From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

'Da Vinci Code' meets 'Star Trek'

It is unnerving that modern western evangelicalism has become such a flimsy entity that a poorly researched, here-today-gone-tomorrow paperback regurgitation of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail novel is actually a faith-shaker.
By Paul Viggiano

No thanks, I'll wait for the sequel: Dan Brown's next novel/movie, "The Gospel According to Fred Flintstone." That's the one where Barney and Wilma are having a secret affair and the Holy Grail is actually the offspring of Pebbles and Bam-Bam. Like "The Da Vinci Code," it's also fiction rooted in fact since there was actually a man named Barney who lived a long time ago.

To the young Christian who feels "The Da Vinci Code" plucking at their doubt-strings, I have one question: "Who are you going to believe, Dan Brown or the Bible?" It is unnerving that modern western evangelicalism has become such a flimsy entity that a poorly researched, here-today-gone-tomorrow paperback regurgitation of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail novel is actually a faith-shaker.

To the circle of teachers at that table in Starbucks who I overheard saying they "bought it," didn't any of you watch "Star Trek?" Can't you see a fantastic amalgamation of fact and fiction designed to rope you in? When Spock quotes Einstein, Albert Schweitzer and Vol from Bajor 9, the two genuine quotes are designed to lend credence to the fake one. In "Star Trek," the fake is pretty obvious (it's Vol). Not so with "The Da Vinci Code."

The book (and I assume the film) opens with a bold proclamation of "fact." Somewhere we figure out it's actually fiction, or historical fiction, or faction. This confusion is a great advantage when the facts don't fit the story -- he just starts making stuff up. For example:

• Brown didn't make up the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he thought it would add to the plot-line to have them discovered in the 1950s rather than the 1940s, when they actually were found. Of course, that may have just been poor research.

Brown's Constantine Conspiracy theory is redolent of Johnnie Cochran's O.J. defense, where the cops were bumbling investigators but master conspirators. Constantine was not a decision-maker at Nicea and if he changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, it must have been in one of his Shirley MacLaine pre-incarnations since that happened hundreds of years before his birth.

• Jesus, though a Jewish rabbi, was not required to be married; there were not 80 other gospels; The Priory of Scion was founded in 1956, not 1099; if Da Vinci's "Last Supper" included Mary Magdalene, then what happened to the Apostle John -- since there are only twelve others in the painting?

• Brown, speaking through his impeachable historian Leigh Teabing, is correct when informing the leading lady that the Bible didn't arrive by fax from heaven. But I'm not aware of any reputable theologian who holds that position. Verbal plenary inspiration means that men wrote, in their own words, the full and infallible message of God, moved by the Spirit of God.

• Brown's attack on Scripture due to the "countless translations" is a punch into thin air. The Bible is the most translated book in history. How does translating literature lessen its credibility?

• What Brown, and I'm sure the movie, fails to mention is that the extant manuscript evidence for the Bible is without parallel when compared with all other ancient literature; tens of thousands of manuscripts for the New Testament alone. A true Teabing, the reputable historian that he is, would recognize this.

He would also recognize:

The Bible's singularity as a protected, and mass-produced document, under the watchful eye of thousands and then millions; successful unauthorized editions, or editing of any kind, would be virtually impossible.

The majesty of its style and the agreement of all its parts. Sixty-six books written by 40 authors over a 1,500-year period, and there is not a single contradiction or genuine discrepancy. Eight people witnessing an automobile accident can scarcely give consistent accounts of what took place minutes after the incident. How can Teabing not see the flawless and unsullied beauty of this document?

But in the final analysis, using even these reputable resources to defend the Bible is like me using my Casio to defend the atomic clock. The Scriptures are self-evident and self-authenticating. To read them is to know they are true. Brown versus the Scriptures loses on all counts. In terms of history, facts, reason and truth, the Browns of history have yet to win a legitimate battle. So they resort to fiction.