six day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the Gnostic view of the feminine is wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

The Nature of Gnosticism

Technically, Gnosticism is applied loosely to a group of ancient sects that held some beliefs in common, but they each developed varying ideas and complexities within that commonality. Although they are also placed under the umbrella label of "Christian" their beliefs held them well outside the teachings of early "orthodox" Christians and the Early Church, especially those of Jesus and the Apostles. They used a rather eclectic approach to develop a new religion. They borrowed from Eastern mysticism, Greek philosophy and Christianity. However, about the only part that was Christian was the terminology they used. They used, but redefined, Christian terms like God, Jesus, and salvation and so on to fit into the mythologies they developed from other sources.

The most important aspect of their belief system, as it relates to sexuality and gender, is their view of the body and the material world. From Greek philosophy they borrowed the belief that the physical world, including the body, is evil, and only the spiritual realm is good. This is called Dualism. In this Dualism the material realm and the spiritual realm are diametrically opposed. Out of this Dualism the Gnostics derived the belief that sex and sexuality is evil. Contrary to some popular beliefs this idea, that sex is evil, is not a teaching that came from the Bible or early orthodox Christians. Unfortunately, it crept into the teaching of some churches later for reasons beyond the scope of this article.

Tomorrow I will continue by addressing more specifically the nature of the feminine in Gnostic teaching.

The Gnostic View of the Feminine, Part 1 (of 6)

2006-05-13T11:38:00.000-04:00

This post begins a six day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the Gnostic view of the feminine is wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

"Simon Peter said to them: 'Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life.' Jesus said: 'Lo, I shall lead her, so that I may make her a male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself a male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (Gospel of Thomas 114)

Introduction

Since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library in 1945 containing ancient documents written by Gnostic Christians there has been a renewed interest in the teachings of these groups that existed from around the middle of the second to perhaps the fifth centuries. At first only historians had much interest in them and only from an academic perspective. But the counter-cultural movement starting in the 1960's has driven rising interest in the general public. An increasing number of people are questioning and even rebelling from Christianity's traditional teachings on issues such as roles that women should be allowed to have in ministry and the validity of Christianity's exclusive claims to religious truth and salvation.¹

In the process of this revolution people have looked to sources of religious and social truth outside of Christianity. Some such sources have been what have been called the "alternative Christianities" of the Early Church period. These were groups like the Gnostics who also rebelled from the then traditional teachings of the orthodox Church but were not able to survive. Although little is known about the Gnostics, we possess more of their literature than other heretical groups, especially as a result of the Nag Hammadi texts. In this way, there is more to use and filter into the general publics attention. As a result people today look to their teachings and examples to garner support for their own causes. Unfortunately, popular level understanding of the beliefs of the Gnostics has diverged rather sharply from the truth. We need only to ask the scholars who often have spent their entire careers on the subject.

This ignorance has led to authors like Dan Brown in his novel The Da Vinci Code hijacking Gnosticism for their own literary, social, political and religious purposes. They have accidentally or intentionally taken advantage of the public's lack of knowledge and gullibility to exploit Gnosticism for their own gains. Yet, is it accurate to say that the Gnostics were feminists and can people rightfully uses their teachings to support radical feminist causes? This article will first explain the view that the Gnostics held toward the feminine and then explain the view that the Bible has toward the feminine.

Tomorrow I will continue by giving a brief background on the general nature of Gnosticism. This will help you understand how the Gnostics understood the feminine differently than the biblical view.

Dan Brown, Sex and Religion, Part 4 (of 4)

2006-05-12T10:24:00.000-04:00

This post concludes a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the relationship between sex and religion and specifically Christianity. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Conclusion

I have shown each of Dan Brown's assertions about sex and religion to be wrong. Early Christians did not use ritualistic sex to attain gnosis and to commune with God. Ancient religions did not believe that a woman became a goddess when she became pregnant and early Christian leaders did not demonize sex in order to control access to God. When we check the facts we find out that he seems to either make up things or parrott what he has heard from other uninformed people. In my humble opinion if he is going to write historical fiction he should at least make the historical setting accurate.

I really wonder about where Dan Brown is coming from. What is it that he wants? Does he really want to resurrect religious prostitution? That would be degrading to women and spread STDs. Does he want to justify having his own form of "sacred sex" with a consenting adult partner that sees it the same way he does? He and everyone else can do whatever they want to do in their private lives between consenting adults. But why distort history to justify it? Does he want to to be free from some kind of anti-sex conscience he got as a child from some church? Maybe he has done things for which he is, and ought to be, ashamed. He should come to God for forgiveness and a new life instead of dragging the unsuspecting public down with him.

He wrote,

Is it surprising we feel conflicted about sex? Our ancient heritage and our very physiologies tell us sex is natural—a cherished route to spiritual fulfillment—and yet modern religion decries it as shameful, teaching us to fear our sexual desire as the hand of the devil."

Someone needs to inform Dan Brown that the sexual revolution did not work. The results have been disastrous for countless people, especially for the millions of unborn children that have been sacrificed on the altar of sexual freedom and the millions of people who have died from AIDS.

What do you think?

Dan Brown, Sex and Religion, Part 3 (of 4)

2006-05-11T07:04:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the relationship between sex and religion and specifically Christianity. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Assertion 3: Religions demonize sex.

"For the early Church, mankind's use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Church out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God. For obvious reasons, they worked hard to demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act. Other major religions did the same. .... Is it surprising we feel conflicted about sex? Our ancient heritage and our very physiologies tell us sex is natural-a cherished route to spiritual fulfillment-and yet modern religion decries it as shameful, teaching us to fear our sexual desire as the hand of the devil."

Brief Answer

Brown has too simplistic a view about sex, religion and the history of the two. According to his view, all people in the ancient world thought that sex was a way to connect with God, but then the early Church leaders (as well as the Church to the present day) took away all the fun and demonized it in order to have more control over the people. This is not a fair assessment. There is no indication that early orthodox Church leaders demonized sex. The Gnostics did, but the orthodox did not. The Gnostics tried to hijack the true teachings of Christianity by syncretizing it with Greek philosophy. As I explained above, the Greek philosophy part made sex evil.. The Gnostics are the first so-called Christians to see sex as evil, not the Roman Catholic or Protestant Churches. And Dan Brown eulogizes the Gnostics! In all fairness relatively few Roman Catholics or Protestants ever demonized sex. The majority of Christians, for the majority of time, have seen sex as a gift of God to be used within the boundary of a heterosexual marriage. It is the misuse of God's gift of sex that is evil.

I do want to be clear here that I am not naively defending the Roman Catholic Church. It is guilty of being a self-proclaimed sole conduit to God. That is a perversion of biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that the sole conduit to God is the person of Jesus Christ, not a human institution or a sex ritual. If a person such as Dan Brown does not like the Bible's condemnation of sex outside of a heterosexual marriage relationship, then he should be fair and honest and say, "I disagree," rather than trying to make the Bible or the Gnostics say something they don't say or portraying the Church inaccurately.

Tomorrow I will finish this series with a conclusion:

What do you think?

Dan Brown, Sex and Religion, Part 2 (of 4)

2006-05-10T00:48:00.000-04:00

"Sophie," Langdon said quietly, "it's important to remember that the ancient's view of sex was entirely opposite from ours today. Sex begot new life-the ultimate miracle-and miracles could be performed only by a god. The ability of the woman to produce life from her womb made her sacred. A god.

Brief Answer

This is just New Age wishful thinking. Ancient religions, including Gnosticism, did not view human life as sacred. Bearing a child did not make a woman sacred, and it certainly did not make her a goddess! Only a Pharoah or king or Roman emperor could become a god, and after death at that. Some ancient near eastern religions even taught that mankind was simply created by the lazy gods to do their work for them. There was nothing sacred, nothing inherantly valuable about human life as human life. Judaism and Christianity stood in stark contrast to the other surrounding religions in that they were the only religions that affirmed that God valued human beings. Christianity teaches that we are so valuable to God that Jesus died for us, to save us from destruction. This is why Christians take a stand against abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Human life is valuable, more valuable than any other life in the universe. It is not sacred as in divine but sacred as in set apart for God's glorious purposes. No other religion besides Orthodox Judaism or Christianity affirms this. Hinduism, Buddhism and their New Age perversions certainly do not. These statements by Robert Langdon only show Dan Brown's ignorance when it comes to religion.

Tomorrow I will address:

Assertion 3: Religions demonize sex.

What do you think?

Dan Brown, Sex and Religion, Part 1 (of 4)

2006-05-09T07:27:00.000-04:00

This post begins a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the relationship between sex and religion and specifically Christianity. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Introduction

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes several assertions about the relationship between sex and religion and specifically Christianity. In this article I address these assertions, quoting the actual dialogs in his book and providing the page number where it is found. I also include the chapter number in case the text appears on different page numbers in future editions. Second, I give brief answers to each assertion to show how it is wrong. I know that many people are only seeking a brief answer and will be satisfied. For those desiring more explanation I provide links to other resources that give more detailed background information to support my answers.

The assertions are: (1) early Christians used ritualistic sex to attain gnosis and to commune with God, (2) a woman became a goddess when she became pregnant and (3) early Christian leaders demonized sex in order to control access to God. With this article I will show that these assertions are completely wrong.

Assertion 1: Religious sex rites are how we should experience God.

The ancients believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he had carnal knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis—knowledge of the divine. Since the days of Isis, sex rites had been considered man's only bridge from earth to heaven. "By communing with woman," Langdon said, "man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind went totally blank and he could see God." (Chapter 74, p. 308-309)

Brief Answer

His underlying assertion here is that Christianity derailed true religion. Ancient religions had it right and Christianity got it wrong.

To respond to this I'd like to go into a little background about what he is talking about. In the ancient world polytheistic religions had both male and female gods. Therefore, to put it in Dan Brown's terms, they believed in the "sacred masculine" and the "sacred feminine." In these religions gods came in pairs, the goddess being the consort of the male god. Some female goddesses were goddesses of fertility-for crops, animals and humans. People believed that the gods had to have sex like humans in order to have good crops and animal and human offspring. If they did not, then failed crops and infertility would result.

These religions even dedicated prostitutes to the service of these goddesses and actually performed their services in special areas of their temples. These religions taught that if you had sex with one of these temple prostitutes you would be symbolically having sex with the goddess or be acting out sex between the male and female god. This would ensure good crops and fertility for your animals and family. Brown uses a variety of terms for this: sacred sex, a sex ritual, the rite of sex, etc.

Ritualistic sex was very common to ancient neareastern religions. Dan Brown refers to it by the Greek "heiros gamos," which he says means "sacred marriage." This term is not found in the Greek New Testament and so comes from pagan religion. He doesn't make it clear if he thinks that sex with a temple prostitute is heiros gamos or sex with your wife or girlfriend is heiros gamos.

At any rate, is Dan Brown suggesting that we set up a temple with temple prostitutes so we can "know" the sacred feminine?" Is he married and if so, what does his wife think about this? This was and would again be today a very chauvinistic system. The men could have sex with female prostitutes to suppossedly connect with the sacred feminine, but his wife could not go to a male prostitute to connect with the sacred masculine. It is interesting that the radical feminists have adopted goddess worship to enable their lesbianism rather than have sacred sex with males. Are these women actually more spiritually attuned than men or are they just reacting to misogyny in their childhoods?

There is another problem, and it is with what Dan Brown says is the association of sacred sex with gnosis or Gnosticism. He simply does not know what he is talking about. In the second century C.E. (A.D.) and beyond Gnosticism repudiated the practice of temple prostitution and even sex between a husband and wife but for a different reason than did Judaism and orthodox Christianity. They believed in a simple dualistic distinction between the spirit and the material universe that made all physical matter evil and spirit good. They got this from Greek philosophers like Plato and from Persian religions not from the Old or New Testament Scriptures.

In other words, they believed the human body is evil. It is where a spark of divine spirit fell from a spiritual realm and is trapped until released in death. Bodily activities, necessities and pleasures like sex were seen as evil. As a result, they embraced the philosophy of asceticism. They renounced all that is pleasurable and lived a rigorously disciplined life. They rejected the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace. The thought that a god would have sex with a human even symbolically would have been repugnant. For this reason, they denounced Jesus coming into the world through being born from a woman. Why would a god touch a mere mortal?

The ideas of God impregnating a woman (Mary), the act of being born and the strategy of God merging with human flesh were all abhorant to the Gnostics. So too was the idea of a god in flesh dying—and to save humans at that! The Gnostics wanted nothing to do with the idea that Jesus died for our sins. While Gnostics believed in gender specific gods called "Aeons" these gods were not one and the same with the material world as the other religions taught. Although some Gnostic husbands and wives probably had sexual intercourse in order to have children they had no use for so-called sacred sex or ritualistic sex. They were the first "Christians" to view sex as evil. But sex is not how they believed they would achieve gnosis, and given their theological understandings they Christians in name only.

This turned out to be a rather long answer, but it is important to see how Dan Brown mixes together, in an eclectic fashion, the mutually exclusive ideas of pagan religions, Gnosticism and biblical Christianity. They don't really mix—like oil and water.

Tomorrow I will address:

Assertion 2: A woman becomes sacred through childbearing.

(After talking about the male orgasm and Nirvana, Langdon goes on: )

What do you think?

Dan Brown and the Sacred Feminine, Part 4 (of 4)

2006-05-08T18:41:00.000-04:00

This post concludes a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions that the Old Testament of the Bible supports the worship of a female goddess are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Conclusion

Although at different points in ancient Israel's history some of the Jews worshipped other gods besides Jehovah and even went so far as to employ religious prostitutes these practices were not part of the official teaching of Judaism nor were they sanctioned by God. In fact, there were always disastrous consequences for those who engaged in these practices. Dan Brown seems to be using these assertions to argue that Christianity derailed true religion, that we should be worshipping female deities as well as male ones and we ought to use religious prostitutes to "experience the divine." He seems to be advocating this practice, but I'd like to know what his wife would think about him going to a religious prostitute.

References

¹ Brown, Francis. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2001. 1015-1016.
² Unger, Merrill F. Unger's Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press. 1966. 1008. and Drumwright, Jr, H. L. "Shekinah." Volume Five Q-Z. Gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Vol. 5 of The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library-Zondervan. 1976. 5 vols. p. 388-391.
³ Ibid. p. 388-391.
⁴ Alden, R. L. "Queen of Heaven." Volume Five Q-Z. Gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Vol. 5 of The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library-Zondervan. 1976. 5 vols. p. 4.
⁵ Schultz, S. J. "Jeremiah." Volume Three H-L. Gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Vol. 3 of The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library-Zondervan. 1976. 5 vols. p. 434-435.
see also: "Goddess Worship" at http://www.watchman.org/profile/godsspro.htm
see also: "Sophia Worship" at http://www.watchman.org/reltop/sophia.htm

Appendix 1

The letters YHWH don't make much sense to anyone who doesn't know at least a little about the Hebrew language. First, tetragrammaton is a fancy 14 letter word that simply means "four letter word for God." Second, Hebrew doesn't use the Roman alphabet like English, French, Spanish and German so the letters YHWH are transliterations of Hebrew letters. The reason this is important to know is that depending on the dialect you can spell it with the Roman alphabet either YHWH or YHVH. The W and V are interchangeable. Third, the Hebrew alphabet does not contain any written vowels, only consonants. The vowel pronunciations must be learned by memory. A combination of consonants can be pronounced differently and mean different things based on the vowels in any language. For example, the consonants rck can form the words rack, Rick, rock, rocky or ruck. The vowels supplied make all the difference in the meaning. Fourth,the reason the word is in all capitals when it refers to God is to communicate respest for God. Fifth, this reverence for God's name even caused the ancient Jews to not even pronounce it, so we actually don't really know what vowels originally went in between the consonants, and hence how to pronounce it. To avoid pronouncing it with the original pronouciation they supplied the vowels from another word for God "Adonay" (which means "my Lord") and changed the initial "A" to "E." (Sorry, but the reason for this last change is too complicated for the present explanation.) Therefore, the vowels "e," "o," and "a" were applied to YHVH to yield YaHoVah (or YaHoWah if you prefer). Since German had no "y" but instead used "j" for that sound the Reformation scholars transliterated the word as "Jehovah." Whew! I hope you're still with me.

Most Hebrew scholars view YHWH as a form of the word HaVeH. In this form it means "the one who is" or "the absolute and unchangeable one."¹ When Moses encountered God, he asked God for His name. God replied, "YHVH." Many scholars translate this word, "I AM WHO I AM." In other words, God has always existed, exists and will always continue to exist. However, God doesn't just exist like some aloof god way up on Mt. Olympus. He is also not an impersonal force like the Force in Star Wars that seeks an equal balance of good and evil. He is a personal God. He is ever present among us and active in the affairs of life on earth to lead us to a saving personal relationship with Him.

The word and its relatives are as rich and varied in meaning and uses as the concept of existence. Eve's name derives from the same word. Adam gave her this name when it became apparent that the existence and life of all future humans depended on her. Just as God was the original giver of human life she would now be the giver of human life. The name YHWH is not derived from her name. They are both derived from the same word or family of words. Finally, as pointed out above, Jah (YH) is not a full name but a contraction for YHWH and is used most frequently in the Psalms (but not exclusively). All of this shows that the Hebrew name for God reinforces the idea that God is one God not many and certainly not a combination of a male and female deity.

References in Appendix 1

¹ Brown, Francis. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2001. p. 218.

Tomorrow I will:

What do you think?

Dan Brown and the Sacred Feminine, Part 3 (of 4)

2006-05-07T19:14:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions that the Old Testament of the Bible supports the worship of a female goddess are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Assertion 3: The Old Testament name for God proves they believed in the divine feminine.

Langdon to Sophie: "The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH-the sacred name of God-in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah." (Chapter 74, p. 309)

Brief Answer

Dan Brown, like all conspiracy theorists, is manipulating the letters of words to read into them what he wants them to mean. He does this with other words and phrases throughout the book. What he comes up with, though, is nonsense. The word Jehovah is a German transliteration of the Hebrew word, not the other way around. The next part of the nonsense is his "androgynous physical union between a masculine word and a female name." Think about it. That is nonsense. Did the words have sex or what? The fact is that Jah is simply an abbreviated form of Jehovah and is used mainly in the Psalms. So to say either Jah or Jehovah is to say the exact same thing. Finally, Jehovah does not derive from Eve's name. They both derive from a common word or family of words, the meaning of which I explain below in Appendix 1.

One God alone

At this point I would like to quote various Old Testament passages that make it clear that Judaism believed (and still does) in one God. There are no others. The very first of the Ten Commandments says: "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3) The Hebrew can also be translated "besides Me" as the New International Version indicates in a footnote. The second commandment elaborates this prohibition to worship other Gods (Exodus 20:4-6).

