Today, we begin a three-part series that looks at statements within the popular novel, The Da Vinci Code, that challenge some of the most basic foundations of Christian faith. Some of you may be saying, "Why bother? It’s just a novel, isn’t it?" Yes, it is just a novel. However, there are at least two reasons, I believe, for taking this time with this series. Number one, the popularity of the novel—which will only be magnified with the soon-to-be-released movie—has already produced many conversations about shaken faith because of the themes presented in the story. For those antagonistic toward Christianity, it has confirmed what they have always "suspected" of the Church and of Christian faith. For some Christians, it has created questions and doubts about their faith. Look, for example, at this synopsis for the coming movie: "A murder in Paris’ Louvre Museum and cryptic clues in some of Leonardo da Vinci’s most famous paintings lead to the discovery of a religious mystery. For 2,000 years a secret society closely guards information that—should it come to light—could rock the very foundations of Christianity." Those foundations "rocked" by the themes of The Da Vinci Code include the reliability of Scripture, the nature of Jesus Christ and the role of women in the Church. "Rocking those foundations," it seems to me, makes this response a worthwhile journey.

There is a second reason, however. The popularity and controversy of the book—and soon, the movie—make for a ripe opportunity to engage in meaningful discussions about the truth and firm foundations of Christian faith. I encourage you to be prepared for that opportunity. Be prepared through issues raised in this sermon series, through availing yourselves of the books at the Welcome Center and the information they provide, and through attending—and, perhaps inviting others to attend with you—the live satellite broadcast we’ll be showing in Charter Hall on May 21.

The challenge to Christian faith and the opportunity presented to us makes this a worthwhile journey.

Please know in all of this, by the way, I am not discouraging you from reading the book or attending the movie. I’ve read the book. I’ve already reserved a ticket for the first showing of the movie on May 19^th. Rather than discouraging you, I encourage you to read the book and attend the movie. Be aware of its claims and its statements. But also be aware of the responses to those claims and statements. Engage in appropriate and meaningful conversations about the issues raised in the book and movie.

So, let’s begin.

First, let’s look at some opening statements made by the author, Dan Brown. These occur on an opening page in the book and are listed as "factual" statements.

While this quote doesn’t address a foundation of Christian faith, the "secrets" purported to be held by this society do address such issues and serve as a major theme in the book. It’s worth noting, therefore, that this "fact" stated by Brown about the Priory of Sion has been shown to be an absolute hoax. I don’t have time to go into detail today, but you can learn more about it with the satellite broadcast. If you watched 60 Minutes on April 30^th, Ed Bradley did a nice story about this hoax. You can go to the website for CBS and 60 Minutes and get a copy of the transcript of the broadcast. So, it’s worth noting right away that one of the "facts" stated by the author turns out to be not a fact at all. It’s a fraud.

Also stated within this introduction of "facts" is this:

We’ve already seen there is good cause to questions Brown’s understanding of "facts." My concern regarding this statement of "fact" centers on what Brown means by "documents." If he includes in his definition of "documents" what he writes in his novel concerning Scripture and other writings, then, once again, he is incorrect about what is "fact." It is the concern about what is stated in the book about Scripture that is our focus for today.

A major theme in the book is that the Scriptures—particularly the New Testament and, more specifically, the Gospels—have been manipulated by the Church in order to fulfill a particular agenda. This is a major concern because if our Scriptures cannot be trusted as reliable, then nothing we claim in our faith can be trusted as reliable because most of what we believe comes from Scripture. Rock the reliability of Scripture and you "rock the very foundations of Christianity," indeed.

Here is what one of the major characters in the book, the fictional British historian Sir Leigh Teabing, says about the Bible.

If that is remotely true, then our faith is in trouble. But, I believe it is patently false. We’ll have much more to say about the reliability of Scripture next week, particularly as it relates to what we know and claim about Jesus, but let me state a few things briefly today.

