Summary:
Dan Brown's novel `The Da Vinci Code' has refocused the attentions of scholars and the ordinary man on the historical accuracy of the life of Jesus Christ. The crux of the debate relates to the closure of what are referred to as the Canonical Gospels, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The issue surrounding these Gospels refers to a special event called the Nicene Council. This council was the deciding authority of which ancient documents would be included in the authorized Catholic Bible.
Ever since its release and subsequent #1 status on the New York Times' bestseller list, Dan Brown's novel 'The Da Vinci Code' has refocused the attentions of scholars and the ordinary man on the historical accuracy of the life of Jesus Christ. The crux of the debate relates to the closure of what are referred to as the Canonical Gospels, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
The issue surrounding these Gospels refers to a special event called the Nicene Council. This council was the deciding authority of which ancient documents would be included in the authorized Catholic Bible. Some historians, however, believe that the Canonical Gospels were not closed (or completed) by the time of the council and that the council itself began a conspiracy by falsely describing Jesus' public life and ministry which is widely accepted today. Most orthodox Christians, theologians, and historians believe that indeed the Canons were completed well before the council sat (some 200 years later) to authorise them.
What I wish to achieve in my major work is to identify in the light of Dan Brown's novel the issue which is being debated, the primary historians involved, other objective and not directly related historians and their work, and to establish reasoning for the differing perspectives.
To aid me in this, the following initial focus questions have been developed:
What is the issue being debated?
Who are the historians (and scholars) for both sides?
What evidence is available to us?
What was the context in which each primary historian was writing?
What objective evidence can we find?
In beginning my research I have been reading "Breaking the Da Vinci Code' by Darrell Bock. Following contact with a number of friends who have experience or have read into this controversy, I have been directed to 'Eusebius' History', and to books which don't focus on the Nicene council however will contain some information during the work. Such books will include books on Church History and Systematic Theology. The last of my research will also focus on secular documents that we have available from both the time of Jesus Christ and the Nicene council (200 years later). These objective observers will allow me to set the context of each primary historian involved, and provide a great deal of evidence toward the controversy.
The direction now of my research is to begin investigating the context of the debate. To achieve this aim I will need to be consulting books of both secular and church history for the time of Jesus and the Council. Initially I will be identifying the primary historians involved and researching their backgrounds to gain better insight into their context. Finally I will documenting and investigating all referred texts in regards to the background, purpose, composition and context of the creation of the Nicene Council.
The purpose of this essay is to be able to objectively investigate a contemporary historical issue by researching the evidence, context and historians involved both directly and indirectly. The conclusion of this thesis should not offer any new perspective on the issue, however merely to identify each historians viewpoint and to affirm reasons why they hold to this perspective based on historical data.
Endnotes
This is the complete article, containing 529 words
(approx. 2 pages at 300 words per page).