Deuteronomy 12:1 - 13:18 makes it very clear that Israel is to follow God alone. It warns that if a prophet, a dreamer (one who receives revelations from God through a dream), a family member, or even a whole town says, "Let us go and worship other gods...do not yield to him (e.g. 13:8)." They are even to be put to death! "It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere (13:4)."

I Kings 11:1 - 13 tells us how God forbade King Solomon (King David's son and successor) to worship or build alters to foreign gods for his foreign wives. Solomon did anyway, and God promised, "I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give to one of your subordinates...tear it out of the hand of your son." (which He did)

In the time of the prophet Jeremiah (627-586 B.C.E) , some of the Jews were worshipping a goddess referred to as Queen of Heaven (see 7:18, 44:17). She was called Ishtar by the Assyrians and Astarte or Ashtoreth by the Canaanites.⁴ But this and the worship of other gods and goddesses was a chief reason God punished the southern kingdom (Judah). In 586 the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and took thousands into captivity.⁵

The whole Bible, Old and New Testaments alike reflect and bask in this monotheism.

Tomorrow I will:

Provide the conclusion to this series, a list of endnote references, and an Appendix which explains more about the Hebrew name for God "YHWH'"

What do you think?

Dan Brown and the Sacred Feminine, Part 2 (of 4)

2006-05-06T19:57:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions that the Old Testament of the Bible supports the worship of a female goddess are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Assertion 2: Old Testament Judaism condoned sex with priestesses.

Langdon to Sophie: "Men seeking spiritual wholeness came to the Temple to visit priestesses-or hierodules-with whom they made love and experienced the divine through phyiscal union." (Chapter 74, p. 309)

Brief Answer

It is true that during a particularly degenerate period of time some Jews practiced temple prostitution in the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel (c. 931-c. 640 B.C.). However, this was not the norm and God did not sanction or approve of it. Therefore, if men thought they were experiencing the divine through physical union they were mistaken. They were just experiencing emotional bliss for a short moment, a subjective psychological experience they misinterpreted as connecting with God. They were forsaking the worship of the God of Israel to worship false gods. God punished this idolatry later by allowing the Northern and Southern kingdoms to be independently taken into captivity by surrounding nations. The Jews apparently learned their lesson, as that kind of idolotry has not been practiced since.

In Old Testament times God condemned the practice of temple prostitution for the Jews because it promoted a false view of God and His creation as well as a false view of how to relate to and be reconciled to Him. First, the Old Testament scriptures (especially Genesis 1) taught that there is one God, who is neither male nor female but Spirit. They teach that He transcends His creation. He is completely distinct from what He has created. There are no other gods and goddesses that control different aspects of creation. He alone ultimately provides for our needs through his grace and blessing. One cannot be united with God or manipulate his reproductive blessing through a ritual of sacred sex. We cannot do anything to earn His blessings. His blessings are motivated by His love, grace and mercy. Second, neither can we be reconciled to God through our own efforts (especially ritual sex). Instead, God Himself, through Jesus Christ, paid for our sins through His death on the cross. We are reconciled to Him by His love, grace and mercy. One can readily see there is a world of difference between the uses and attitudes toward sex in Judaism and Christianity and those of the ancient pagan religions (and neopagan religions today). Some Jews did attempt to import pagan sex rituals into their worship at the Temple but with disastrous results.

Tomorrow I will address:

Assertion 3: The Old Testament name for God proves they believed in the divine feminine.

Dan Brown and the Sacred Feminine, Part 1 (of 4)

2006-05-05T12:28:00.000-04:00

This post begins a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions that the Old Testament of the Bible supports the worship of a female goddess are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Introduction

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes several assertions about the worship of the sacred feminine in Old Testament Israel. In this article I address these assertions, quoting the actual dialogs in his book and providing the page number where it is found. I also include the chapter number in case the text appears on different page numbers in future editions. Second, I give Brief Answers to each assertion to show how it is wrong. I know that many people are only seeking a Brief Answer and will be satisfied. For those desiring more explanation I provide links to other resources that give more detailed background information to support my answers.

One of the main themes in the The Da Vinci Code is that early Christian leaders revised original Christian teaching to exclude goddesses and goddess worship. Other terms Brown uses are the "sacred feminine," "the feminine divine," and "sacred sex." Brown implies that because the worship of goddesses was ancient and common that it must be right. He sees Christianity's anti-goddess stance as wrong, misguided, and chauvinistic. He attempts to do this by making several wrong assertions including: (1) the Jews in Old Testament times worshipped a female goddess, Shekinah, (2) and used temple prostitutes to "experience the divine," (3) the sacred name for God was a union of masculine and feminine names for God.

Assertion 1: The Old Testament teaches that God had a female equal.

Langdon to Sophie: "Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah." (Chapter 74, p. 309)

Brief Answer

Dan Brown is trying to suggest that the Judaism of Old Testament times had two gods, one male and one female. This would make it a polytheistic religion that had pairs of gods just like the other religions of the time. Brown is simply wrong. Its intense monotheism made Judaism distinct from all other religions of the time. The God of the Jews (and Christians) was and is one God who is neither male nor female. Sadly, some Jews at some times lapsed into worshipping other (false) gods (and severely punished by God for it), but none of them were called Shekinah.

Shekinah does not refer to a goddess at all. Shekinah means "residence" and was used in Judaism after the Old Testament was finished to describe God's abiding presence and continual activity in the world and in the life of Israel.¹

A little background in the difference between Judaism and other religions of the time will help us see this more clearly. I begin by defining two terms. Polytheism is the belief in the existence of many gods. Polytheism usually has elements of Pantheism, which is the belief that a god is inseparably linked to a material object like two sides of the same coin. For example, the sun would be the physical representation of the sun god. The river in front of you would be the physical representation of the river god, etc. Judaism and Christianity rejected this, teaching that there is only one God who created the universe, and that He is separate from it. The very beginning, the very foundation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Genesis chapter one, contains a strong polemic against polytheism and for monotheism. Therefore, if there is one and only one God who actually exists and is perfect in every way there is no need for any lesser gods. He created the natural universe to follow a program powered by inanimate natural forces so there is no need for gods to make nature work. In other words, the sun is an inanimate object that God created and follows natural forces to move (from our perspective) across the sky, so a god doesn't need to push, pull or carry it to make it move.

The word Shekinah then embodied two concepts that made the monotheism of Israel completely different from polytheism: First, God is "completely other" than the universe He created and second, He is still immanently present and at work in it. He was so interested in man's well being (which the other gods weren't) that He tangibly manifested His presence to Israel. The Targums, which were later Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament, did refer to the presence of God in the Holy of Holies as the "Shekinah" or "Shekinah Glory," and the Holy of Holies in the Temple certainly was the symbolic location of the presence of God, but this was the presence of the one and only God of Israel.². This "glory of the Lord" (e.g. Ezekiel 9:3) was always understood to be a tangible manifestation of Israel's one God—Yahweh—never as a separate goddess. A proper understanding of Shekinah undermines Dan Brown's argument that the ancient Jews officially believed in a feminine god named Shekinah. Instead, it reaffirms Israel's official belief in one God who is neither male nor female but genderless Spirit.

Tomorrow I will address:

Assertion 2: Old Testament Judaism condoned sex with priestesses.

What do you think?

The Council of Nicea, Part 2 (of 2)

2006-05-03T06:44:00.000-04:00

This post concludes a two day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Constantine and the Council of Nicea (325 AD) are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

The second idea in this assertion is that Constantine bullied the Council to vote the way he wanted them to in order to consolidate his political power. Unfortunately, records of the actual proceedings have not survived. What we know about the proceedings are from letters written by those who attended. Even so, these sources still give us plenty to work from. The Arian and anti-Arian factions came to a stalemate at which point Constantine intervened. He persuaded the Council to vote on the wording of the Nicene Creed saying that Christ is "of the same substance with the Father." The Arians could not accept this term. Certainly, some of the bishops voted with Constantine because of his prestige and fears of what might happen if they didn't. However, this could not have been the case with all of them. Many of them lived through earlier persecutions and proved that they were willing to die for what they believed was true. If they did not agree with him he would not have been able to bully all of them. Incidentally, only Arius and two of the council's bishops out of the 200 that attended dissented. Therefore, Teabing calling it "a relatively close vote at that" is simply wrong.

It is true that Constantine was motivated by a desire to hold his new empire together, but this controversy was not the only threat to that. He had just won a civil war started by his power hungry co-emperor and brother-in-law Licinius. He also realized that the success of his rule would involve the ever increasing and highly organized Christian population. According to research done by sociologist Rodney Stark, the population of Christians would have been around 12 million or 20 percent of the population of the Roman Empire around the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. They were growing at a rate of about 40 percent every 10 years. At this rate a full half of the population would have been Christian in 350 C.E. Some have asserted wrongly that the new Christian Roman Empire forced Christianity on the masses; however, as Stark puts it, "Constantine's conversion would better be seen as a response to the massive exponential wave in progress, not as its cause."³

In addition, working with the Christian population rather than trying to suppress it was the wisest strategy. Constantine was not the first to discover this. The persecutions by the emperor Diocletian in 303 and his successor Galerius in 305 failed to limit Christianity's growth and influence. Galerius, in 311, and then Constantine, in 313, made edicts of toleration that set official state policy in a new direction of tolerance toward Christianity. Yet that was not enough. The growing doctrinal divisions in the Christian population were a threat to the stability of the Empire. Something had to be done to reunite them.

But if consolidating power was all Constantine was concerned about, why would he have patiently stuck out the whole six months of deliberations at the Council of Nicea? Certainly he had other pressing matters as Emperor. He demonstrated his great patience and a conciliatory strategy more than a tyrannical iron fist. Given the enormous weight of responsibility as Emperor it is amazing that he took the time and trouble to become an expert in the issues involved and attend the Council. This shows how important the crisis had become. It also shows how large a part of the population was Christian. In addition, regardless of his motivation, he conceived and proposed a brilliant theological solution. His understanding of the divine nature of Jesus Christ is the position that theologians agree with to this day, not because they have simply been indoctrinated and can't think for themselves, but because it is the best answer to a tough question. This does not justify the atrocities he committed to deal with dissenters over the course of the rest of his life, and it does not justify the Crusades or the Inquisition or any other such actions of later Church leaders. It does serve, however, as a good example of how God is sovereign in the affairs of imperfect men.

Conclusion

When we take the time to study the ancient documents it is not difficult to conclude that Dan Brown has no idea what he is talking about. He obviously did not do much objective research or worst, he is deliberately misrepresenting history for his own theological and political purposes. The belief that Jesus' is divine did not originate with Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Jesus' followers acknowledged His divinity from the very beginning of the Christian movement.

I feel bad for Sophie Neveu as she is being duped by Teabing's false history. I feel even worst for the mass public that reads The Da Vinci Code. Sophie's literary purpose for existence seems to be to symbolically represent the average reader who is ignorant of history. Yet she is being taught a false history. All this is deceiving the masses and it is a travesty.

References

¹ Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003. 2.

² See the following references on the Council of Nicea and the role of Constantine:

Davidson, Ivor J. The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30-312. Consult. eds. John D. Woodbridge and David Wright. Series ed. Tim Dowley. Vol. 1 of The Baker History of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2004.

Eusebius. The History of the Church. 1965. Trans. and Introd. G. A. Williamson. New York: Barnes & Noble. 1995.

Hinson, E. Glenn. The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages. Nashville: Abingdon. 1996.

Smith, M. A. From Christ to Constantine. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity P. 1971.

³ Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: a Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1996. 6, 7, 10.

Additional online resources

The following webpage contains the Nicene Creed and explains each phrase:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creed.nicene.txt

The Council of Nicea, Part 1 (of 2)

2006-05-02T06:53:00.000-04:00

This post begins a two day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Constantine and the Council of Nicea (325 AD) are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

In the Da Vinci Code Dan Brown makes some assertions about what The Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) concluded about Jesus' divinity. In the process he misrepresents the facts of history and makes up his own wishful alternative history in the process. Because he words his assertions like hollow sound bites for the evening news or a political rally many people who haven't studied early Church history are being duped and led astray from the truth. In a nutshell he believes that before the Council was held Christians viewed Jesus as just a man, not God. Then Emperor Constantine hijacked Christianity for political purposes forcing the Council to determine that Jesus was divine.

In this article I address his assertions, quoting the actual dialogs in his book, providing the page number where it is found. I also include the chapter number in case the text appears on different page numbers in future editions. Second, I show how he is wrong. I know that many people are only seeking a brief answer and will be satisfied. For those desiring more explanation I provide links to other resources that give more detailed background information to support my answer.

Assertion: Jesus was "voted" to be divine at the Council of Nicea

Concerning the belief that Jesus is divine Dan Brown asserts that Jesus' early followers did not originally believe He was divine. Instead he was "voted" to be divine by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Furthermore, the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine convened the Council in a brilliant political move to consolidate his power.

In Teabing's little pseudo-history lesson to Sophie about the Council of Nicea he declares,

"until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." (Sophie replies in shock) "Not the Son of God?" "Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea." (Chapter 55, p. 233)

A little later in the conversation Teabing even uses hyperbole to stretch the truth about the Council's timing saying,

"Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death." (Chapter 55, p. 234)

Answer

Since Jesus died around 33 A.D. simple math would put the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) only 292 years after His death rather than "almost four centuries." But this is hardly the worst mistake Brown makes. He shows he has either not read any actual history books or completely ignores them. Either way, what he says is pure fabrication. The idea that Jesus was not seen as divine before the Council of Nicea simply cannot be supported by the facts. Teabing's claim that "the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity..." (Chapter 55, p. 233) is simply wrong. Jesus, Himself, claimed to be divine, and the Apostles believed He was divine.¹ The majority of Christians and their leaders of the second and third centuries believed He was divine. Most leaders of Gnostic and other heretical groups believed He was divine but denied His humanity. To deny this fact is to ignore history.

The Council of Nicea did not gather to decide whether or not Jesus was divine.² Everyone there already believed Jesus was God. The issue at stake was whether Jesus was of the same divine substance as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit or of a different divine substance. In other words, was Jesus the same God as God the Father or was He a different, second God. This is called the Arian Controversy named after Arius, the leader of the minority view. Arius was a very devout Christian who held Jesus Christ in very high regard but wanted to uphold the Old Testament teaching that God is one God (Deut. 6:14). He thought that to say Jesus was also God who had no beginning would be to say there are two Gods, not one. Arius taught that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God the Father and therefore must be subordinate to Him. He believed that although Jesus was divine He did not exist throughout eternity with the Father. In other words, He was divine but not of the same divine essence as the Father.

This might all seem like just a game of semantics or splitting hairs, but it was and still is a distinction of utmost importance. The early church struggled to understand the dual nature of Christ, that is, the ability for Him to be both God and man. They also struggled to understand the nature of the Holy Spirit, an issue that was sidestepped at this Council. The reason it took them so long to figure out the right answers was because they were still influenced by the Greek philosophy of subordinationism--the idea that some deities came from other deities and were therefore subordinated to them. In one sense the controversies were bad, often taking tragic turns banishing or executing dissenters, but God in His sovereignty used the controversies to finally steer men to a clear understanding of His triune nature. God's triune nature means essentially that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all distinct personal Gods but share the same substance and will to such a full and perfect degree they are one. For a more detailed explanation of this please read The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity

Tomorrow I will conclude this article by addressing the idea that Constantine bullied the Council to vote the way he wanted them to in order to consolidate his political power. I will also include the endnotes to the above references.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 13 (of 13)

2006-05-01T08:07:00.000-04:00

This post concludes a series on the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels. This is an important issue regarding The Da Vinci Code as Dan Brown argues (cloaked in fiction) that they are not a reliable record of Jesus' life. Each day's post will be a small chunk of a larger article The Bible: A Relic or Reliable Revelation? at my website New Media Ministries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe we have answered the very important questions we asked at the beginning: (1) Can and does the Bible accurately transmit the records and content of God's revelations to us. (2) Can and does the Bible accurately communicate what God is like, what His absolute truth is, what His absolute standards of morality are and how we are to live in light of them? The answer is a resounding "YES!"

But in the future, you will hear or read about some problem with the Bible that will cause you to panic and think, "Oh no, I'm a fool to believe this!" This still happens to me occasionally. But remember there's another side to the issue and competent scholars have addressed it, and, if you want, you can find the solution that restores faith.

References and Resources

Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. 2001.

Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. 1987.

Bock, Darrel L. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2002.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. 1987.

Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove:Intervarsity Press. 1972.

France, R. T., The Evidence for Jesus. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, 1986, pp. 106-111.

Fuller, Reginald. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives. New York:Macmillan. 1971.

Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall (eds). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1992.

McDonald, Lee M. The formation of the Christian biblical canon. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1995.

Metzger, Bruce. The canon of the New Testament: Its origin, developmemnt, and significance. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1987.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. Grand Rapids:Zondervan Publishing House. 2000.

Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans. 2000.

Wilkins, Michael J. and Moreland, J. P. Jesus Under Fire. Grand Rapids:Zondervan Publishing House. 1995.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 12 (of 13)

2006-04-29T07:07:00.000-04:00

Why is history so important in Christianity?

Today, I have argued that the Bible is an accurate picture of what really happened to real people in history. But why is history so important in Christianity? Why is it so important that the facts in the Bible really happened? The answer is, that is what sets Christianity apart from all other religions and their sacred books. The other religions are based on rituals, superstitions, philosophical principles, the teachings of men who never claimed to know the truth, myths and legends. By contrast, Christianity is based on real historical events involving real people. It is not how much faith we have in something that is important but the integrity of the object we are placing our faith on.

Can you picture the elderly apostle John remembering as if it was yesterday what it was like to be with the Jesus he vividly remembers? He wrote this in 1 John 1:1-5a:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete. This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you.

When we read the NT and we see how Jesus worked in the lives of real people in another time and place we realize He can work in our lives as well. We see how Jesus overcame sin for all people, times and places. Christianity has solutions for real life back then, right now and tomorrow. But the scriptures of all other religions leave us in confusion, doubt, fear and despair.

How the sacred books are to be used is different as well. The Hindu scriptures are supposed to be interpreted by gurus, the Buddhist scriptures by priests and the Islamic scriptures by clerics. Go to the library sometime, sit down and try to read the Hindu Bagavad Gita and try to understand it for yourself. But the Bible was written in a way that is clear and straightforward so we can understand it on our own. John, in his biography of Jesus wrote plainly,

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

The authors speak to us personally, individually, directly.

Finally, the Bible leaves us with a solution and a hope. Not only does the Bible fairly and accurately define our state of being completely lost and without hope of eternal life, it records the solution that Jesus provides. Here is a sample you've heard countless times before, but as I read it, think about the clarity of it:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

That is based on an accurate account of what really happened not myth or superstition. And that's why I put my faith in Jesus Christ for my salvation.