First of all, it drives me a little bit crazy when "academics" attack Scripture as unreliable, all the while accepting other ancient writings—Plato, for instance, or Homer’s Iliad, as reliable. When, in fact, the most reliable ancient writing we have is Scripture. Since we don’t have the original writings of Plato, Homer, and the authors of the books of the Bible, the test of reliability, briefly stated, exists in the number of copies we have of those writings and the difference in years between the date of the original writing and the date of the copies we have. For instance, the evidence for Plato’s Tetralogies looks like this:

Author/Work When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies

Plato/Tetralogies 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7

You can see Plato wrote somewhere in the timeframe of 427-345 B.C., the earliest copy we have of his Tetralogies is 900 A.D., a difference of 1,200 years and we only have seven copies of it.

Another ancient Greek writer is Sophocles. A look at the textual support for his writings looks like this:

Author/Work When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies

Plato/Tetralogies 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7

Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 193

You can see Sophocles is a bit better than Plato. While the time span is greater—1,400 years as compared to 1,200 years for Plato, the number of copies we have of Sophocles is far greater—193 compared to just seven.

Now, let’s look at Homer’s Iliad:

Author/Work When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies

Plato/Tetralogies 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7

Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 193

Homer/Iliad 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs. 643

Homer’s Iliad is much better—a time span of only 500 years and we have many more copies, 643.

Now, let’s compare that to the textual support we have for the New Testament:

Author/Work When Written Earliest Copy Time Span No. of Copies

Plato/Tetralogies 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 yrs. 7

Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1,400 yrs. 193

Homer/Iliad 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs. 643

New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 yrs. 24,000+

You can see it’s not even close. The earliest copy we have of the New Testament is a portion of the Gospel of John dated around 125 A.D. At most, a time span of 25 years! We have many more copies of New Testament passages that are relatively close to the date of the original—within 50 to 100 years. And the number of copies we have is over 24,000. In the original Greek, we have over 5,000 copies. Nothing else comes close to what we have in textual support for the New Testament! To question if what we have in the New Testament is a reliable copy of what was originally written is to call into question all other ancient writings. The only conclusion to draw from a purely academic look at the textual evidence is that the most reliable ancient writing we have is Scripture.

We’ll have more to say about the reliability of Scripture, particularly in refuting some of the "document facts" stated in The Da Vinci Code, in the next two weeks. Let me set the stage for next week by making one more reference to a statement from the book. Again, Brown has his fictional British historian, Sir Leigh Teabing, saying this:

I admit, I laughed out loud when I read this. First, the "fact" is the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, not "the 1950’s." But then, what’s a few years when you’re guessing? Just don’t call it "fact." Teabing, who I’m beginning to think is not a very good historian (nor is his creator, Dan Brown!), goes on to say:

Again, that’s just not true. Quick "fact:" there is absolutely nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls about Christ or any other New Testament material. The Scrolls are a priceless treasure of Old Testament material. Within the materials found were copies of every book of the Old Testament, except Esther, and includes a complete copy of the book of Isaiah which moved the manuscript date 1,000 years closer to the original and confirmed what we did have for the book of Isaiah was accurate. A priceless treasure of Old Testament material, but there are no New Testament books in the Scrolls, no mention of Jesus, no mention of John the Baptist. As for the Nag Hammadi scrolls and their "alternative gospels," it is folly to say they promote Jesus’ humanity, nor can they be said to be more reliable accounts of the life and nature of Jesus Christ. But, more about that next week.

Time constraints limit us to just view the tip of the iceberg concerning the reliability of Scripture. There’s more to come in the next two weeks and even more information available in the books at the Welcome Center and in the program on May 21^st. The bottom line for today: Careful research and scholarly study leads us to say with confidence that the story we have in Scripture of God’s involvement with humanity throughout history, of God’s covenant made with humanity, of that covenant being carried out through Jesus Christ is reliable and trustworthy. Holy Scripture is a firm foundation upon which we stand.

Let’s take a moment for silent reflection on the significance of this for our faith.