Even more astonishing and revealing than The Da Vinci Code, I have just finished writing a new book titled The Da Vinci Canon.
The Da Vinci Canon reveals many long-lost drawings by the famous artist that were suppressed by a mysterious conspiracy and have just recently been discovered amidst a fast-paced murder mystery. These drawings show us a whole new side to the artist that radically changes our view of him.
Here is one of the suppressed drawings by Leonardo revealed in this book:
Wait a second! Did I hear someone say, “That’s a fraud! That’s ridiculous! There’s no way that’s a drawing by Leonardo, and only a complete moron would buy a book that would make that kind of claim! (or spend a hundred million dollars to turn the book into a movie, for that matter)”
Well, how dare you impugn a reputable author and publishing house with such baseless allegations?
What? You say you have reasons to doubt the above drawing is the work of Leonardo? Well, the forthcoming book says the drawing should be part of Leonardo’s canon.
Say, what does “canon” mean anyway? It’s from a Greek word meaning “measuring rod”— so the word means whether something belongs to a group, is authentic, using a reasonable measuring rod or set of rules.
So, by what measuring rod would you claim that the above drawing is not legitimately a part of the Da Vinci “canon”?
- The style of the above drawing is unlike Leonardo’s.
- The quality of the above drawing is without doubt below Leonardo’s.
- The best evidence shows that it was drawn hundreds of years after Leonardo died.
- All of the world’s recognized experts have soundly dismissed the drawing as not genuine.
- In comparison to the above drawing, many of the pivotal works of Leonardo have been publically recognized as such from near or during his lifetime down through the centuries— we have historical documentation of their authenticity.
But, even beyond your opinion or expert opinion or popular opinion, what is the decisive question? What, in the end, does or does not make that drawing a Leonardo or not, what makes it a part of his “canon”?
Why, what makes something a Leonardo or not is whether Leonardo actually drew it! Any opinion or analysis or committee vote is simply a way of helping clarify the actual fact of who indeed is the author.
So it is with the Bible. When Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code claims that long-suppressed “gospels” tell us the real hidden truth about Jesus, we can objectively look at those documents and conclude exactly what we did about my little stick figure, that the style, quality, evidence, expert opinion, etc., all scream out that those “gospels” that Brown fawns over are as worthless to include into the Biblical canon as my stick figure would be to place into the Louvre. The dozens of verifiable lies that Brown uses to mislead his readers in support of these gospels, on objective inspection, are as primitive and silly as my lies about my stick figure.
But the real test of whether a particular text is worth including in the Biblical canon is not what the Council of Nicea said about it or what I say about it or what Dan Brown says about it, but whether God actually wrote it. The Bible itself tells us that it is inspired, “God-breathed” to use the Greek, that the writings are not accurate or wise words of men, but the very words of God.
When the early church fathers established the Biblical canon, established the writings that were God-breathed, they were not choosing or voting or suppressing, they were simply recognizing what was apparent to them all— the writings that had the finger of God on them. God chose the men and then breathed His own words through them so that we would have the message of God, not the message of a deluded fruitcake, to show us the true nature of His Son Jesus Christ.