Tomorrow I will finish this long series with a brief conclusion the a list of the references I used in my research.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 11 (of 13)

2006-04-28T09:45:00.000-04:00

The Nature of Faith and Proof

I'd like to digress a little bit and say a few helpful things about proof and faith. Until we stand before God in Heaven no one will ever be able to prove beyond any possibility of doubt that there is a God or that there isn't a God, that there are miracles or that there are no miracles, that Jesus rose from the dead or didn't rise from the dead or that the Bible is completely trustworthy or not. But that is not necessary anyway. The only way you can have 100% proof about something is by committing yourself to it, testing it and seeing if it is real. When you sat down on your chair today you didn't know beyond all doubt that it would hold you up. You couldn't know until you actually sat down. Now, you probably didn't even think about it consciously but subconsciously you looked at the chair and said, "I'm approaching this decision about sitting in this chair in an open-minded, unbiased fashion, after all my bottom and my ego are at stake. It has four legs, looks stable, and someone else was just sitting in it; therefore it will probably hold me up as well."

In other words, you examined the evidence with an open mind and decided you were entitled to believe it would hold you up. When you sat down and it held you up that is when you had 100% proof, not a moment before. And what about your faith? Is your faith holding the chair together? If you had less faith would the chair fall apart and you wind up on the floor? If you had more faith would that make the chair hold together longer? You can put your faith in faith but it is not your faith that is holding you up. The chair is holding you up. In other words, our faith is certainly important but not as important as the object of our faith. You could have a lot of faith in a broken chair that is missing a leg. But your faith won't hold you up if you sit in the chair. On the other hand, a small amount of faith in the right object will hold you up. This is why Jesus said, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing is impossible for you."

The skeptics' bias against God and miracles is like a chair missing a leg and they still put their faith in it. But when we put them to the test like we have today, their skepticism and conclusions don't hold them up. To put our faith in something that has been proven to not hold up under pressure is foolish. In contrast, when we look at the abundant evidence available to us we have every reason, every right to believe in God, Jesus' death on the cross, Jesus' resurrection and the trustworthiness of the Bible. It is the most sensible thing to do.

We have spent the last eleven days talking about the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels, but why history is so important in Christianity? That's tomorrow's topic.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 10 (of 13)

2006-04-27T08:36:00.000-04:00

The State of Scholarship regarding the Gospels

Now, if all of what I have said is true then why do many scholars, teachers and other educated people believe the Gospels are not reliable and that they are just full of legends, myths and contradictions? There are two major reasons: First, many scholars and lay people simply are not familiar with the current state of scholarship. They just parrot what they were taught by their teachers who probably parroted what they learned from their teachers and so on. Remember this was the case with Sir William Ramsey whose professor taught him to not trust the Gospel of Luke to be historically accurate. But when he did his own research he concluded that Luke was one of the greatest historians of the ancient world and could be trusted. There are many competent, leading New Testament scholars who regard the Gospels as highly reliable.

The second reason is an across-the-board bias against the supernatural. This anti-supernatural bias has reigned in all academic fields, including biblical and theological studies, for the past 200 years. They assume before they even look at the facts that there is no transcendent personal God who acts in human history. If there is no personal God that is over and above everything else then a man who claims to be God in the flesh is a liar, a lunatic or a legend. Therefore, any document or set of documents that claims there was a man who claimed to be God and did supernatural miracles can't be right. It can't be trusted. But we have to ask these people, "What makes you so sure there is no God and no such thing as a miracle?" Do you know everything about the universe? Were you present in every moment of everyone's history to verify that nothing ever happened outside of normal natural laws? If you were, then you are God yourself and we should be worshipping you!

No person can be intellectually honest, fair and objective when they start with a bias that determines what they can and can not find. But when we start with no bias against what we don't want to find and let the facts speak for themselves we discover abundant evidence that entitles us to believe that there really is a personal, loving God who came into our world to provide salvation from our sin.

Tomorrow I will write about the nature of faith and proof.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 9 (of 13)

2006-04-26T08:19:00.000-04:00

The Copies Have Been Accurately Translated

The final step in the process of transmitting God's revelation to us is the translation of those accurate copies into our own language. I believe it is a waste of time and emotional energy to try to argue that one translation is the only "right" translation. The issue in translation is how "wooden" you want it to be.

And this variation occurs in a continuum. On one extreme, you can translate the Greek word by word to preserve the original word order but it won't be very easy to read in English. You can loosen the translation a little bit to rearrange the English words in the order in which we are used to reading them. It would still be an accurate translation. You can loosen it still more to emphasize more of the flow of thoughts and ideas rather than the individual words. Finally, on the other extreme is a paraphrase like the Living Bible.

The question is not which translation is the right translation? The question is which is the best translation for your purposes right now? If you are doing an in depth, analytical study of a passage but can't study it in the Greek then a more wooden translation like the New King James or the New International Version is the best. If you are having a Quiet Time and just want to catch the major ideas then a paraphrase like the Living Bible might serve you better. But the bottom line is that anyone can get most of the meaning of the original text by studying any of the English translations.

OK. So we have a large number of copies made within a short period of time after the originals were penned. These copies are 98% genuine. The English translations we study today are accurate. What does all this mean? Well, this is the key point I want to make as clear as I can. This is why I'm up here today. What all this shows is that our modern Bibles are accurate translations of accurate copies of the original manuscripts written by authors like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. When we read what Jesus taught and when we read the accounts of Jesus healing people, and when we read how Jesus was crucified, buried and then seen alive again we can be certain that these things really did happen. It's all true. If we apply the same tests to the rest of the New Testament and to the Old Testament, we come up with the same results there, as well. No one who learns the facts can still say with intellectual honesty that the Bible we have today is not an accurate representation of what really happened. It is not full of myths and legends and contradictions. It is what really happened in the lives of real people just like you and me.

Tomorrow, I will briefly write about the state of scholarship regarding the Gospels.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 8 (of 13)

2006-04-25T07:15:00.000-04:00

The Gospels were accurately copied

The Bibliographic Test

There is another test that historians use called the Bibliographic Test. The Bibliographic Test determines the accuracy of the copies. Obviously, the more accurate the copies, the closer they reflect the reality of what actually happened. To do this we must know two things: (1) how much time elapsed between the original and the oldest copies, and (2) how many copies there are. Common sense tells us that the closer the copies are in time to the originals the more reliable they are likely to be; and the more copies there are the easier it is to catch any changes made.

The difference in time between the originals and the oldest copies

First, let's deal with the difference in time between the originals and the oldest copies that we possess. To put the original Gospel documents and their copies in perspective let's compare them to other important ancient documents and their copies. If we took a representative sample of ancient literature, it would include some familiar names like Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Herodotus, Sophocles, Homer and others. On average, the oldest copies that we possess of these ancient writers were made around a thousand years after the originals were written. There were copies made during that thousand years, but either they didn't survive or have not been discovered yet. So the oldest ones we have were made around a thousand years after the originals.

So, for example, Plato lived and wrote around 400 BC. The oldest copy anyone possesses is from around 900 AD. That is a difference of about 1,300 years. Tacitus who was one of the most important historians of Rome wrote in around 100 AD. But the oldest copy we have of his writings is from around 1100 AD. That is a time span of a thousand years. Now Homer is a little better. There was only a time span of about 500 years between his writings and the oldest copies. But this is a major exception, and 500 years is still a long time. In big, bold, bright, beautiful contrast, the oldest copies we have of the NT documents. The original NT documents were written between around 60 and 100 AD. We have manuscript copies that date from around 120 AD to the early 300's. Let's do the math. The maximum time difference between the oldest originals in around 50 AD to the copies in the early 300's is only around 250 years. Many of the copies are earlier than that. So this is not much time. Why is this significant? Schoars have determined this is not enough time for major changes to occur during the copy process. As a modern day example, we still have the original Declaration of Independence and Constitution to compare copies to.

The Number of Copies

The second issue in helping to establish the accuracy of the copies is the number of copies. Let's contrast the number of copies with other ancient historical literature. Let's return to our representative sample of ancient writers. Again, Homer is better. There are 643 copies of Homer's Iliad. He was no doubt the most widely read author back then. But, again, he is by far a major exception. Did you know we only have 7 copies of Plato's works? We only have 20 copies of the works of Tacitus. We only have 5 copies of Aristotle's writings. I could go on but the numbers are very similar. Now what about the NT copies? How many do we have? We have approximately 5,000 Greek copies, about 8,000 Latin copies and more than 350 Syriac copies all done by the early 400's AD. Now that is impressive!

The Accuracy of the Copies

The third issue is how do we know if they were accurate copies and not full of intentional or unintentional errors? Well, there are many principles and techniques that historians use to validate the accuracy of copies. This is both an art and a science that is used on other ancient literary works as well. We apply the same principles and techniques in forensic investigations today. I will spare you all the detail and just give you the bottom line. If you really are interested in learning more about this or anything I've talked about today I will be more than happy to help you explore it further.

The bottom line is this: scholars have concluded the Greek manuscripts from which we translate our English Bibles are 98% genuine. That is, only about 2 percent varies from the original manuscripts. These variations are minor as they are mostly things like different spellings of names of people and places. None of the variations make a difference in the meaning of the passage or the theological doctrines that make up Christianity. That is amazing! Did God superintend this process or not?

Tomorrow, we will address the last step in the process. Do we have accurate translations?

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 7 (of 13)

2006-04-24T08:15:00.000-04:00

This post continues a series on the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels. This is an important issue regarding The Da Vinci Code as Dan Brown argues (cloaked in fiction) that they are not a reliable record of Jesus' life. Each day's post will be a small chunk of a larger article The Bible: A Relic or Reliable Revelation? at my website New Media Ministries.

So far we have seen that the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death, burial and post-resurrection appearances were passed on accurately for only about one generation of eyewitnesses using strict standards of accuracy in the Oral Tradition. We've seen that the accounts were written down by credible eyewitnesses. The Internal Consistency Test shows that what they wrote is accurate and reliable.

The External Corroboration Test

Next, we will evaluate their accuracy as historically reliable documents based on external evidence. This is the External Corroboration Test. There are two ways we can use this test to affirm the historical reliability of the NT documents. We can compare what they say to what other ancient historians reported. We can also use archaeology to affirm or disprove what they wrote. If other ancient writers unanimously report something contrary to the NT or if archaeology shows the NT in error then we don't have much reason to trust it.

Affirmed by other ancient writers

We often hear the criticism that the only information we have about Jesus is found in the Gospels and that we don't have any other historical records about Him. But this is simply wrong. Several reliable ancient non-Christian historians outside of the Bible give testimonies about Christ. They were Jewish and Roman and had no reason to be partial to Jesus Christ or the early Christians. Even liberal scholars agree on the basic picture given when we combine these testimonies:

Jesus was from Nazareth;

He lived a wise and virtuous life;

He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king;

He was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later;

His enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats;

His small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome;

His disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshipped Christ as Divine.

Well what do you know? This picture confirms the view of Jesus Christ and his followers presented in the Gospels.

In addition, there were ancient Christian writers in the period of time following the Apostles (c. 95-150 AD). They quoted the New Testament documents extensively as they wrote to fellow Christians. By extensively, I mean 36,000 quotations all together! Scholars have laboriously compiled those quotations and have been able to reconstruct all but 11 verses of the New Testament. This means two things. First, even if we didn't have any copies of the New Testament manuscripts we could reconstruct what the original manuscripts said from these quotations. Second, we can use both this compilation and the thousands of manuscript copies to check each other for accuracy. Of course, when we do, the accuracy is so high that we can be certain that what we read today is a good translation of what the original authors of the New Testament wrote. That's reason for faith.

Affirmed by archaeology

Now what about the archaeological evidence? That is an important part of the External Corraboration Test. Archaeologist Nelson Glueck has boldly asserted,

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.

Sir William Ramsey is regarded as one of the great NT archaeologists of the past century. At first he was convinced that the book of Acts, written by Luke, was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (around 50 AD), and therefore, it was unworthy of consideration by a historian. He quite naturally thought this because that is what his professors taught him. However, after 30 years of his own research about Asia Minor, Ramsey changed his mind. He concluded,

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.

OK, so far we've established that the news passed along through the Oral Tradition remained accurate and that the original manuscripts were accurate written records of that information. So if you were to read any of the original manuscripts you would have an accurate description of what really happened. But unfortunately, we don't have any of the original manuscripts in any museum or collection in the world. For example, we don't have the original Gospel of Luke in Luke's own handwriting. We must rely on copies and copies of copies. So how do we know these copies are accurate? Wouldn't there be intentional as well as unintentional changes in the process of copying? In short, how can we know if what we read, for example, about Jesus' death, burial and resurrection in our modern English Bibles is really what happened? How can we be certain that Jesus really did claim to be God? Did he really say, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.?" Perhaps these statements were made up and inserted by those whose job it was to copy the manuscripts for others to read?

Tomorrow, we will see how the Bibliographic Test shows they were copied accurately.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 6 (of 13)

2006-04-22T10:21:00.000-04:00

The Credibility Test

If you witnessed a crime against a friend or loved one you would probably want the opportunity to give your eyewitness testimony in a court of law. Now do you think the defense attorney would want you to testify? No. It might undermine his defense of the client. So what will he or she try to do? He or she will attempt to prove that your testimony is not credible. What criteria, then, would you need to meet in order to prove that your eyewitness testimony is credible? First, you would have to show that you are of trustworthy character, willing to tell the truth. Second, you would have to be able to tell the truth. In other words, you would be able to tell the truth because you are of sound mind and witnessed the crime. A careful study of the people who witnessed and recorded Jesus' life, death and post-resurrection appearances shows they met those criteria of credibility. They had every reason to want to and to be able to tell accurately and truthfully what they experienced.

The Internal Consistency Test

There are a couple more criteria to prove that your testimony would be accurate. These get into the Internal Consistency Test. First, your testimony would have to be consistent. If you were inconsistent in how you reported the event you would undermine your own credibility. It would sound like you are making it up as you testify or were too unsure of what you witnessed to be reliable. Second, your testimony would also have to coincide with the other facts and circumstances involved. Applying this to documents the Internal Consistency Test shows us how credible, acceptable and accurate a document is whether it is ancient or modern. This test deals with the apparent conflicts or inconsistencies within the document or set of documents. Many people say, "Oh, I can't accept the Bible with all of its contradictions." There certainly are some apparent contradictions. For instance, there are inconsistencies among the accounts of the empty tomb. One account says there were two angels at the tomb to tell the women Jesus had risen while another account said it was one. One says they were two men, another says it was one man. Well, which were they? Were they angels or men and how many? Can they be reconciled? If so, how?

Let's return to your eyewitness testimony. Let's suppose that the crime you witnessed was in another country. You would have some additional barriers to relating your testimony in a credible way. But it's not because you didn't accurately see what happened or that you want to distort the truth. The barriers to communication come from differences in things like language, cultural values, and geographical features. In a similar way, when we are reading the Bible and come across an inconsistency it may be that we are literally missing something in the translation. Most inconsistencies have been reconciled when scholars learn more about the contexts in which it was written. Some of these contexts are language, culture and geography. Every language has its own genres of literature, figures of speech and idioms. Every culture has differences in philosophical, religious and economic outlooks. Geography is important as well. What might be normal in the temperate Piedmont of NC might not be normal in a desert in the Middle East. The apparent major contradictions have been reconciled. Any minor inconsistencies that have not been reconciled are just that, minor inconsistencies that don't have a significant bearing on the meaning of the text.

That brings us to the other question we must ask about any inconsistency is, "Just how big is it?" If you told your eyewitness testimony in a court room, I will guarantee you that it will not agree in every detail with the other eyewitnesses even if you and they are earnestly attempting to recount the true story. You will disagree on things like the number of people, the clothes they were wearing, the kind of vehicle or the time of day and many other points. Does this mean the court should throw out your whole testimony as being not credible just because it differs slightly from the other? No. In fact, it would be very suspicious if all of your testimonies were identical. This would mean that you all got together and agreed beforehand on what the story was going to be. This would be collusion and it would severely undermine your testimony.

Well then, just how much do the testimonies have to agree? Well here are some standards used in courts today. First, they must be in complete agreement on major points. Second, they must be in complete agreement on significant details supporting the major points. Third, there must be acceptable variation on non-supporting details. And fourth, they must be given the benefit of the doubt. So, for example, even without attempting to reconcile the gospel accounts of the empty tomb these testimonies pass the test. They agree on the major point that Jesus' tomb was found empty and that he appeared alive to individuals, small groups and large groups.

They also agree on the significant details supporting the major points such as: the tomb was discovered empty on Sunday morning, by a small group of women who were told by at least one angel that Jesus had risen from the dead. They brought some of the disciples back to see for themselves, and so on.

There is also acceptable variation on non-supporting details such as how many angels there were at the tomb and where they were located in and around the tomb. By the way, the contradiction about whether they were angels or men is simple to clear up. First, the men are described in the original language with the same characteristics other Biblical writers typically use of angels. Something is lost in the translation. Second, Mark and Luke use the term "men" as a special figure of speech called anthropomorphism. It is just a way of saying these supernatural beings took on the appearance of humans so they could relate to humans. The number of angels is not a problem either. Let's say two or more strangers came up to you on the street asking for directions. It was probably only one of them that you had a dialog with. If you told me afterward about it, you might say quite innocently, "Two men asked me for directions. They asked me how to get to Market St." But the person with you might just as truthfully tell me, "A stranger asked us for directions today." So this, like all the contradictions you will find in the Bible is just an apparent contradiction.

Finally, in a court of law, witnesses are given the benefit of the doubt until they prove to be unreliable witnesses. Why not give the gospel writers the benefit of the doubt as well? There is no good reason not to. Oh, by the way, the Internal Consistency Test is one of the tools used to determine which books belong in the Bible. You will see new books and National Enquirer headlines about a "missing" or "secret" gospel or book of the Bible, but that is just sensational advertising. Bible scholars have known about these books since early Christianity. These books are so internally and externally inconsistent that they were left out of the Bible a long time ago, for obvious reasons.

Tomorrow, we will evaluate the Gospels' accuracy as historically reliable documents based on external evidence, the External Corroboration Test.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 5 (of 13)

2006-04-21T09:12:00.000-04:00

The Written Tradition is a reliable record

All of this shows the Oral Tradition was very reliable. Now we can move on to the next step in the transmission of God's revelation to us. We must now examine the accuracy of what was written down in the original manuscripts. Again, for sake of time I'll limit our examination to the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels. We want to find out if the events were accurately reported by the authors. Who were the authors of the Gospels anyway? You already know them: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They were each either eyewitnesses or were reporting other people's eyewitness accounts. They would all be able to testify reliably and credibly as to what really happened. And if their testimonies agreed substantially it would make a strong case for their historical accuracy wouldn't it?

