The Da Vinci Hoax : Part Three
The fiction: Brown claims that Constanine had a new Bible commissioned that ommitted all the books that didn't fit with his new chauvanistic version of Christianity. Brown also claims that Jesus' divinity was voted on at Nicea, and only passed by a relatively close vote. Before that Jesus' followers only thought of him as a mortal prophet.
The facts: First off, I doubt Constantine was actually a true Christian and I'm sure his motivations were entirely political. I have no delusions that he wasn't just trying to keep a solid hold on his own power. But that's also no grounds to assume that he tampered with a religion that already had hundreds of thousands of followers across the Roman Empire whose theology was already well established before Constantine was even born. So here's the big picture: Constantine had just consolidated his hold over the Western Empire. In 318 A.D. a man named Arius began teaching that Jesus was a created being, and not the Son of God. Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, declared Arius a heretic at a local council in 321 A.D. and Arius moved to Palestine where he began spreading his teachings throughout the Empire via letters. The debate over this issue grew over the next several years until it came to the attention of Constantine himself. Constantine wished to keep all religions unified, especially Christianity, and feared this debate would lead to a serious division in the Christian church. Thus the Council of Nicea was called.
Was there a vote to determine Jesus' divinity? Technically yes, but the vote was to affirm the already established belief of the church and refute the heresy of Arius. Jesus' divinity wasn't an invention of Constantine or the council. And out of over 300 Bishops at the council, only 2 agreed with Arius and voted against Jesus' divintiy. This can hardly be called a "close vote."
The problem Brown faces with his assertion that Jesus' original followers believed him to be a mere mortal is that there are over two and a half centuries worth of writings from early church fathers that predate Nicea, all of which affirm that the prevailing belief was that Jesus was the Son of God. Among them are Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and others, all of whom lived and wrote long before the Council of Nicea. Another problem he faces is that he claims the Gnostics were the "original" disciples of Christ. But if you actually read the Gnostics gospels, they believed that flesh was evil and only spirit was good, so they would not have followed someone who they believed to be a mere mortal.
As for the formation of the official Bible canon, this issue wasn't even on the table at Nicea. Constantine only financed a number of copies of the New Testament to be produced, and had no active role in choosing which books were included. In fact, most historical evidence confirms that the Bible canon was pretty well established by 200 A.D. Among this evidence is a canon list dated to the latter half of the first century (called the "Muratorian Fragment" after the historian who discovered it in 1704) that includes all but 4 of the 27 books of the New Testament (including the 4 gospels). This list also specifically mentions several Gnostic writings that were to be omitted as heretical, showing that Gnostic teaching was widely dismissed by the church long before Constantine came to power.
One last thing that is important to note is Brown's assertion that we can't trust much of recorded history because it was recorded by the "winners." The problem with this is again that Brown's timing is off. Until Constantine came to power and made Christianity the Empire's official religion, Christians were persecuted and killed for their beliefs. This is the time when all the early church fathers I mentioned above were teaching and writing. They can hardly be considered history's "winners" and yet their writings perfectly support the orthadox teachings that Constantine and his buddies supposedly invented at Nicea. Upon a closer look, it seems history is not on Brown's side. But that's the advantage of a conspiracy theory, you can simply fold all this evidence into the conspiracy and ignore it. *Shrugs*
There will most likely be a fourth and final part to this series, but I'm not sure what the topic will be yet. Be on the lookout. I really can't wait for the movie now (oh, and Misison: Impossible 3 was really sweet, if anyone wants to know. J. J. Abrams is amazing). Take care everyone!
The facts: First off, I doubt Constantine was actually a true Christian and I'm sure his motivations were entirely political. I have no delusions that he wasn't just trying to keep a solid hold on his own power. But that's also no grounds to assume that he tampered with a religion that already had hundreds of thousands of followers across the Roman Empire whose theology was already well established before Constantine was even born. So here's the big picture: Constantine had just consolidated his hold over the Western Empire. In 318 A.D. a man named Arius began teaching that Jesus was a created being, and not the Son of God. Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, declared Arius a heretic at a local council in 321 A.D. and Arius moved to Palestine where he began spreading his teachings throughout the Empire via letters. The debate over this issue grew over the next several years until it came to the attention of Constantine himself. Constantine wished to keep all religions unified, especially Christianity, and feared this debate would lead to a serious division in the Christian church. Thus the Council of Nicea was called.
Was there a vote to determine Jesus' divinity? Technically yes, but the vote was to affirm the already established belief of the church and refute the heresy of Arius. Jesus' divinity wasn't an invention of Constantine or the council. And out of over 300 Bishops at the council, only 2 agreed with Arius and voted against Jesus' divintiy. This can hardly be called a "close vote."
The problem Brown faces with his assertion that Jesus' original followers believed him to be a mere mortal is that there are over two and a half centuries worth of writings from early church fathers that predate Nicea, all of which affirm that the prevailing belief was that Jesus was the Son of God. Among them are Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and others, all of whom lived and wrote long before the Council of Nicea. Another problem he faces is that he claims the Gnostics were the "original" disciples of Christ. But if you actually read the Gnostics gospels, they believed that flesh was evil and only spirit was good, so they would not have followed someone who they believed to be a mere mortal.
As for the formation of the official Bible canon, this issue wasn't even on the table at Nicea. Constantine only financed a number of copies of the New Testament to be produced, and had no active role in choosing which books were included. In fact, most historical evidence confirms that the Bible canon was pretty well established by 200 A.D. Among this evidence is a canon list dated to the latter half of the first century (called the "Muratorian Fragment" after the historian who discovered it in 1704) that includes all but 4 of the 27 books of the New Testament (including the 4 gospels). This list also specifically mentions several Gnostic writings that were to be omitted as heretical, showing that Gnostic teaching was widely dismissed by the church long before Constantine came to power.
One last thing that is important to note is Brown's assertion that we can't trust much of recorded history because it was recorded by the "winners." The problem with this is again that Brown's timing is off. Until Constantine came to power and made Christianity the Empire's official religion, Christians were persecuted and killed for their beliefs. This is the time when all the early church fathers I mentioned above were teaching and writing. They can hardly be considered history's "winners" and yet their writings perfectly support the orthadox teachings that Constantine and his buddies supposedly invented at Nicea. Upon a closer look, it seems history is not on Brown's side. But that's the advantage of a conspiracy theory, you can simply fold all this evidence into the conspiracy and ignore it. *Shrugs*
There will most likely be a fourth and final part to this series, but I'm not sure what the topic will be yet. Be on the lookout. I really can't wait for the movie now (oh, and Misison: Impossible 3 was really sweet, if anyone wants to know. J. J. Abrams is amazing). Take care everyone!
posted by David at
9:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home