The Da Vinci Code Online

Leonardo Da Vinci’s mural painting, “The Last Supper”, first makes its appearance in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, in Sir Leigh Teabing’s home. Teabing takes “La Storia di Leonardo”, a fictional art book, and opens up at a representation of the famous mural. He later takes Neveu through to his study to examine an eight-foot long print of the painting.

Teabing remarks on the discrepancy between Da Vinci’s painting and the Biblical and legendary accounts. What is missing is the one cup. Instead each person around the table has their own cup, “tiny, stemless and made of glass”.

In fact, the Last Supper was most likely a Seder meal, a Jewish Passover meal, in which there were four cups of wine. The cup referred to in the New Testament account is one of those four cups.

Teabing goes on to speculate about the person sitting to Jesus’ right, usually assumed to be John the beloved disciple. Teabing contends that this is not John, but a feminine figure, Mary Magdalene. He points to the female symbol, the chalice, found in the way Jesus’ body intersects with the ‘beloved disiciple’. The letter ‘M’, outlined in the painting, is said to be Da Vinci’s clue to the nature of Mary Magdalene.

The Last Supper, also known as “Il Cenacolo” and “L’Ultima Cena”, was painted by Da Vinci as a mural in the refectory of the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, Italy. He began the work in 1495 and completed it in 1498. Based on a manuscript attributed to Da Vinci, art historians name the twelve disciples in the painting, from left, as Barthomolew, James the Lesser, Andrew, Judas Iscariot, Peter, John. On the other side of Jesus are Thomas, James Major, Philip, Matthew, Jude Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot.

Da Vinci follows the convention of his time of placing Jesus and his fellow guests on one side of the painting. We can imagine Jesus saying to the disciples, “If you want to be in the painting you better get on this side of the table.” Da Vinci departs from religious convention by painting the thirteen men realistically, without halos.

The Last Supper was painted on a dry wall and as a result deteriorated over time. In fact it was descried as ruined only sixty years after its completion. There were several attempts to restore the painting over the years. The most significant restoration was done by Pinin Brambilla Barcilon between 1978 and 1999.

The two images below show Da Vinci’s Last Supper painting after and before its most recent process of restoration.

Teabing tells Sophie Neveu that the Bible as we know it today was collated by pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great.

“He was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest. In Constantine’s day, Rome’s official religion was sun worship - the cult of Sol Invictus, or the Invincible Sun - and Constantine was its head priest. Unfortunately for him, a growing religious turmoil was gripping Rome. Three centuries after the crucifixion of Christ, Christ’s followers had multiplied exponentially. Christians and pagans began warring, and the conflict grew to such proportions that it threatened to rend Rome in two. Constantine decided something needed to be done. In 325 CE (Common Era), he decided to unify Rome under a single religion. Christianity.”

Sophie asks why a pagan emperor would choose Christianity as the official religion. Teabing responds by saying that Constantine could see that Christianity was on the rise, and managed to convert sun-worshipping pagans to Christianity. By fusing pagan symbols, dates and rituals into the growing Christian tradition, he created a kind of hybrid religion that was acceptable to both parties.

So who was this Constantine the Great? Constantine was the son of Helena and Constantius Chlorus, Caesar of Britain, Gaul and Spain. His formative years were spent in the court of Diocletian, the Roman Emperor who had developed an absolute monarchy, centering all power in the Roman empire in himself as the semi-Divine ruler. In 306 CE, on the death of his father, Constantine was proclaimed Emperor at York. In 312 he defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge to become the senior ruler of the Roman Empire. At that battle Constantine adopted the Labarum standard, using the symbolic Chi and Ro of Christ.

Constantine’s coming to power was good news for Christians who had suffered nine years of intense persecution throughout the Roman Empire. As Emperor in 313 he and Licinius met at Milan to recognise the legal entity of the Christian Churches and to tolerate all religions equally. Constantine did go on to intervene in the affairs of the Church, giving a ruling in internal debates such as the North African dispute between Donatists and the mainstream bishops between 313 and 316. Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325 to settle the Arian dispute over the person of Christ.

Constantine was careful not to officially endorse Christianity as the official religion of the empire. After all he had legislated for the tolerance of all religions. As was common for many Christians in his time, he was baptised on his deathbed in 337 CE. It was believed by many that sins after baptism would be a problem. However it is just as likely that Constantine was playing his political cards wisely.

Teabing’s assertion that the New Testament as we have it now was collated by Constantine bears little resemblance to historical record. The Four Gospels and thirteen epistles of Paul were being recognised as authoritative in most parts of the Christian community by around 130 CE. They came to be regarded as Scripture alongside the Hebrew Scripture between 170 and 220. The first exact record listing the present New Testament was provided by Athanasius in 369 CE, 32 years after the death of Constantine.

Sir Leigh Teabing quotes Martyn Percy, the great canon doctor, as saying that “the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven”. Teabing goes on to say that the Bible is a product of man, not of God. “The Bible did not magically fall from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.”

Dan Brown is quoting a real person, Canon Martyn Percy, who since 2004 has been principal at Ripon College, Cuddesdon. Martyn Percy teaches and researches in three areas: practical theology, modern ecclesiology, and Christianity and contemporary culture. He is involved in most aspects of ministerial formation, and in shaping the life and future of the College. A

Martyn is a regular contributor to Radio 4, The BBC World Service, The Independent, The Guardian and other media. His recent books include Salt of the Earth: Religious Resilience in a Secular Age (T&T Clark) and Engagements: Essays on Christianity and Contemporary Culture (Ashgate). He has studied at the Universities of Bristol, Durham and London. He currently holds an honorary Chair in Theological Education at King’s College London, as well as an Adjunct Professorship of Theology and Ministry at Hartford Seminary, Connecticut, USA. Since 1999 he has served as a Council Member and Director of the Advertising Standards Authority in London. He is also Canon Theologian for Sheffield Cathedral. Martyn Percy also co-ordinates The Society for the Study of Anglicanism at the American Academy of Religion.

Martyn responds to his quote in The Da Vinci Code in a web site, The Truth behind the Da Vinci Code, by clarifying his thinking about the Bible. He concludes his article by writing:

Dan Brown's book does raise some fascinating questions for Christians as they read scripture. He suggests, in a rather exaggerated way in my view, that the Bible is a cosy kind of serendipity, in which the church only endorses the books that in turn endorse it. This is one of the more ancient conspiracy theories, and it is interesting that it should be alive and well in the twenty-first century. I wonder what that says about the faith people now place in ancient institutions such as the church? Clearly, an explicit message of the Da Vinci Code is that the church has always protected its interests, and that scripture - chosen by the church - helps this ongoing process. But I suspect the truth is more subtle than that.