Matthew and John were disciples who lived with Jesus everyday, all day long every day for about 4 years. Believe me; they knew a lot about Jesus. So they were reliable and credible eyewitnesses and biographers. Mark was not one of the 12 disciples but he was Peter's assistant in his traveling evangelistic ministry. Mark carefully recorded Peter's eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Finally, there was Luke. Luke was a physician with a cool analytical mind that dealt with the detailed facts. As a first rate investigative reporter he was only interested in the facts ("Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts?"). He took great care in getting his facts straight before he wrote his report. Scholars regard him as an excellent historian. He wrote at the beginning of his gospel,

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

In case you are wondering, this Theophilus dude was a high ranking, educated Roman official who wanted to know if what Jesus' followers were saying was true. Luke answered with a 5,400 word investigative report! Let's zoom in on some of the other eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.

First, there were the women who discovered the empty tomb and saw the resurrected Jesus. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome came to anoint Jesus' body with perfume to counteract the stench of decaying flesh. Now this is very important. According to Jewish law the eyewitness account of a woman was worthless. I know, they were sexist pigs, but that's the way it was. Now, if Jesus' resurrection was just a legend made up by people many years later, then using the women's report would be self-defeating wouldn't it? They would suffer a credibility problem. Instead, they would attribute the report to men. So this is another point in favor of the Gospels being accurate testimony. There were other followers of Jesus who reported seeing Jesus after he rose from the dead, too. He appeared to Peter, then to the disciples on several occasions. He even appeared to a group of over 500 people on a mountainside in Galilee. My point here is that Jesus was seen by a large number of credible eyewitnesses who could agree or disagree on what they witnessed. The fourth and final body of eyewitness testimony was those who were hostile to Jesus and his followers. His enemies wanted nothing more than to be able to prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. So all they would have to do is produce the body and say, "See, he's still dead you fools!"But they couldn't. And their silence speaks louder than words.

Now, I've been assuming these were credible eyewitnesses, but how can we know for sure? There are four tests that historians use to determine if eyewitnesses are credible and if their reports are accurate and reliable sources of information about a past event. These tests are the Credibility Test, the Internal Consistency Test, the External Corroboration Test and the Bibliographic Test. We'll go through these one at a time. First we need to prove that the eyewitness testimony is credible. Is it an accurate, reliable picture of what really happened?

Tomorrow, We'll use the Credibility Test to find out.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 4 (of 13)

2006-04-20T07:30:00.000-04:00

The Oral Tradition is historically accurate

First, let's clear up the misconceptions about how the information concerning Jesus' life, death and post-resurrection appearances was transmitted orally before being written down—the so called Oral Tradition. You will hear claims that the New Testament documents, like the Gospels, were written hundreds of years after Jesus died in 33 AD. The information was passed down for generations by word of mouth. And over that amount of time so many legends and myths and distortions would have developed that we can't know what really happened—like in the telephone game.

Most people don't realize that this is actually a very outdated view not held by any contemporary scholar worth their degree. All but the most radical of liberal scholars agree with conservative scholars that all the books of the NT were written before 100 AD. This means the books of the NT were written between only 30 to 70 years after Jesus' death. This is important because historians have determined this is not enough time for myths and legends to develop. It means the books of the NT were written either by eyewitnesses or by people like Luke who carefully reported eyewitness testimonies. Furthermore, this was done in the presence of other eyewitnesses who could correct them on the accuracy of their accounts. Second, we must understand the true nature of the oral tradition. This was far from the unreliable telephone game. In fact, as you know, the purpose of the game is to have fun so you have a lot of incentive to distort the message you received and pass that distortion on to the next person.

In the ancient world, however, passing information on by word of mouth was far from a game. Memorization was a major means of education. It had to be. An education that included reading and writing was only available to the wealthy minority. But that doesn't mean those without formal educations were not intelligent and informed. The Jews would memorize whole books of the OT just by listening to it being read to them. They were taught to memorize everything they heard from their teachers. They were taught to memorize it word for word and then check it for accuracy. In a world where few people could be taught to read or write, accurate memorization was important and strictly enforced.

The teachers even used special techniques to help their hearers memorize what they said. And we can see how Jesus employed many of these techniques himself. One popular means of ensuring accuracy in the passing on of information was to formalize it into creeds and songs. You know how a song helps you learn. After all a song taught you your ABCs, didn't it? We know that the apostles' claim that Jesus rose from the dead was put into creeds and songs almost immediately after Jesus' death, even before any of the gospels were written.

The third way we know the news of Jesus' resurrection was accurately passed on is that so many Christians died for what they believed was the truth. If they were not certain that the claim about Jesus' resurrection was historically accurate they would not have chosen to die for it. Since the communists took over China they have alternated between periods of tolerance and intolerance toward Christians. When they become very tolerant all kinds of cults and heretical doctrines arise which are false versions of Christianity. But as soon as the government starts to persecute Christians the false Christians denounce their beliefs while only the true and doctrinally pure Christians suffer persecution. This cycle has been repeated many times. The early Christian martyrs may not have been able to read or write like we can but they weren't dumb. They believed they were dying for the truth, not a lie or a hoax.

Tomorrow we will examine the accuracy of what was written down in the original manuscripts, the so-called Written Tradition.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 3 (of 13)

2006-04-19T08:34:00.000-04:00

Can the Bible be a reliable transmission of God's revelation to us?

Let's move on to our claim that the Bible is a reliable transmission of God's revelation to us. You will hear teachers, professors, friends, family members and even some pastors say the Bible may be a book full of wise sayings, but it is full of errors, contradictions, inaccuracies, myths and legends. Therefore, we can't use it to get an accurate picture about what really happened. They will site the game "telephone." Have you played this game. How does it go? You put a group of people in a line. You say something to the first person and they are supposed to tell it to the second person who tells it to the third and so on down the line until it gets to the last person. And, of course, you remember what happens. By the time it gets to the last person it winds up being garbled gibberish that doesn't bear any resemblance to the original. In other words, the message is no longer genuine, authentic or accurate. The method used to transmit the message is not reliable.

Unfortunately, many people think this is how the Bible came about and is therefore unreliable, too. For example, they say,

"Jesus was just a man, a very talented teacher who stepped on the toes of the authorities and was crucified for it. Then the followers of Jesus started telling others about Jesus' life and teachings, who then told others about Jesus' life and teachings and they went on to tell others and so on. And this oral tradition was passed on for a long time until it was finally written down. And then once it was written down it was then copied over and over. Of course, along the way people took the liberty, as in the telephone game, of changing what they heard to suit their purposes before passing it along. Perhaps they heard or read something that didn't sound very clear so they embellished it a little to try to make it more understandable for the next person. Or in an attempt to persuade, they even lied and said Jesus performed great miracles of healing people, raising them from the dead, and even rising from the dead himself. The bottom line is when we read the Bible 2000 years later we can't know what really happened. Therefore, we can only place the Bible on the same level of importance as the Hindu or Buddhist scriptures, the Koran, the Native American folk tales and The National Enquirer magazine."

But is this really how we got our Bible? Is it really just another book full of wise teachings from legendary figures? I will argue that we have every good reason to believe that the Bible is genuinely authentic, historically accurate and gives us an accurate picture, especially of who Jesus is. And finally, we'll talk about why it is even important. For the sake of space I will only deal with the New Testament of the Bible and I'll spend most of my time on the Gospels because they are the biographies of Jesus. But if we would apply the same principles to the rest of the Bible including the Old Testament we would see that all of the books of the Bible are accurate records of what really happened in human history even if it was a long time ago.

Now, I just want to mention one qualification. The Bible is composed of several genre's, or types, of literature, so it is vitally important to follow the rules of interpretation for each of those genre's to get the right meaning. For example, we shouldn't take the figures of speech in the Psalms literally because they weren't meant to be taken literally. In fact, about a third of the Old Testament is in the form of poetry and even the prose sections often make use of figurative language. We must be careful how we interpret the Bible.

As I said, in these posts and article we are going to focus on the Gospels because all of Christianity stands or falls on the accuracy of their reports about Jesus' death and resurrection. Let's find out if the Gospels are historically accurate. In other words, can and do they contain historically accurate information? To answer this question we are going to look, step by step, at the process by which we got our English Bibles.

Right now I'll just summarize those steps. First, the news of the events and the teachings of Jesus were shared by word of mouth. This is called the Oral Tradition. Then, people wrote the information down to preserve it. The New Testament was written in Greek. Next, copies of the Greek manuscripts were made to disseminate that information. Finally, those copies were translated into various languages including English. In fact, it has been the most copied and translated book in the world.Now let's unpack that process and determine if each step was done reliably. We will unpack that process and determine if each step was done reliably.

Tomorrow I will address the first step, Oral Tradition, that stage where information about Jesus was shared first by word of mouth.

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 2 (of 13)

2006-04-18T08:06:00.000-04:00

The Nature of Inspiration

Yesterday I introduced the idea of Special Revelation, that is information revealed to us by God about Himself. Before we talk about the actual words we need to lay some groundwork that will help us appreciate the reliability of God's revelation to us. We say the authors were "inspired" as they wrote it down. The word inspiration literally means "to breathe into." The Bible claims for itself a special kind of inspiration. Timothy used this word to describe the divine inspiration of Scripture when he wrote, "All Scripture is God-breathed." (2 Tim 3:16) I'm going to give you a concise definition of the biblical doctrine of inspiration I learned in seminary:

God superintended human authors so that

using their own individual personalities

they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man

in the words of the orinigal autographs.

Let's unpack this so we know what it means and what it doesn't mean.

First, God didn't take the author's hand and make it write like a puppet or robotic hand. God didn't move the pen directly. Neither were the human authors secretaries who listened to God's voice and then wrote down the words.

Second, the human author was given truth by God, and he wrote it in his own words using his own writing style, language, educational background, vocabulary, figures of speech, customs and cultural understandings.

Even thought the whole project was very much a human process this process was supernaturally superintended by God to make sure that the human author communicated what God wanted. Liberal scholars tend to downplay the supernatural source and activity of God in this process and over emphasize the human aspects of the process. Overly conservative Christian scholars tend to downplay the human aspects too much while focusing on the supernatural aspects. These extremes are both wrong. We must see the equal importance of both the divine and human sources of the Bible. They were both understood and held in balance by the authors themselves. We must follow their example.

Third, they composed and recorded "without error." Just because God used imperfect humans to record His revelation to mankind doesn't mean they might have misunderstood or used the wrong word or introduced error in some other way. In a way which we cannot fully grasp God made sure it was exactly what He wanted to communicate.

Fourth, they were without error "in the words of the original autographs." By autographs we mean the original manuscripts penned by the authors themselves. Unfortunately (at least from a human perspective), we don't have those originals. They are probably dust or ashes somewhere. So does that mean the copies we possess now aren't reliable reproductions? Not necessarily. And the rest of these posts and article is about how we can be sure God's revelation was reliably transmitted to us today.

I need to say one more thing about the claim "without errors in the original autographs." The original wording in the Hebrew or Greek documents is what was inspired. The English or other translation is not inspired. Something is always lost in the translation. Am I saying that you have to become a Hebrew and Greek scholar in order to understand the Bible? No. That's not what I'm saying. We can get, for most practical purposes, an adequate amount of the meaning through carefully studying the English translations; however, if you want to discover the richest treasures, you'll have to dig deep into the best copies we have in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

What is so exciting about the doctrine of inspiration as it applies to us is that we know that when we read Scripture we are reading what God intended to communicate to us. Timothy went on to write that Scripture has a purpose for us.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Do you want to know what God's will is? Do you want to know the best way to live? Do you want to be ready for life's greatest challenges? Then study the Bible. It is God's revelation to you and me.

Tomorrow I will address how many people think of how the Bible was made and ask the question Can the Bible be a reliable transmission of God's revelation to us?

The Reliability of the Gospels, Part 1 (of 13)

2006-04-17T15:03:00.000-04:00

This post begins a series on the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels. This is an important issue regarding The Da Vinci Code as Dan Brown argues (cloaked in fiction) that they are not a reliable record of Jesus' life. Unfortunately, he is just perpetuating a modern myth. Many of even the most educated people believe that sometime in the past few hundred years scholars proved that the Gospels are not historically reliable documents. They wouldn't be able to tell you who proved it or how. And the belief keeps getting repeated mindlessly like a parrot repeats things it hears. The fact is that although many have tried to prove the New Testament Gospels are unreliable no one has actually succeeded. In fact, every attempt ends in failure that only serves to strengthen the case for their reliability. So I welcome all new attempts because the result is always so positive!

With this series I want to address some of the major issues with broad strokes. Each day's post will be a small chunk of a larger article The Bible: A Relic or Reliable Revelation? at my website New Media Ministries.

The posts will not contain numbered endnotes but you can find a list of references used at the end of either the article or the end of the last post.

Introduction: The Need for the Bible

General Revelation

In other articles on my website I have written about God being the ultimate source of absolute truth and the absolute standard of morality. But how does He communicate what those truths and morals are? How do we even find out what God, Himself, is like and how to relate to Him? Fortunately, it is not all that difficult because God has taken the initiative to communicate with us. One way is through a category of communication theologians call General Revelation. God has revealed some truths in a general way so that everyone can see them. We can learn quite a bit about what God is like by just looking at nature and thinking logically.

For example, we look at nature and reason that there must be a Creator who is self-existent, eternal, transcendent (meaning not part of His creation), all powerful, and infinite. Paul sums it up in Romans 1:20 when he writes,

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

God's personal attributes can also be discovered by studying nature and thinking carefully about the implications. For example, it is obvious to us that our Creator has to be intelligent. The amazing amount of intelligent design in nature can only be explained as coming from an Intelligent Designer. Intelligence is a personal attribute. Only a personal being who is intelligent can design something. An impersonal force can not. A personal being also has emotions and values. We all have an innate knowledge that there has to be an ultimate source of personal attributes like perfect love, goodness, mercy, grace and justice that exist outside of ourselves and our cultures. Again, all of this is known as General Revelation.

Special Revelation

Nature and our powers of reasoning are limited, however, in their abilities to teach us about God, His truths and moral standards. So God revealed more precise and personal information about Himself and His plans. This second body of revelation is known as Special Revelation. It is information that God communicated in special ways through special circumstances and special people. God revealed Himself and what He is like to real people through real events and relationships. In the process, He revealed a lot about His true answers to the ultimate questions of life, as well as His standards for moral and ethical behavior. All this occurred over a span of 40 generations covering 1500 years, which was from the time of Moses, around 1440 BC to the elder years of the apostle John, around 90 AD. Those people preserved the records of God's revelations through the spoken word as well as the written word in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Approximately 40 different authors came from all walks of life including kings, peasants, philosophers, fisherman, poets, statesmen and scholars. They carefully recorded this body of literature on three different continents. They wrote in a variety of literary genres including history, poetry, law, biography, prophecy and personal correspondence.

This collection that we call the Bible is a truly unique phenomenon. One of the qualities that makes it unique is that it carries one theme and one message consistently from the beginning to the end on a variety of subjects. Now, what if we compiled the works of 40 authors from North Carolina concerning just one subject? They would come from different literary genres, time periods and walks of life. They would be written by explorers, slaves, aristocratic plantation owners, fishermen, Indians, college students and so on. They would be written in the various languages and dialects of those people in different geographical and economic contexts over the past 300 years. What do you think are the chances that they would all agree on much of anything? By contrast, the biblical authors agree on everything. They wrote with consistency of theology and without real contradictions. When we look into the alleged contradictions in the Bible we discover that most of them are easily reconciled and relatively few important ones are left open to debate. And there are good theories to reconcile those few as well. I'll go into more detail about this later. The uniqueness of the Bible alone speaks loudly for its authenticity as God's Special Revelation of truth to mankind.

Tomorrow I will address the nature of inspiration, a crucial brick in the foundation of reliability of the Bible.

The Crisis of Easter

2006-04-16T10:49:00.000-04:00

C. S. Lewis was one of the wisest Christian thinkers of the 20th century. He was a professor of medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford and Cambridge universities who wrote more than 30 books in his lifetime. He was no intellectual lightweight. He begins the Introductory chapter of his book The Problem of Pain by describing why he had been an atheist earlier in life. He recounts the vast cold inhospitable-to-life emptiness of the universe, the pain and death in the natural history of life on earth, and the pain, suffering, death and evil in the history of mankind. Finally, in the far distant future humanity and the universe will die a slow, cold death. At the end of this summary he concludes, "All stories will come to nothing: all life will turn out in the end to have been a transitory and senseless contortion upon the idiotic face of infinite matter. If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit."

But then he realized that there were missing elements in his logic. He had to reckon with the fact that despite all of the pain, suffering and evil humans have still attributed the existence of the universe and life on it "to the activity of a wise and good Creator." Lewis goes on to explain four elements or steps in the evolution of religious thought as he sees them. I will warn you up front that his view of the evolution of religion is radically different from the "evolution of religion" approach that one often hears. That approach concludes, illogically, that all religions are equally true and worthwhile.

The first step was the realization by ancient humans that something exists outside of the physical universe which can not be experienced by our five physical senses. This something he and other philosophers call the Numinous. He notes that a skeptic would say this belief would naturally arise from fear of dangerous natural forces. Indeed, Pantheism and polytheism teach that there are spirits which are synonymous with natural forces. However, Lewis points out that there is no real logical connection that would lead to this believe. The knowledge of the Numinous must have been revealed to man from an outside source of knowledge. This was the first element or step of divine revelation.

The second element or step in the development of religion, according to Lewis, was the belief in an absolute moral law that exists outside of each individual and society as well as the belief that one has disobeyed that moral law. Again, the skeptic might think that this belief came through a natural thought process, but Lewis sees no logic that would derive these beliefs from the natural world or our experience of it. This knowledge of the moral law and disobedience of it also come from outside the natural world. It to is divinely revealed.

The third element or step in the development of religion was the understanding that the Numinous Spirit is the Creator of the natural world and the moral law. In the ancient world there was only one group of people out of many cultures that believed in this combination, the ancient Jews of Old Testament times. This knowledge like the first two elements came from divine revelation. This numinous Creator/Law Giver revealed knowledge about Himself (He actually transcends gender, but the masculine pronoun is convenient) to a people He chose to reveal Himself to. (They, in turn, were to reveal that knowledge to all other cultures.)

The fourth element of revealed knowledge, Lewis contends, is the historical event. He writes:

There was a man born among these Jews who claimed to be, or to be the son of, or to be "one with," the Something which is at once the awful haunter of nature and the giver of the moral law. The claim is so shocking--a paradox, and even a horror, which we may easily be lulled into taking too lightly--that only two views of this man are possible. Either he was a raving lunatic of an unusually abominable type, or else He was, and is, precisely what He said. There is no middle way. If the records make the first hypothesis unacceptable, you must submit to the second. And if you do that, all else that is claimed by Christians becomes credible--that this Man, having been killed, was yet alive, and that His death, in some manner incomprehensible to human though, has effected a real change in our relations to the "awful" and "righteous" Lord, and a change in our favor.

The main line of attack used by skeptics is on the historical reliability of the "records" as Lewis refers to them. If the New Testament Gospels can be shown to be unreliable witnesses to history then we can excuse ourselves from believing that Jesus is the "awful and righteous" Creator and Lord of the universe. Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is but a fictional attack of these records. However, as I show in other blog entries and the articles on my web site at New Media Ministries, his attack is baseless and useless.

Jesus has risen indeed!

The Last Supper, Part 4 (of 4)

2006-04-15T08:31:00.000-04:00

The Last Supper, Part 3 (of 4)

2006-04-14T08:16:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Second interview: art historian Diane Apostolos-Cappadona of Georgetown University (from Secrets of the Code)

What do you think, specifically, about The Da Vinci Code's supposition that the "John" character is really Mary Magdalene?

Initially, my reponse was this is a very interesting interpretation, to say that there was a woman at the table. It fits nicely with feminist theology or the postfeminist era of theology. However that doesn't make it true."

... "There is a tradition of John being seen in our eyes... as soft, feminine, and youthful."

... "However, if you look carfully at the Leonardo painting, you will notice other disciples who do not have beards or who could be construed as possessing feminine features. However from my work in gender studies, I would caution that gender is a cuolturally and socially conditioned concept. What you and I accept today as being masculine or feminine is most likely not what would have been accepted in Florence or Milan during the firgeenth century....If you look carefully at Christian art, in particular at the depictions of male and female bodies, faces, and gestures, then the Last Supper is not such an extraordinary presentation?"

Can you be more specific?

"... No I do not believe that there is a woman in the Last Supper and I do not believe in any way that it's Mary Magdalene. I think that the V that's there-the one Dan Brown defines as a symbol of femininity-is there, first of all, to emphasize the Christ figure and to emphasize the reality of the perspective within that fresco."

What role does artistic form and perspective play in this?

"Perspective is extraordinarily important in Renaissance art generally, and in Leonardo's art in particular. The apostles are all grouped into triangular formations. For example, there is the triangle composed of the so-called Mary Magdalene-John, the gray-bearded figure behind [who is Judas], and the foreground figure [who is Peter]. Dan Brown has omitted any discussion of pyramidal composition in Leonardo's oeuvre, of the four triangular groupings which are important to form the compositional balance for the central triangular figure who is Jesus. Centrally positioned, Jesus is in a pyramidal posture, and it is this pyramidal composition that is one of Leonardo's great gifts to Western art."

Additional problems

There is another problem with Dan Brown's treatment of The Last Supper painting that did not come out in either of these interviews. His reference to The Last Supper being a fresco is another point that shows his lack of knowledge and research about the painting (Chapter 55, p. 235) The painting is not a fresco. A fresco is made by applying watercolor to wet plaster, Da Vinci used a different technique using a mixture of oil, pigment and egg yolk.² This may seem to be a silly and picky point, but it is just one of many inaccuracies in a book that begins with the claim: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In other words, it is part of Brown's pattern of weak research, and making up and distorting facts to support a bad conclusion that he pawns off on an ignorant public who is lapping it up because they, too, seem to want his conclusion to be true.

The Last Supper, Part 2 (of 4)

2006-04-13T07:00:00.000-04:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

First interview: art historian Denise Budd of Columbia University (from Secrets of the Code)

Is anything known about Leonardo that would suggest he was a member of the Priory of Sion or similar secret society?

"There's no real evidence at all that Leonardo da Vinci was a member of the Priory of Sion or any other secret organization. The documents that Dan Brown relied upon ... appear to be twentieth-century forgeries."

Besides sometimes writing backwards, did Leonardo use codes or coding?

"There is evidence of codes in some of his writing; one example is the so-called Ligny memorandum, in which he interspersed names and places in scrambled letters. And he may have worked as a spy when he was a military engineer for Cesare Borgia. But the backwards writing is not a particularly difficult code to crack. That was a function of Leonardo's left-handedness.

Leonardo is known for peppering his works with symbolism and, some say, heritical ideas, in his Virgin of the Rocks paintings, for example. Do you agree?

"No, I don't. The Virgin of the Rocks was a religious commission for the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception for the church of San Francesco Grande in Milan-not for nuns, as Brown says. ... One of the reasons that Dan Brown argues that the painting is heretical is because he misreads the work, confusing the figure of St. John the Baptist with Christ, and vice versa. The composition shows Mary-with her hand suspended over her son, creating a dominant axis-embracing Chrst's cousin St. John, who kneels in reverence. The Baptist is the first to recognize Christ's divinity, which he does in the womb, so this composition falls completely within the norms of tradition.... During the Renaissance, an artist was not generally given free rein on important commissions. There would have been specific guidelines. And presumably, Leonardo worked within that framework."

(For a close up picture of The Virgin of the Rocks that you can zoom in to examine the details for yourself Click Here.)

What about Dan Brown's thesis about the Last Supper?

"There is no disembodied hand as Dan Brown suggests. The hand with the knife-which is the hand Dan Brown says "threatens Mary Magdalene"-that's Peter's hand. And Peter's not threatening Mary Magdalene nor trying to suppress the feminine side of the church. Peter is holding the knife, which is a premonition of the violent reaction he will have during the arrest of Christ, when he dcuts off the ear of the Roman soldier. So that is a fairly standard iconographic tool."

"Dan Brown uses the absence of a chalice as an introductory point to bring Mary Magdalene into the picture. Yet if you look at the picture, you'll see that Christ's hands are spread out on the table. His right hand is reaching toward a piece of bread, and his left hand is actually, quite clearly, reaching toward a cup of wine. And that's the hand that's pointed down. The institution of the Eucharist is clearly presented in the bread and the wine. Now it's not a chalice per se, like a chalice in your modern church practice, but there's a cup of wine. It's what you would expect to see at the Last Supper."

And what about the idea that the painting depicts Mary Magdalene instead of John the Baptist?

"As far as the Magdalene, clearly there is no dispute. That figure is St. John the Evangelist. St. John is Christ's favorite and he is always shown by Christ's side. The major difference between Leonardo's Last Supper and earlier Florentine examples of the scene is that Leonardo put Judas among the disciples, not on the other side of the table. But the figure of John is always by Christ's side, he is always beardless and he's always beautiful. And in some instances, he is so innocent that while Christ is making the announcement that he will be betrayed, Joyhn actually sleep0s. A perfect example of this 'feminine' characterization of Joh is in Raphael's Crucifixion in the London National Gallery, painted around 1500."

(For a close up picture of The Last Supper that you can zoom in to examine the details for yourself Click Here.)

Tomorrow I will relate the second interview in Secrets of the Code, art historian Diane Apostolos-Cappadona of Georgetown University.

The Last Supper, Part 1 (of 4)

2006-04-12T07:32:00.000-04:00

Dan Brown's Mary Magdalene Part 5 (of 5)

2006-04-10T08:24:00.000-04:00

This post continues a daily series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Mary Magdalene are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Assertion 5: Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail.

The Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene and the mother of the royal blood-line of Jesus Christ. Sophie felt a new wave of disorientation as she stood in the silence of the ballroom and stared at Robert Langdon. (Chapter 60, p. 263)

A not so brief answer

I feel a wave of nausea as I consider how Brown tries to argue for this. I identify 8 major premises on which he builds his case.

The first premise is that the Gnostic Gospels, like Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Mary are reliable historical accounts of Mary Magdalene's life, showing she was married to Jesus and struggled against chauvanistic leaders like Peter. Furthermore, the Church suppressed these documents. I addressed these issues above already. The problem with this premise is that the Gnostic Gospels were never intended to be historical accounts of actual people, events and conversations. Written one hundred to two hundred or more years after Jesus and Mary, they are, instead, highly symbolic fictional works that have abstract, theological meanings. Often only those steeped in Gnosticism knew those meanings. Regarding the confrontations in them between the male apostles and Mary Magdalene, they are probably promoting the supposed superiority of private revelation and the acceptance of women teachers. It must be remembered, however, that there is much disagreement between modern day scholars who specialize in these texts over exactly what issues the texts are attempting to address (e.g. female church leadership) and how we are to understand them. There is no evidence from the earliest Christian literature (within 60 years after Christ) that these kinds of fictitious confrontations occurred in reality. They occurred after Peter and Mary Magdalene were long dead and only as peculiar literary devices. As to the suppression of Gnostic Gospels, the Church, indeed, eventually suppressed them, but Gnosticism seems to have died out more as a result of public debate than from suppression. It just never became as accepted as the original Christian teachings passed down from the Apostles themselves.²

The second premise is that Mary Magdalene fled with her child to France. There is no evidence of this legend being true. It is just a legend. I must point out the double standard of what Dan Brown requires as historical proof. He says the New Testament is based on fabrications (i.e. legends) and therefore cannot be trusted to give us objectively true history (Chapter 82, p. 341, 342). So, it seems, that he relies on the legends that support his views while insisting that legends can't be trusted. How interesting!
The third premise is that there was a smear campaign against Mary Magdalene by the Roman Catholic Church (Pope Gregory the Great) in the 6th century. Pope Gregory certainly was wrong in connecting Mary Magdalene with the unnamed prostitute in the Gospel of Luke 7: 36 - 50, but there is no evidence of malice. Please refer to my article What We Know and Don't Know About Mary Magdalene from the Bible for more on Pope Gregory's mistake.

The fourth premise is that there is something of substance to legends about the Holy Grail. These legends began to pop up in the Middle Ages, that is, around a thousand years after Jesus died. The idea that it was the cup Jesus drank from or that Joseph of Arimathea used to catch his blood was only one of many objects speculated. Dan Brown stands in this tradition of inventing legends about the the Holy Grail and speculating what the Holy Grail was. It doesn't have to be a cup. While we're on the topic I want to address the the idea it was a cup because that is the common form it takes in modern entertainment like in the last Indiana Jones movie.

The problem with any theory involving the cup Jesus used during the Last Supper is that it would not have been an important souvenir for the Disciples to keep and esteem. There is no mention of the cup until the legends about it were made up centuries later, and the orgins of the legends are murky. Perhaps some in the Roman Catholic Church of today dream of finding the cup, I don't know, but it would be a misguided desire. There is nothing special about the cup. Contrary to the legends in literature and Hollywood, it would not hold any power or special blessing for the one who possesses it.

The fifth premise is that Mary Magdalene represents the sacred feminine. As a devoted first century Jew she would have denounced that as idolatry. There is simply no room in the theologies of Old Testament Judaism or of Jesus Christ, or of the Apostles for a female goddess or sacred feminine or whatever you want to call it. They all would have said God is spirit, neither male nor female. He chooses to relate to humanity as a Father figure, but there is no Mother God or female consort or anything else. If Mary Magdalene believed in a female goddess then Jesus certainly would not have put her in charge of His Church, as Brown, asserts He did! She would have been disqualified from the start. If she got anything from Jesus' life and teachings she would be horrified to read how Dan Brown and others have elevated her to such a lofty position.

The sixth premise is that Leonardo da Vinci and the Priory of Sion preserved the secret that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that he devulged this secret through his paintings like The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks. There is no evidence that he was a member of any secret society and Dan Brown completely misunderstands da Vinci's paintings. For more details please see my article "Real" Art Historians on The Last Supper and The Virgin of the Rocks.

The seventh premise is there are "thousands of documents" that tell the real story. They are contained in what Brown calls the Sangreal documents, the Purist Documents, and the Magdalene Diaries (Chapter 58, p. 249 and Chapter 60, p. 256). There is absolutely no real evidence of these fictitious documents. The books that Brown cites as authoritative on these documents in Chapter 60, on page 253 are pure speculation, not serious academic, historical research. And the Da Vinci Code is based on them! Ha!

The last premise is the modern Roman Catholic Church continues to cover up these secrets. This is absurd, as the Roman Catholic Church does not own the market on early Christian literature and historical research. Non-Catholic, liberal Protestant scholars do most of the research on all periods of Church history. These scholars have no allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church, and many do not have any allegiance to the Bible or orthodox Christian beliefs or doctrines. They would expose any coverup they found. The only sources Dan Brown uses for his premises are non-scholars using tabloid style speculation rather than trustworthy, objective historical research.

Conclusion

I have dealt with each major premise that Dan Brown uses to build his argument that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail. I have shown that every premise is false. Many of them are pure speculation and the burden of proof is on Dan Brown and others to prove them. It is very unfortunate that his interviewers in the media do not confront him on these things. It is one thing to make things up for a work of fiction, but another to argue they are true and get away with it. This shows that the biased news media endorse his views or at least support his attack on the Christian Church. If there is any conspiracy it is among the radical liberal cultural leaders of our world, and they are willing to use any means to attack Christianity.

References

² See:
Robinson, James M., Gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco-HarperCollins Publishers. 1988. 10-11.

Jenkins, Philip. Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001.

Lee, Philip J. Against the Protestant Gnostics. New York: Oxford Universtiy Press. 1987.

Logan, Alastair. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1996.

Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage-Random House. 1979.

Perkins, Pheme. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1993.

Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers. 1987.

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Mary Magdalene Part 4 (of 5)

2006-04-09T08:49:00.000-04:00

She read the text:

And Peter said, "Did the Saviour really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?"
And Levi answered, "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the Saviour made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Sure the Saviour knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us."

"The woman they are speaking of," Teabing explained, "is Mary Magdalene. Peter is jealous of her."
"Because Jesus preferred Mary?"
"Not only that. The stakes were far greater than mere affection. At this point in the gospels, Jesus suspects He will soon be captured and crucified. So he gives Mary Magdalene instructions on how to carry on His Church after He is gone. As a result, Peter expresses his discontent over playing second fiddle to a woman. I daresay Peter was something of a sexist?"
Sophie was trying to keep up. "This is Saint Peter. The rock on which Jesus built His Church."
"The same, except for one catch. According to these unaltered gospels, it was not Peter to whom Christ gave directions with which to establish the Christian Church. It was Mary Magdalene."
Sophie looked at him. "You're saying the Christian Church was to be carried on by a woman?"
"That was the plan. Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." (Chapter 58, p. 247 - 248)

Brief answer

The confrontation of Mary and Peter is found in other Gnostic Gospels, as well. It would not do justice to the passage or the Gospel of Mary to view it as a literal (actual) conversation. The Gnostics would certainly cry, "Foul!" Rather, it is a fictitious, allegorical dialog where the characters represent different ideals that were in conflict between the orthodox Christians and the Gnostic Christians. The orthodox Christians held that from the beginning of the Christian movement Jesus' teachings and the reporting of them was publicly available to anyone. The apostles (Jesus' Disciples) were appointed by Jesus to pass them on, and the apostles appointed the next generation of official leaders to maintain the integrity of the teachings. Whether we like it or not, these apostles were all men. In stark contrast, the Gnostics taught that His teachings could only be understood through private revelations, visions and subjective interpretations. The author makes Peter and Andrew represent the former position while making Mary Magdalene represent the latter position with the latter winning out.¹ However, this was only wishful thinking on the part of the Gnostics, as not enough people bought into their private revelation claims. People had enough common sense to see the holes in their teachings. People instinctively believe in what can be publicly scrutinized, not what someone claims to have seen in a personal vision. Gnosticism did not die out because the powerful Church persecuted it out of existence. It died out because it was an elitist, snobby, complicated and esoteric religion that only superficially resembled Christianity.

Jesus did hold women in higher esteem than ancient culture, but he was also limited somewhat by that culture. His Apostles would only be credible if they were male. And contrary to the misunderstanding by the Roman Catholic Church, Jesus never intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of any one leader, male or female.

References

¹ Robinson, James M., Gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco-HarperCollins Publishers. 1988. p. 524.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 5: Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail.

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Mary Magdalene Part 3 (of 5)

2006-04-08T06:18:00.000-04:00

He (Teabing) motioned to another passage. "This is from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene."
Sophie had not known a gospel existed in Magdalene's words. (Chapter 58, 247)

Brief answer

Someone needs to inform Dan Brown that Mary Magdalene did not write The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene). It was written some time in the second century-long after Mary had died. As was typical with the Gnostic Gospels the author attributes it to a famous person probably in an attempt to gain acceptance by association with her.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 4: Jesus intended Mary Magdalene to be the leader of the Church, not Peter.

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Mary Magdalene Part 2 (of 5)

2006-04-07T08:06:00.000-04:00

Sophie could now see the title of the family tree. THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN
"Mary Magdalene is here," Teabing said, pointing near the top of the genealogy.
Sophie was surprised. "She was of the House of Benjamin?"
"Indeed," Teabing said. "Mary Magdalene was of royal descent."
"But I was under the impression Magdalene was poor."
Teabing shook his head. "Magdalene was recast as a whore in order to erase evidence of her powerful family ties."
Sophie turned back to Teabing. "But why would the early Church care if Magdalene had royal blood?"
The Briton smiled. "My dear child, it was not Mary Magdalene's royal blood that concerned the Church so much as it was her consorting with Christ, who also had royal blood. As you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon, King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines, creating a potent political union with the potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne and restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon." (Chapter 58, p. 248)

Brief answer

There is no mention in the Bible, early Christian literature or in any other ancient literature of her ancestry. Brown or someone else made this up for their own literary purposes. Of course, as a Jew of that time period she was probably a descendant of one of the twelve original tribal leaders, but we simply can not know which one. What is really important, however, is that it would not have mattered anyway, especially to Jesus. It is clear to see that according to Jesus' teachings He did not associate His Kingdom with any earthly ruler or human government. Jesus plainly stated to Pilate,

"My kingodom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36)

Obviously, Dan Brown did not read this, or he intentionally ignored it. And, of course, the fact they never got married is another reason why Mary's bloodline is unimportant. (please see Assertions about a Marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene) Jesus' human bloodline ceased when He died; Mary's ceased when she died. There can not be any descendants.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 3: Mary Magdalene wrote the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

He (Teabing) motioned to another passage. "This is from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene."
Sophie had not known a gospel existed in Magdalene's words. (Chapter 58, 247)

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Mary Magdalene Part 1 (of 5)

2006-04-06T08:26:00.000-04:00

This post begins a daily series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Mary Magdalene are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Introduction

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes several assertions about Mary Magdalene, all but one of which are false. In this article I address some of these assertions, quoting the actual dialogs in his book and providing the page number where it is found. I also include the chapter number in case the text appears on different page numbers in future editions. Second, I give brief answers to each assertion to show how it is wrong. I know that many people are only seeking a brief answer and will be satisfied. For those desiring more explanation I provide links to other resources that give more detailed background information to support my answers.

In addition, Brown makes assertions about Mary and Jesus being married and having a child. I deal with those in the article Assertions about a Marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Assertion 1: The Early Church smeared Mary's reputation.

"That, my dear," Teabing replied, "is Mary Magdalene."
Sophie turned. "The prostitute?"
Teabing drew a short breath, as if the word had injured him personally. "Magdalene was no such thing. That unfortunate misconception is the legacy of a smear campaign launched by the early Church. The Church needed to defame Mary Magdalene in order to cover up her dangerous secret-her role as the Holy Grail." (Chapter 58, p. 243 - 244)

Brief answer

Brown/Teabing actually gets the first part of this right. There is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. However, there is also no evidence pointing to a "smear campaign" against her, especially one that tried to cover up Brown's fiction that she and Jesus married and had a child. Pope Gregory (6th century) certainly was wrong in connecting Mary Magdalene with the unnamed prostitute in the Gospel of Luke 7: 36 - 50, but there is no evidence of malice. Please refer to my article What We Know and Don't Know About Mary Magdalene from the Bible.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 2: Mary Magdalene was royalty.

Dan Brown's Jesus Part 6 (of 6)

2006-04-05T10:04:00.000-04:00

This post concludes a daily series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Jesus are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Assertion 6: Religious people believe in a false, allegorical reality.

Langdon: "Or that Jesus was not born of a literal virgin birth? Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical." Sophie looked skeptical. "My friends who are devout Christians definitely believe that Christ literally walked on water, literally turned water into wine, and was born of a literal virgin birth."
"My point exactly," Langdon said. "Religious allegory has become a part of the fabric of reality. And living in that reality helps millions of people cope and be better people."
"But it appears their reality is false." (342)

Brief answer

Dan Brown, like so many people who are products of the Enlightment, Modernism and even Post-modernism, do not believe there is a personal omnipotent God who can do miraculous things. They conclude that a miracle like a virgin birth is impossible and don't ever seriously consider the evidence. Granted, there is much symbolic language in the Bible-many figures of speech and literary devices. This is useful to communicate about abstract ideas. Other religions, as Langdon pointed out, do the same. However, this is still not "proof" the miracles by Christ were merely allegorical. The believer wishes there were photographers and videographers on the scene to record Jesus' miracles so skeptics in future generations could believe. Skeptics, too, wish the photographers and videographers had been there to record how ordinary and natural Jesus' life and activities were so no future generations could misconstrue them as miracles. However, based on the way some people will argue today about photographs and videos taken yesterday and displayed on last night's news, I doubt that ones from nearly 2,000 years ago would be as useful as we would hope. Deciding what happened in history is a matter of deciding what is the most probable explanation. Skeptics would chime in here with, "That's right! And it is very improbable that someone could be born from a virgin, walk on water, turn water into wine, and rise from the dead." Against this we maintain first that there are ample reasons that entitle us to believe in a miracle working God and second, that the rapid spread of Christianity by and among dedicated, monotheistic Jews of the first century can only be adequately explained if those miracles actually happened. This would be, then, the most probable explanation.

Summary and Conclusion

I have shown that Dan Brown's assertions about Jesus' divinity are simply wrong. The vast majority of Christians, both orthodox and heretical, believed from the beginning that Jesus was divine. To risk sounding overly simplistic, Constantine, in effect, merely put a rubber stamp on this belief at the Council of Nicea. In addition, he used his influence in a positive way to force the leaders of the churches to reconcile their differences and be more united. The resolution they adopted actually strengthened the view that Jesus Christ is uniquely God and the only true God.

Brown clearly did not study early Church history for himself before writing this novel. Pseudo-historians duped him concerning other matters of history and art, as well. In other historical subjects, like the Civil War, the educated public requires a writer of historical fiction to at least be faithful to the facts of history. Why should the public require less of Dan Brown when writing about Church history? I'm afraid it is probably because the purveyers of Post-modern philosophy have duped people into thinking the only parts of history that matter when it comes to religion are the negative parts. Activists like Brown can use these examples to chip away at people's beliefs. They would like nothing less than to either radically overhaul Christianity after their own values and beliefs or destroy it altogether. They ought to treat history fairly and honestly and not make up an alternative one to use as propaganda on the uneducated public. By doing so they are guilty of the same practices they condemn others for using.

Tomorrow I will begin a new five part series on Dan Brown's false assertions about Mary Magdalene. The first one is that the Early Church smeared Mary's reputation.

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Jesus Part 5 (of 6)

2006-04-03T08:33:00.000-04:00

This post continues a daily series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about Jesus are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Assertion 5: What we were taught about Christ is false.

"What I mean," Teabing countered, is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false. (Chapter 55, p. 235)

Brief answer

This is the logical conclusion if, and only if, Brown's other assertions about the Bible and about Jesus Christ are valid premises. Since they are not, this is an invalid conclusion.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 6: Religious people believe in a false, allegorical reality.

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Jesus Part 4 (of 6)

2006-03-31T06:51:00.000-05:00

"The twist is this," Teabing said, talking faster now. "Because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. (Chapter 55, p. 234)

Brief answer

Constantine did not "upgrade" Jesus' status to that of divinity. Jesus was already recognized as divine from the very beginning. Jesus, Himself, claimed to be divine. The Apostles of the first century believed He was divine.⁴ The majority of Christians and their leaders of the second and third centuries believed He was divine. Most Gnostic leaders believed He was divine but denied His humanity.⁵ Finally, Arius and his followers, who were ruled heretical at the Council of Nicea, believed He was divine.⁶ So why can't a novelist in the 21st century get this straight? Either he has never studied early Church history or chooses to ignore it in order to make up an alternative history for his own greedy purposes. Brown is every bit as self-serving as he accuses Constantine of being. Only Constantine genuinely wanted to promote the divinity of Christ that everyone held before him, whereas Brown is the one that wants to change everone's view of Christ today. He actually wants to downgrade Jesus' status 20 centuries after Jesus' death. Thousdands of reliable copies of the New Testament Gospels chronicle His life as both a man and God.
I address the assertion that "thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man" in Assertions about the Bible.

References

⁴ see again, Hurtado.

⁵ See the following references on Gnosticism:

Logan, Alastair. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1996.

McDonald, Lee Martin and Stanley E. Porter. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2000.

Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage-Random House. 1979.

Perkins, Pheme. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1993.

Robinson, James M., Gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco-HarperCollins Publishers. 1988.

Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers. 1987.

⁶ Walter, V.L. "Arianism." Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1984. 74.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 5: What we were taught about Christ is false.

"What I mean," Teabing countered, is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false. (Chapter 55, p. 235)

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Jesus Part 3 (of 6)

2006-03-30T06:23:00.000-05:00

Teabing: "The vast majority of educated Christians know the history of their faith. Jesus was indeed a great and powerful man. Constantine's underhanded political maneuvers don't diminish the majesty of Christ's life. Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud, or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ's substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today." (Chapter 55, p. 234)

Brief answer

Unfortunately, the vast majority of educated Christians do not know the history of their faith; that is why so many Christians and those who think of themselves as Christian (i.e. not Buddhist, etc) are falling for Brown's sales job. While it is true that Constantine did have a powerful role in the fourth century Church, that role was more often than not to support the theology and practices already in place long before.³ It was exactly "the majesty of Christ's life" that captivated the early Church and then Constantine. As noted above, the Church leaders already believed Jesus is divine, but since they were having disunifying disagreements on the fine details, he convened the Council to influence them to officially recongnize the position that most of them already held. Constantine probably did at times act out of selfish power motives. He was, in part, a product of his Roman times and traditions. However, rather than changing who Christ is Christ changed him, instead.

References

³ See the following references on the role of Constantine:

Davidson, Ivor J. The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30-312. Consult. eds. John D. Woodbridge and David Wright. Series ed. Tim Dowley. Vol. 1 of The Baker History of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2004.

Eusebius. The History of the Church. 1965. Trans. and Introd. G. A. Williamson. New York: Barnes & Noble. 1995.

Hinson, E. Glenn. The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages. Nashville: Abingdon. 1996.

Smith, M. A. From Christ to Constantine. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. 1971.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 4: Thousands of documents already taught Jesus was just a man.

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Jesus Part 2 (of 6)

2006-03-29T07:35:00.000-05:00

"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon-the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."
"I don't follow. His divinity?"
"My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, 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?"
"Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."
"Hold on. You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?"
"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. "Nonetheless, establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity, but now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channel-the Roman Catholic Church."
Sophie glanced at Langdon, and he gave her a soft nod of concurrence.
"It was all about power," Teabing continued. "Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of Church and state. Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power. (Chapter 55, p. 234)

Brief answer

The gathering Teabing is referring to is the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D. in the city of Nicaea. Brown either completely misunderstands or intentionally misconstrues the issue about Christ's divinity the Council decided upon. Anyone can read what the ancient writers have to say about this Council. English translations of their books are open to public inspection. It is just plain wrong that Christians thought Jesus was just a mere mortal man up to the point of the Council, but then the Council decided to say He was divine, especially to cement their political power. There was an issue about Jesus' divinity that was decided on by the Council, but the issue was not whether or not Jesus was divine. They already believed He was divine. Jesus' divinity was an unquestioned doctrine from the beginning of the first century Church.² The issue they decided on at the Council of Nicea was whether Jesus was of the same divine substance as God the Father. I know this sounds like theological hairsplitting, but it is important. Space does not allow for a detailed review of the issue, but what is important to realize is that Brown is wrong about the Council of Nicea. Everyone came to the Council firmly believing Jesus was divine. They just had problems with some of the finer details. These theologians did not steal Jesus from His original followers. They were trying to be as faithful as possible to Jesus and them. It is Dan Brown who is trying to steal Jesus and remake Him into what he wants Him to be. This is a temptation for us, as well. We must always be careful to accept Jesus the way He truly is and let Him remake us to be more like Him instead of the other way around.

References

² Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003. p. 2.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 3: Constantine shaped Christian doctrine to his advantage.

"The vast majority of educated Christians know the history of their faith. Jesus was indeed a great and powerful man. Constantine's underhanded political maneuvers don't diminish the majesty of Christ's life. Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud, or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ's substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today." (Chapter 55, p. 234)

What do you think?

Dan Brown's Jesus Part 1 (of 6)

2006-03-28T08:53:00.000-05:00

This post is the first in a daily series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about the Jesus' divinity are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Introduction

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes 6 (by my count) assertions about Jesus and His divinity. He asserts that Jesus' followers viewed Him as merely a mortal man, having no divinity. Then in the fourth century, the first Christian emperor Constantine the Great and other power-hungry men ruled that He was divine in order to claim they derived their political and spiritual authority from God.

In this article I address each of his 6 assertions, quoting the actual dialogs in his book and providing the page number where it is found. I also include the chapter number in case the text appears on different page numbers in future editions. Second, I give brief answers to each assertion to show how it is wrong. I know that many people are only seeking a brief answer and will be satisfied. For those desiring more explanation I provide links to other resources that give more detailed background information to support my answers.

Some of the assertions are mixed in with other assertions he makes about how the New Testament was formed. I address those in the article: Assertions About the Bible.

Assertion 1: Jesus is one of the most influential persons in history.

"Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus toppled kings, inspired millions, and founded new philosophies. As a descendant of the lines of King Solomon and King David, Jesus possessed a rightful claim to the throne of the King of the Jews." (Chapter 55, p. 231)

Brief answer

This will be the only assertion Brown makes about Jesus that is correct. Jesus Christ is the pivotal person in the history of the Western World as the abbreviations B.C. and A.D. attest. He is, indeed, the most enigmatic leader the world has ever seen. He claimed and was understood to be divine and human at the same time. Many of his teachings are difficult to fully grasp and even more difficult to know how to obey. He claimed to fulfill the prophesies made in Old Testament times concerning the Jewish Messiah but did not fulfill them in the ways the Jews had distorted the expected fulfillments by the time He came. Jesus didn't personally topple any kings or found new philosophies, but I assume Brown is using a figure of speech to suggest that his followers in succeeding centuries did. The pagan Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire. However, rather than a few leaders forcing Christianity on the pagan masses the imperial edict in a lot of ways instituted a government in line with what was already taking place. Sociologist Rodney Stark estimates that Christians made up half of the population of the Roman Empire by 350 BC!¹ Christianity was very attractive because of how Christians lived out the teachings of Christ especially through persecutions, plagues and natural disasters. Probably the worst thing that ever did happen to institutional Christianity was that it was merged with governments. The attrocities that came from those unions is one of the reasons why Dan Brown and others want to destroy Christianity. Based on Jesus' teachings I doubt He would have wanted state churches. Think what the world would be like if Christians would simply attempt to live out Jesus' teachings, using only a minimal amount of organization and church government to aid them in that lifestyle? There would still be many enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church, but then the issue would be obedience to Jesus rather than to a church or government. Even so, Brown and many others would still attack the Bible's and Jesus's teachings on a lot of issues including sexuality and women's roles.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 2: The Council of Nicea voted to make Christ divine.

What do you think?

Did Jesus Marry Mary? Part 5 (of 5)

2006-03-27T06:54:00.000-05:00

This post continues a daily series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Assertion 5: A child would prove Jesus was not divine.

Teabing: A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divinity and therefore the Christian Church, which declared itself the sole vessel through which humanity could access the divine and gain entrance to the kingdom of heaven." (Chapter 60, p. 254)

Brief answer

Even if Jesus and Mary Magdalene had married and had children it would not undermine Christ's divinity. Jesus was both human and divine at the same time. This was understood from the very beginning as Larry Hurtado proves in his book Lord Jesus Christ.¹⁰ As a human He ate food, drank water, went to the bathroom, got blisters, and he bled and felt pain when He was crucified. He did all of this while also having a divine nature. He certainly could have had sex, as well. Fathering a child would only serve to prove He had a fully human body and nature. It would only undermine the Gnostic belief that Jesus didn't have a human body but just appeared to have one. Finally, the Church of the first few centuries did not see itself as an institution that had the power to control access to the kingdom of heaven. They believed only Jesus Christ had that authority (John 14:6). The Roman Catholic Church, at a later time, adopted the view of it having that kind of authority, and certainly was wrong to claim that. They, not the Apostles, took Christianity in the wrong direction, that is, away from Christ's teachings.

Summary and Conclusion

In summary, there is no historical evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene ever got married. The only evidence Brown cites is a Gnostic Gospel written 200 hundred or more years after Jesus and Mary Magdalene died. The authors of these Gnostic Gospels never intended to write actual biographical information about them. They used fictious, allegorical conversations as literary devices to communicate mystical ideas. Because of their philosophical point of view they would have been repulsed by the idea of interpreting their words as refering to marriage. Brown does not succeed in proving that Jesus married and fathered a child through Mary Magdalene, nor does he prove that Jesus was not divine.

References

¹⁰ Hurtado, Larry. Lord Jesus Christ. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

Tomorrow I will begin a new series on Dan Brown's assertions about Jesus.

What do you think?

Did Jesus Marry Mary? Part 4 (of 5)

2006-03-26T06:44:00.000-05:00

The Briton smiled. "My dear child, it was not Mary Magdalene's royal blood that concerned the Church so much as it was her consorting with Christ, who also had royal blood. As you know, the Book of Matthew tells us that Jesus was of the House of David. A descendant of King Solomon-King of the Jews. By marrying into the powerful House of Benjamin, Jesus fused two royal bloodlines, creating a potent political union with the potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne and restoring the line of kings as it was under Solomon." (Chapter 58, p. 249)

Brief answer

There is absolutely no evidence in any first or second century literature, Gnostic, Orthodox or other, that Mary Magdalene was a descendant of Benjamin. Brown or someone he copied from simply made this up. Even if she were, it would make no difference, because Jesus' plan for Kingdom or Church leadership did not depend on any political union between royalty. As I noted above, he would have condemned any worldly strategy to perpetuate His power in this way.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 5: A child would prove Jesus was not divine.

Did Jesus Marry Mary? Part 3 (of 5)

2006-03-25T08:41:00.000-05:00

Teabing: "These are photocopies of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, which I mentioned earlier," Teabing said. "The earliest Christian records. Troublingly, they do not match up with the gospels in the Bible." Flipping toward the middle of the book, Teabing pointed to a passage. "The Gospel of Philip is always a good place to start."
Sophie read the passage:

And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?"

The words surprised Sophie, and yet they hardly seemed conclusive. "It says nothing of marriage."
Au contraire." Teabing smiled, pointing to the first line. "As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse.
Langdon concurred with a nod.
Sophie read the first line again. And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene.
Teabing flipped through the book and pointed out several other passages that, to Sophie's surprise, clearly suggested Magdalene and Jesus had a romantic relationship ... Sir Leigh Teabing was still talking. "I shan't bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene's union. That has been explored ad nauseum by modern historians. (Chapter 58, p. 245 - 246)

Brief answer

The Gospel of Philip is not really "a good place to start," as scholars agree it was probably written anywhere from 250 - 300 C. E.⁴ This is vitally important to a correct interpretation of history. If I wrote an allegorical book composed of fictitious and highly symbolic conversations between George Washington and John Adams that were meant to communicate my speculative views on today's political environment, would you trust it to tell you the truth about Washington and Adams? And if you were an author of a history book on the American Revolution and cited my work as actual historical statements, you would be a laughing stock.

But wait! There's more. As I show in the article Assertions about the Bible, the Nag Hammadi texts and Dead Sea Scrolls were not the earliest Christian records. The books of the New Testament were written in the first century, only decades after Jesus' death and resurrection by and in the presence of eyewitnesses and friends of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written and compiled around the same time but were entirely Jewish, not even mentioning Jesus or Christianity, so they don't count. The Nag Hammadi texts were written in the second and third centuries. They were not intended to say anything about the actual life of Christ on earth. The Gnostics thought that was completely irrelevant to their theologies. Rather, they use fictitious, allegorical dialogs between Jesus and His disciples (and others like Mary Magdalene) to convey unorthodox ideas. They are highly speculative works of fiction not non-fiction.

The Gospel of Philip is one such Gnostic text, dating to no earlier than the second half of the third century (250 - 300 A.D.). Here is a link to the full text of the Gospel of Philip.⁵ This like the rest of the Gnostic Gospels are open to public study and have been heavily researched by scholars. They are not kept hidden away by the Roman Catholic Church in some grand conspiracy or something. There are at least six problems with Brown's use and interpretation of this passage. First, it is not close enough to Jesus' life to be deemed reliable. It was written at least 230 years after Jesus died, so even if it were intended to be a non-fictional account of an actual conversation, it would not be a reliable one.

Second, the only text we have is in Coptic, not in Aramaic. If it existed before that in another language it would have been in Greek, like other Gnostic Gospels, not Aramaic. Therefore, what Brown thinks it might have said in Aramaic is irrelevant.

The third problem is there is no Aramaic or Hebrew word for 'companion' that normally means spouse.⁶ Brown or someone he foolishly relied on had the wrong language in mind. To be fair, the Gospel is in Coptic, and the word translated "companion" can mean "spouse" or "wife" in that language.⁷ However, this is not what the author of Gospel of Philip had in mind anyway.

The fourth problem involves the highly esoteric and symbolic nature of the language used. We must remember that the author did not intend for readers to assume this was a narrative conversation that actually took place. Gnostic authors took pride in keeping their ideas from being understood by the unspiritual masses by using esoteric language. In other words, like any good guru/charlatan they reserved the sole authority over what their writings meant at a particular reading.

The fifth and related problem is the author or authors of Gospel of Philip never intended it to "match up with the gospels in the Bible." They intended their view to be an alternative view. They would take offense with any attempt to reconcile it with the New Testament Gospels! Montague James writes of them,

"there is no question of any one's having excluded them from the New Testament; they have done that for themselves."⁸

The sixth and biggest problem is the Gnostics would have gagged at the thought of Jesus and Mary Magdalene kissing in a romantic way, being married, having sex, and having children. They believed that Jesus was only divine and not human, and according to their Greek dualistic philosophy, God would never touch flesh, which they deemed was evil. The author would have cried, "Foul! You can't interpret my words to mean Jesus and Mary Magdalene got married!" To even begin to speculate what this conversation in the Gospel of Philip means one has to become acquainted with the mythological ideas of the gnostics. That is beyond the scope of this article and even scholars who specialize in gnosticism differ in their opinions about what it means. That attests to how well the Gnostic writers hid their meaning. While we may not know exactly what it does mean we may be certain of what it does not mean. Therefore, it can't mean what Dan Brown says it means.⁹

References

⁴ Isenberg, Wesley W. "The Gospel of Philip." The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. Robinson, James M., Gen. ed. (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco-HarperCollins Publishers, 1988), 139.
⁵ "Gospel of Philip". http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html.
⁶ Blomberg, Craig. book review of The Da Vinci Code. Denver Journal: An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological Studies. http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2004/0200/0202.php
⁷ Buckley, Jorunn Jacobsen. "The Holy Spirit is a Double Name." Ed. Karen L. King. In Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 215.
⁸ James, Montague. The Apocalyptic New Testament. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), xif.
⁹ See Buckley and response by Kurt Rudolph, pp. 232.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 4: Mary Magdalene had royal blood

Did Jesus Marry Mary? Part 2 (of 5)

2006-03-24T08:15:00.000-05:00

Teabing: "Moreover, Jesus as a married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor."
.... "Because Jesus was a Jew, "Langdon said, ... and the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son. If Jesus
were not married, at least one of the Bible's gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood." (Chapter 58, p. 245)

Brief answer

There are several insurmountable problems with this assertion. First, Jesus being a bachelor actually makes infinitely more sense than being married. The New Testament Gospels portray him as being singularly focused on His mission to offer His Kingdom to Israel and then to die as a result of being rejected. He travelled and worked constantly, not exactly a lifestyle conducive to marriage and family. Second, even if Jewish custom condemned celibacy, so what? Since when did Jesus ever do something to avoid social condemnation? He broke all kinds of cultural taboos like healing on the Sabbath, hanging out with "sinners," touching lepers and forgiving sins (which only God can do). His autonomy from cultural baggage is one of the things people most admire about Him! Third, and another thing we admire about Him, is His non-worldly perspective on power. He denounced using the usual worldly strategies for attaining and perpetuating political power (e.g. Matthew 20:20-28), which would surely include nepotism. Since he was planning to die and wasn't interested in his followers becoming a state power, what would be the point of getting married and fathering children? He had no need for a Queen Mary Magdalene and Princess Sophia. That is not how He viewed Kingdom leadership. It would run directly counter to all He taught about what the Kingdom of God is like. It would not be an ordinary Kingdom following ordinary protocols.

The authors of the New Testament Gospels bend over backwards to portray Jesus' qualifications for being Israel's Messiah/King. The authority with which He taught, His miracles over nature and illness, His exorcisms, His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and His resurrection all are put forth as proof of His qualifications. If they were so concerned with making sure their readers knew Jesus' qualifications for leadership and believed marriage was also a qualification, then why wouldn't they mention it, at least in an implied way? If marriage was a typical qualification, which it might have been, then celibacy was certainly excusable in light of these other greater qualifications.

While most Jewish men were married, celibacy was excused for reasons of piety as well. We know of a Jewish sect of Jesus' time, the Essenes, who practiced celebacy. This first century group was in existence during the time of Christ. Some of the Essenes chose celebacy because they saw themselves as holy warriors analogous to those in the time of Moses and Joshua. They, too, had a singular focus. They did not want to be distracted by the needs and responsibilities of a family.²

The Apostle Paul, a very Jewish Jewish man (Philippians 3:4-6), like Jesus, chose celibacy in order to be able to minister to more people without the distractions of family life (1 Corinthians 7:7). At the same time he mentioned that other apostles and even Jesus' brothers married, citing marriage as a right. In other words, a Jewish man could get married or remain celebate. It was up to him.

So when did the idea of sex and marriage become "evil" in some Christians eyes. The first seems to be in the century after the Apostles died. Groups of "Christians" like the Gnostics promoted celebacy because they believed the flesh, and therefore sex, were inherently evil. They believed celibacy was necessary to attain the ultimate spirituality. This is one reason these groups did not last long! Their view of the flesh as evil was not an Old Testament or New Testament view. It was a pagan view, imported from some of the Greek philosophers. Unfortunately, there have been well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning Christians throughout Church history who adopted this view, but please keep in mind it is contrary to what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God created us male and female and with the ability to enjoy sex-under one restriction-as man and wife. Sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage is what is evil. (Don't shoot me, the messenger, that's what the Bible teaches.) For more on this please read my article God's Purposes for Marriage and Sex

This "brief answer" has turned out to be not-so-brief, so I want to refer you to Darrell L. Bock's excellent article on Beliefnet which cites still more reasons why we can assume Jesus did not marry.³

The point in all this is that both Jews and Christians did not see celibacy as a disqualifier for spiritual leadership. It was actually seen as useful in special circumstances.

References

² Harrison, R.K. "Essenes." Volume Two D-G. Gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Vol. 2 of The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library-Zondervan, 1976), 5 vols.
³ "Was Jesus married?" http://beliefnet.com/story/135/story_13520_1.html

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 3: The Gospel of Philip says they were married.

Did Jesus Marry Mary? Part 1 (of 5)

2006-03-23T09:42:00.000-05:00

This post begins a daily series showing how Dan Brown's assertions about a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Introduction

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes 5 (by my count) assertions about a supposed marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Essentially, he asserts that their marriage is supported by historical documents in the possession of a secret society, and that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't want the public to ever read them. He thinks that it would undermine the belief that Jesus is divine. Some people say, "Well, its only a novel, so why do you bother to criticize these ideas?" It is true that it is only a novel, but because of his statement at the beginning of the book, that the description of these documents is "accurate," we have to assume he really believes in them and the conspiracy theory to cover them up. In addition, many people who are not knowledgeable about the subject are entertaining the idea he is right and thereby getting a false view of history. Most importantly, what a person believes about Jesus ought to be based on truth not falsehood. I will show that what Brown believes about Jesus is based on false information.

In this article I address each of his 5 assertions, quoting the actual dialogs in his book and providing the page number where it is found. I also include the chapter number in case the text appears on different page numbers in future editions. Second, I give brief answers to each assertion to show how it is wrong. I know that many people are only seeking a brief answer and will be satisfied. For those desiring more explanation I provide links to other resources that give more detailed background information to support my answers. Email me at GaryBurger@NewMediaMinistries.org if you need further guidance in doing your own research.

Assertion 1: The marriage of Jesus and Mary is confirmed by historical documents.

Teabing: "As I said earlier, the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record." (Chapter 58, p. 245)

Brief answer

Real historians, both liberal and conservative, disagree with this statement. There is absolutely, I repeat, absolutely no historical record or even slightest valid inference of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This assertion is a very recent invention by people who are only interested in attacking the Roman Catholic Church or Christianity in general. The first popular book I know of to assert the idea of a marriage between them is Holy Blood, Holy Grail.¹ At least this is where Brown admits to getting the idea. Brown's idea of historical record is a passage from one the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, which he misinterprets. I will address this with Assertion 3.

References

¹ Baigent, Michael, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. Holy Blood, Holy Grail. New York: Dell Publishing. 1983.

Tomorrow I will deal with:

Assertion 2: Jesus was Jewish so he had to be married.

Teabing: "Moreover, Jesus as a married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor."
.... "Because Jesus was a Jew, "Langdon said, ... and the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son. If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible's gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood." (Chapter 58, p. 245)

What do you think?

Taking a break

2006-03-03T07:31:00.000-05:00

I will be taking a break for about a week and a half.

Blessings,

Gary Burger

Did Old Testament Jews worship the sacred feminine? Part 4 (of 4)

2006-03-03T07:28:00.000-05:00

¹ Brown, Francis. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2001. p. 218.

What do you think?

Did Old Testament Jews worship the sacred feminine? Part 3 (of 4)

2006-03-02T07:11:00.000-05:00

Did Old Testament Jews worship the sacred feminine? Part 2 (of 4)

2006-03-01T06:52:00.000-05:00

This post continues a four day series showing how Dan Brown's assertions that the Old Testament of the Bible supports the worship of a female goddess are wrong. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org Endnote references will appear at the end of the series.

Assertion 2: Old Testament Judaism condoned sex with priestesses.

Did Old Testament Jews worship the sacred feminine? Part 1 (of 4)

2006-02-28T08:00:00.000-05:00

Langdon to Sophie: "Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah." (Chapter 74, p. 309)

What do you think?

The Sangreal Documents: Do they exist? Part 5 (of 5)

2006-02-24T07:25:00.000-05:00

This post concludes a five part daily series about the Sangreal Documents which Dan Brown describes in his novel The Da Vinci Code. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Conclusion

At the heart of the matter lies the question, Do the New Testament Gospels give us an accurate picture of what Jesus said and did or not? If not, then humanity followed lies for the past nearly 2000 years and we have every reason to look for the truth from other sources. However, if they are the most accurate and most reliable historical records available and there is every good reason to believe they tell us the truth, then any other documents will lead us away from the truth. False documents like the Sangreal Documents, if produced, would only lead us away from the truth. We have no good reason for believing in the alternative history Dan Brown created or stole from others who made it up. It is beyond the scope and purpose of this article to explain the good reasons we have for believing the New Testament Gospels are reliable records of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Please read my other articles about the reliability of the Bible.

Tomorrow I will begin a new series on what we can and can't know about Mary Magdalene.

What do you think about what I have written?

The Sangreal Documents: Do they exist? Part 4 (of 5)

2006-02-23T08:35:00.000-05:00

This post continues a five part daily series about the Sangreal Documents which Dan Brown describes in his novel The Da Vinci Code. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Do similar documents exist?

Although the Sangreal Documents and other similar ones do not actually exist, is it possible that a real-life Robert Langdon could find something like them--specifially, documents that claim Jesus and Mary had a child together. There is good reason to conclude it is not very possible. Dan Brown's argument for Jesus and Mary having a child is full of fallicies. Please read my article: Assertions about a Marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (opens in new window) for a full explanation. In other words, there is really no good reason, based on the best of historical research, to believe that any documents like them would exist-at least authentic ones that tell the truth. If a real-life Robert Langdon discovers a set of documents that say what Brown and others like Lewis Perdue say they would say, we would know the author forged them. It would be easy to spot the falsehood.

Now, some would say to this, "But of course the history books were written by those who would cover up the truth to secure their own power. Therefore, we cannot know the truth from the usual sources. The truth has to come from unusual sources-ones that have been kept hidden from the authorities." As with all conspiracy theories, there is enough truth to make the theory sound at least plausible. After all, the Roman Catholic Church covered up the misdeeds of priests who were pedophiles. They certainly did and were wrong to do so, but that is a very different kind of problem. In order to discover the truth about Jesus and Mary we are not dealing with the modern Roman Catholic Church and its problems. We are not dealing with the problems of the Roman Catholic Church during the Crusades, Middle Ages and the Inquisition. We are not even dealing with the leaders and writings of the Church of the second and third centuries--before Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire (and took a very bad turn). We are dealing with the very first, eyewitness followers of Jesus and what they preserved and why they preserved it. They vigorously passed on what Jesus said and did and worked hard to protect it from distortion by those who wanted to usurp Jesus' message for their own gain. The New Testament documents (written in the first century) tell this plainly, accurately and passionately.

Tomorrow I will write the conclusion to this series.

What do you think? Do you think similar documents exist? Why? Why not?

The Sangreal Documents: Do they exist? Part 3 (of 5)

2006-02-22T07:00:00.000-05:00

The Sangreal Documents: Do they exist? Part 2 (of 5)

2006-02-21T06:54:00.000-05:00

This post continues a five part daily series about the Sangreal Documents which Dan Brown describes in his novel The Da Vinci Code. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

The origin of the idea

Sangreal is a compound of San Greal (or Graal), which translated, means Holy Grail. That in and of itself does not pose a problem. That is the normal, historical meaning in the medieval legends. What does pose a problem is the possibility of it meaning something else as well. Why were these documents supposed to be so threatening to the Church? Brown as it turns out is promoting a theory argued by Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln in their best-selling book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. They point out that one can also divide Sangreal to make sang real (raal), which translated, means royal blood. If so, this would give a clue as to the contents of the Sangreal Documents. These authors, including Dan Brown, claim that the Sangreal Documents tell a more complete story than the New Testament Gospels and the Church has told--namely that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child, thereby continuing his royal bloodline. The reason this would threaten the Church is that Jesus fathering a child would somehow prove that He was not divine which the Church says He is. The Church says it derives its power from a divine Jesus in Heaven not a dead man. If this is all true the Church and its authority is built on a lie-and that is the suggestion Dan Brown tries to make with his book.

For those who for one reason or another hope the Church and its traditional views and authority would crumble like a house of cards if the truth is discovered it is tempting to believe that the Sangreal Documents or ones like them actually exist. Dan Brown is not the first to write them into a novel. He seems to have actually stolen the idea from novelist Lewis Perdue who wrote The Da Vinci Legacy. Perdue came up with the name Da Vinci Documents. In another novel, Daughter of God, Perdue calls them the Sophia Documents. Brown invented the term Magdalene Diaries. For more on this read: Dan Brown Charged with Plagiarism (opens in new window).

Tomorrow I will address the possibility of the existence of the Sangreal Documents.

What do you think? Do you think they exist? Why? Why not?

The Sangreal Documents: Do they exist? Part 1 (of 5)

2006-02-20T09:56:00.000-05:00

This post begins a five part daily series about the Sangreal Documents which Dan Brown describes in his novel The Da Vinci Code. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

People want to know

Interestingly, many of the folks that visit my blog (GaryBurger.Blogspot.com) and website (www.NewMediaMinistries.org) come looking for information on The Sangreal Documents. Perhaps you, yourself found this post or article by typing into a search engine one of the following words or phrases: Sangreal, Sangraal, San Greal, San Graal, Sang Real, Sang Raal.

Dan Brown's Sangreal Documents

According to Dan Brown's character Robert Langdon, the Sangreal Documents were documents the Knights Templar excavated from under the ruins of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem in the twelfth century (The Da Vinci Code, Chapter 37, p. 157 - 161). The contents of these documents were supposedly so threatening to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church that the Knights Templar were able to blackmail the Church into giving them tremendous power and wealth. However, on Friday, October 13, 1307, Pope Clement implemented a covert operation to round up, torture and execute all of the Knights Templar. However, the knights hid the documents in a new location before Popes forces captured and executed them. Only the secret society known as the Priory of Sion knows where they hid them. In addition, the Sangreal Documents, according to Brown contain the Magdalene Diaries and the Purist Documents. He does not elaborate on these very much.

Tomorrow I will address the origin of the idea behind these documents.

What do you think? Do you think they exist? Why? Why not?

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 13 (of 13)

2006-02-14T06:07:00.000-05:00

Conclusion

References and Resources

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 12 (of 13)

2006-02-13T07:30:00.000-05:00

Why is history so important in Christianity?

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete. This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you.

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 11 (of 13)

2006-02-12T07:49:00.000-05:00

The Nature of Faith and Proof

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 10 (of 13)

2006-02-11T07:02:00.000-05:00

The State of Scholarship regarding the Gospels

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 9 (of 13)

2006-02-10T07:31:00.000-05:00

The Copies Have Been Accurately Translated

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 8 (of 13)

2006-02-09T08:05:00.000-05:00

The Gospels were accurately copied

The Bibliographic Test

The difference in time between the originals and the oldest copies

The Number of Copies

The Accuracy of the Copies

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 7 (of 13)

2006-02-08T07:37:00.000-05:00

The External Corroboration Test

Affirmed by other ancient writers

Jesus was from Nazareth;

He lived a wise and virtuous life;

He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king;

He was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later;

His enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats;

His small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome;

His disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshipped Christ as Divine.

Affirmed by archaeology

Now what about the archaeological evidence? That is an important part of the External Corraboration Test. Archaeologist Nelson Glueck has boldly asserted,

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 6 (of 13)

2006-02-07T06:15:00.000-05:00

The Credibility Test

The Internal Consistency Test

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 5 (of 13)

2006-02-06T08:33:00.000-05:00

The Written Tradition is a reliable record

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 4 (of 13)

2006-02-05T07:34:00.000-05:00

The Oral Tradition is historically accurate

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 3 (of 13)

2006-02-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

Can the Bible be a reliable transmission of God's revelation to us?

"Jesus was just a man, a very talented teacher who stepped on the toes of the authorities and was crucified for it. Then the followers of Jesus started telling others about Jesus' life and teachings, who then told others about Jesus' life and teachings and they went on to tell others and so on. And this oral tradition was passed on for a long time until it was finally written down. And then once it was written down it was then copied over and over. Of course, along the way people took the liberty, as in the telephone game, of changing what they heard to suit their purposes before passing it along. Perhaps they heard or read something that didn't sound very clear so they embellished it a little to try to make it more understandable for the next person. Or in an attempt to persuade, they even lied and said Jesus performed great miracles of healing people, raising them from the dead, and even rising from the dead himself. The bottom line is when we read the Bible 2000 years later we can't know what really happened. Therefore, we can only place the Bible on the same level of importance as the Hindu or Buddhist scriptures, the Koran, the Native American folk tales and The National Enquirer magazine."

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 2 (of 13)

2006-02-03T08:00:00.000-05:00

The Nature of Inspiration

God superintended human authors so that

using their own individual personalities

they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man

in the words of the orinigal autographs.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Part 1 (of 13)

2006-02-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

Introduction: The Need for the Bible

General Revelation

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Special Revelation

Mary Magdalene: What We Know Part 8 (of 8)

2006-02-01T07:45:00.000-05:00

This post concludes a daily series about what we can know about Mary Magdalene from the best historical source we have, namely the New Testament Gospels. This is relevant because of the misunderstandings caused by Dan Brown in his novel The Da Vinci Code. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Summary

The following list summarizes what we know about Mary Magdalene from the New Testament Gospels which are the only source of information that exists about her.

Her name identified her as a Jew from the town of Magdala, near Tiberius.

She was single and finanically self-sufficient.

Jesus excorcised seven demons from her.

She became a member of a group of financially self-sufficient women who traveled with Jesus.

She graciously contributed to the material needs of Jesus and the Disciples and served them in other ways, perhaps cooking and washing clothes.

She and Jesus did not have a romantic or marriage relationship.

She was one of "many" women who witnessed Jesus' crucifixion.

She and other women witnessed Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus (two religious leaders) prepare Jesus' body for burial and place him in Joseph's tomb.

She returned with the other women three days later to anoint Jesus' body with perfume but discovered the body was missing from the tomb.

Jesus appeared to her, and she had a brief conversation with Him. He told her to go tell His disciples He was risen.

She had an unfailing devotion to Jesus.

She demonstrated leadership qualities which suggest she might have been the leader of the group of women followers.

Conclusion

We looked at every single reference to Mary Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels. All we can know about Mary is found in those references. Any theories beyond that are merely baseless speculation including the assertion that she and Jesus were married. For more on Dan Brown's assertion that they were married please see my article: Assertions about a Marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. There and in other ariticles on my web site I have shown the Gnostic Gospels can not provide any factual information about the real Jesus and Mary, as that was not their authors' intent.

We do not know what she did after Jesus' Ascension. The Gospels do not tell us how old she was. Popular conception has it that she was Jesus' age, yet we do not know this. She could have been Jesus' mother's age or older. Perhaps that is why we do not hear of her again. Maybe she was too old and frail to continue to serve and went back to Magdala to live a few more years and die. She might have stayed in Jerusalem continuing to serve the Apostles and the thousands of new believers (Acts 2:42-47).

Although Jesus gave Mary the job of returning to the Disciples to tell them He had risen we do not know for a fact that He meant for her to have a more prominent role in the Primitive Church than any other woman or man. It seems reasonable to assume that if that is what He meant then Luke would have told about this important role in the Book of Acts. The fact of the matter is that Jesus left His Church to Peter and the Apostles to lead and grow. (I'm not Roman Catholic so I'm not suggesting that Peter was the first Pope in that sense of the word.) The Book of Acts (which, as a sequel to Luke, tells what happened after Jesus returned to Heaven) mentions some prominent female leaders, but the focus is on the ministry of the Apostles. That is why we don't even know what happened to Jesus' mother or any of the other women that are mentioned in the Gospels. It does not mean they were unimportant or didn't make important contributions to the young movement of Jesus' followers. However, neither can we say they did have important roles. The writers of Acts and the rest of the New Testament simply had other topics and people they chose to write about instead. Mary Magdalene might have continued to have a prominent role. But then again she might not have. She might have siimply gone back to her hometown—back to her livelihood and family. We just can not know, and modern feminists who latch on to Mary Magdalene are simply using her for support of their own causes. But chances are, as a first century Palestinian Jewish woman, she would probably have thought modern feminism is ridiculous, especially that strand that wants to elevate her to the level of a goddess.

What should we make of the legends about Mary going to France? The problems are (1) that they are only legends that have no real support from history, (2) are contradictory, (3) seem to have been manufactured for PR purposes, and (4) were invented many centuries after Mary died. Please see Wikipedia: Mary Magdalene for more on the legends. The medieval legends and modern authors' reliance on them completely miss the point of the first missionary journeys by the first Christians. We know from the Book of Acts that the focus of these trips was to tell people about the Good News of Christ's life, teachings, death, resurrection and offer of salvation. They were evangelistic. Forming a political alliance with the kings of France does not fit into this agenda at all. Jesus' taught that His Kingdom was a spiritual one not a geopolitical one. The Apostles understood this well. The idea of a geopolitcal Kingdom did not creep into the Church until centuries later.

In fact, all that Dan Brown asserts about Mary Magdalene is based on pure speculation, not historically reliable documents. The only exception is his (correctly) pointing out that she was not a prostitute. Yet the only historically reliable evidence he can possibly claim to know she was not a prostitute comes from the New Testament Gospels, which (ironically) he claims are not reliable because of the misogynistic bias of their authors and the church leaders of the time. It is amazing that people like Dan Brown don't believe the Bible is a reliable source of historical truth because they think (wrongly) that the Bible is full of unreliable myths and legends, yet believe legends about Mary Magdalene to be true even though they are legends! This is why I repeatedly say he doesn't really know what he is writing about at all.

Mary Magdalene: What We Know Part 7 (of 8)

2006-01-31T06:25:00.000-05:00

Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Mary Magdalene is mentioned also in Mark 16:9-10:

"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping."

There is a problem with these verses as well as the rest of the passage in verses 11 - 20. These verses are not found in the earliest and best manuscripts but seem to have been added by a later copist. Apparently, this later copyist was uncomfortable with Mark's abrupt ending at verse 8 and so added these verses. Verses 9 and 10 are, however, consistent with material in the other gospels. Remember that Luke 8:2 says Jesus had driven seven demons out of her earlier. They agree, also, with other passages in Matthew 28:8, Luke 24:10 and John 20:2 that she went to tell the disciples about Jesus' missing body.

Luke does not relate the story of Jesus' appearance to Mary at all. The first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus Luke relates is to two of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. This is not a contradiction; Luke simply chose to not relate the appearance outside the tomb.

In John 20:10-17 John does not use the geographical identifier, Magdalene. At this point, he refers to her only as "Mary." However, that she is Mary Magdalene is unmistakable in the context of verses 1 and 18.

Here are verses 10-18:

Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to lookk into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?"
"They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. "
"Woman, he said, "why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?"
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him."
Jesus said to her, "Mary."
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher).
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. God instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
Mary of Magdala went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

John is the only Gospel that preserves this interaction between Mary and Jesus, and it shows us several characteristics of Mary. First, Mary had a very strong devotion to Jesus. It does not even hint, though, at any kind of romantic attraction or relationship or marriage. Second, it suggests that Mary might have been the leader of the group of women. She showed the leadership qualities of initiative and self-confidence when she went to the tomb with extra spices (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, John 20:1) and especially even though they didn't have a plan for removing the stone from the entrance to the tomb which by scholars' estimate would have weighed around 2 tons. The fact that she did not give up easily is seen when after the disciples left the empty tomb she stayed and "bent over to look into the tomb (John 20:11)." Her persistence paid off because not only did she talk to two angels but was the first to see Jesus alive and talk to Him. Added to this persistence was a confident determination to get what she wants revealed when she told Jesus, whom she mistook for the gardener, "tell me where you have put him, and I will get him." (John 20:15)

Tomorrow I will summarize what we know about Mary Magdalene from the New Testament Gospels and write my conclusion.

"Knowing" history

2006-01-30T09:04:00.000-05:00

I would like to interrupt the series Mary Magdalene: What We Know to address a comment that was left on Thursday, Jan. 26. Here is the text of that comment:

All due respect, but the word "know" is a bit strong for anything related to early christian history. (As is history.)

I understand each person of faith thinks that the legend behind their faith is flawless, from the outside, it is pretty clear that much or all of it could be fabricated.

Even jesus himself, all due respect again, could likely be a myth, or at least a very changed history. He could be the combination of several men.

I mean do you think the stories about buddah or mohammed are all true?

Alex,

Thank you for your comment. I apologize for taking so long to reply--been busy. A lot of people are, like yourself, put off by the claim to know anything with certainty (or much certainty) about early Christian history. You even alluded to the problems with knowing anything in "history."

I concede that the challenges are great because of the relative paucity of documents we have. However, the challenges are not insurmountable. I am using the term "know" as secular historians often use it with regard to ancient secular history. It is interesting that secular historians say they "know" this or that about Roman history of the same time period even when there is little to no documentary evidence. They often are left only to argue from cause and effect. For example, I've read in two separate sources (I wish I could remember now where) that there is no ancient eyewitness document that states that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon on Jan. 10, 49 B.C. However, the effects (Caesar's rise to power) can only be explained by his crossing it. Thus any encyclopedia will state he crossed the Rubicon on that date as a factual statement without even stating there is no ancient documentation for it.

It is interesting then to note how all the standards for historical certainty become double-standards when applied to the New Testament documents, which are our primary source for information about Jesus, his followers (Mary Magdalene), and the primitive (first century) Church. The most cited reason for the double-standard over the years has been something like, "since we know God and miracles don't exist, any ancient document that talks about God and records miracles can not possibly by a reliable source of history." The problem is, again, the double-standard. If we threw out all ancient documents that referred to God/gods and miracles we would have to throw out all ancient documents. Instead, competent historians separate out the information in an ancient document that relates the non-supernatural aspects such as names, dates, places, etc.

Competent scholarship has shown over and over that the New Testament is a set of reliable historical documents for the non-supernatural aspects. So the follow through question is: If the authors were so careful to accurately record the non-supernatural aspects then why can't we rely on them to accurately record the supernatural aspects like the miracles as well? There is no good reason to say we shouldn't--only an predetermined anti-supernatural bias (not very open-minded). Please see my article The Bible: A Relic or Reliable Revelation? for more details on the reliability of the Bible.

When we apply the same standards that historians use in secular history to primitive Christian history we are forced to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that Jesus could be a myth or composite of legends. Just as Caesar's rise to power can not be adequately explained without him crossing the Rubicon, the rapid rise of Christianity can not be adequately explained by Jesus being anything other than who the New Testament claims He is--the Jewish Messiah, the risen Savior, Lord, God.

I do not believe what I write about Jesus and Mary because of some uneducated naivety. I believe it because I have spent countless hours over the past 30 years studying the evidence for and against and becoming convinced that the New Testament is a reliable source of information. I don't know what your educational background is but be careful you don't just mindlessly parrot what you've heard others mindlessly parrot who just parrot what others mindlessly parrot, etc. If you will do the homework yourself you will realize it is not intellectually honest to dismiss it as easily as you do. I invite you to investigate it more.

Gary Burger

P.S. I enjoyed your High Powered Rocketry. It reminded me of the fun I had when I was a kid shooting model rockets. It must be an awesome thrill to shoot the larger ones that you do.

Mary Magdalene: What We Know Part 6 (of 8)

2006-01-28T08:30:00.000-05:00

After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. ... The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his diciples. (Matthew 28:1, 5-8)

Mark writes:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. (Mark 16:1)

The rest of the passage (vv. 2 - 8) goes on to describe their finding the covering stone rolled away from the tomb's entrance and their conversation with an angel. Mark's version is very similar to Matthew's:

Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'" Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Luke writes a very similar account in Luke 24:1-8 but does not name the women who went to the tomb until verse 10:

"When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles." (Luke 24:9-10)

Luke referrs to Mary in the Greek literally as "the Magdalene Mary" in order to eliminate any possible confusion with the other Mary.

John in a parallel passage writes:

"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary of Magdala went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!' " (John 20:1, 2)

The other women mentioned by Matthew, Mark and Luke are not mentioned here. The focus is solely on Mary Magdalene in order to build up to her encounter with the resurrected Jesus in verses 10-18 (see below).

Tomorrow we will look at Mary Magdalene at Jesus' post-resurrection appearances

Mary Magdalene: What We Know Part 5 (of 8)

2006-01-27T08:27:00.000-05:00

As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus...Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there across from the tomb.

Mark writes:

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid." (Mark 15:47).

Luke does not include the names of any of the women just as he did not name them when they were watching Jesus die:

The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and propared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

John does not mention the women at all at in his account of the burial (John 19:38-42. There is no contradiction here. He simply has a different focus on making sure the reader understands that there was no funny business with the body. Jesus' burial was striclty by the book supporting the credibility of the Apostles' claim that Jesus died, was buried, and then rose from the dead.

In the passages where the women are named Mary Magdalene appears to be the most prominent person at the burial site. This, again, is probably due to her role as the first person to see Jesus alive again and his assignment to her to tell the Disciples. He could rely on her to get the job done of notifying them and persuading them to come back to see the empty tomb for themselves.

Tomorrow we will look at the references to Mary at the empty tomb.

Mary Magdalene: What We Know Part 4 (of 8)

2006-01-26T07:12:00.000-05:00

But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. (Luke 23:49)

Matthew reports:

Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. (Matthew 27:55)

We are informed here that Mary Magdalene and the other women traveled with Jesus as helpers. The Greek word that is translated "to care for his needs" is the same word from which we get the word "deacon" and means to help, to serve, or to minister to. These women were helping voluntarily out of an overflow of the healing grace they received from Jesus.

Mark uses the same expression when he writes:

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had follwed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there. (Mark 15:40)

This passage adds the name of Salame to the list of women and then says many other women came to witness the crucifixion as well.

John gives a briefer discription:

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. (John 19:25)

At Jesus' execution, Mary Magdalene is portrayed by the authors of the Gospels as simply one of several women followers of Jesus. Mark and Matthew might have put her name at the front of the list because of her more prominent role in being the first person to see Jesus after He rose from the dead (reported by John in John 20:10-18). It might also imply she was the leader of the group of women. That she was single and wealthy enough to be able to travel around with Jesus and His followers would imply that she was a strong and independent woman. She may have been in charge of a family business. Her repeated inclusion in the lists of women follwers may mean she was the most influencial of the group of women. Perhaps she took charge of how the other women served Jesus and the disciples.

John does not put her at the front of his list giving deference first to Jesus' mother, then to His aunt, then to Mary the wife of Clopas. He puts Mary of Magdala last.That John would put Jesus' mother and aunt before Mary Magdalene is quite understandable since they are family and in light of the upcoming exchange between Jesus, his mother and John (vs. 26-27). This familial priority would also imply that Mary the wife of Clopas is a family member as well. The ancient church historian Eusebius relates that she was the sister of Joseph making her an aunt as well.

No other non-family member is mentioned in this list of women at the cross This might suggest a prominent role for Mary Magdalene. On the other hand, it may only mean that John put her in the list to prepare the reader for her encounter with Jesus in chapter 20. It certainly does not automatically mean they had a romantic relationship or were married.

Tomorrow we will look at the brief references to Mary at the burial of Jesus.

Mary Magdalene: What We Know Part 3 (of 8)

2006-01-25T08:56:00.000-05:00

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.

We learn several things about Mary Magdalene from this introduction. She was among "many" people, including other women, who travelled with Jesus and his disciples. She had been possessed by seven demons, which Jesus exorcised from her. She also seems to have been single.

It was customary in those days to identify a woman by the name of her husband (or by her sons if they are prominent-see Luke 24:10). This is the way Luke identifies Joanna the wife of Cuza. Instead, Luke identifies her by her hometown, which was a customary way of identifying a single woman. Although Suzanna is not identified by her hometown she was probably also single since she is not identified with a husband. The important point is that if Jesus and Mary were married at this time then Luke would have called her "Mary the wife of Jesus."

Luke writes that these women were contributing to the material needs of Jesus and his Disciples as they traveled and ministered. Because of this we may safely assume she was fairly wealthy or at least financially independent. Even so, before Jesus cast the demons out of her she was probably socially ostracized. She may not have been able to return to her family and community, but now she is a member of a new community based on God's gracious acceptance.⁵

There is absolutely no hint of a close, privileged, romantic or improper relationship between her and Jesus. It is true that in that culture single women travelling with single men would have been seen as immoral and socially unacceptable, however, we must weight this charge against what Luke has just shown us about Jesus' character, priorities and treatment of women.

In Luke's Gospel, her introduction comes after the story of the prostitute coming to Jesus in Simon the Pharisee's house for repentance of her sin (Lk 7: 36-50). He clearly reveals his view of sexual sin. He not only condemns it but also graciously forgives people of it. He also clearly reveals his perspective on social norms. He condemns the practice of using social norms to prevent people from receiving God's gracious forgiveness as Simon the Pharisee wanted to do. Any charges or rumors of sexual immorality generated by this odd travelling group could be dispelled immediately by travelling with it or observing it for a day. Jesus ensured the highest of propriety by making his life, teachings and followers highly visible to large groups of people. Furthermore, the Gospel writers never mention that Jesus' critics had a problem with single women travelling with Jesus and His disciples.

Especially in light of the previous story about Simon, it is readily apparent that these women wanted to generously manifest their gratitude for what Jesus had done for them. They chose to serve Him in a way that was to become a pattern for others later in the very first years of the Church. They put their material wealth into His service. Luke relates in his sequel (Acts 4:32) that "no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common."

References

⁵ Green, Joel. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997. 318.

Tomorrow we will look at the references to Mary at Jesus' execution.

Mary Magdalene: What We Know Part 2 (of 8)

2006-01-24T06:27:00.000-05:00

This post continues a daily series about what we can know about Mary Magdalene from the best historical source we have, namely the New Testament Gospels. This is relevant because of the misunderstandings caused by Dan Brown in his novel The Da Vinci Code. Each day's post is a small chunk of a complete article at my website at www.NewMediaMinistries.org

Her name and hometown

Mary is the English translation of Maria or Miriam, which was a common Hebrew name. There were several other Marys identified in the Gospels including Jesus' mother. Their namesake was the prophetess in Exodus 15:20-21. It was a very popular name in NT times because it was the name of Herod the Great's wife.¹ That she was named Mary definitely shows she was a Jew.

Magdalene is not her last name but means she was from the town of Magdala. The Greek word translated Magdalene literally means "woman from Magdala".²Sometimes she is referred to in the Gospels as "Mary the Magdalene." Similarly, Jesus was from Nazareth, and so he was referred to as "the Nazarene" (Mk. 16:6). Magdala now lies under the modern day town of Khirbet Mejdel, three miles Northwest of Tiberias, on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee. The name Magdala seems to have been derived from the Hebrew word "migdal," meaning "tower" or "fortification."³ Alfred Edersheim wrote in 1882, "The ancient watch-tower which gave the place its name is still there, probably standing on the same site as that which looked down on Jesus and the Magdalene."⁴

Occurrences

Mary Magdalene is referred to by name 14 times in the four Gospels. One time she is referred to as "Mary (called Magdalene)" to distinguish her from other Mary's (Lk. 8:2). Two times she is referred to simply as "Mary" but the context makes it clear that John means Mary Magdalene (Jn 20:11,16). Eleven times she is referred to in the Greek text as "Mary the Magdalene."

She is not mentioned again in Acts or the rest of the New Testament. Since there are other women mentioned in Acts and the Epistles who play prominent roles in the first century churches, it is difficult to argue that Mary Magdalene had as prominent a role as Dan Brown and others say she did.

The next time her name appears in any early Christian literature is at least 150 years later in the so-called Gnostic Gospels. They were written from the late second century through the fourth century. In those texts she is used as a literary symbol in an allegorical style that is not intended to communicate anything about her actual earthly existence. She is simply a fictional character that serves as a mouthpiece for Gnostic theological ideas which are too complicated and bizarre to write about here.

References

¹ Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 4, p. 103)
² Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P. 608.
³ Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. p. 548, 550.
⁴ Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans. 1883. (Reprint 1942) p. 572.

Tomorrow we will look at her as a member of the group that travelled with Jesus.