This month the movie version of The Da Vinci Code will premier in theaters throughout the United States. When you strip away the excitement of a good detective story and the thrill of “discovering” supposed conspiracies and secret “knowledge,” you find the premise of Da Vinci Code to be the tired, constantly re-cycled lie that Jesus Christ did not really die and rise from the dead as the Gospel testifies, and that His death and resurrection were faked. For some extra spice, the Da Vinci Code version of this boondoggle includes Christ’s marrying (who else?) Mary Magdalene and (get this:) siring the ancestors of the Merovingian Kings of France.

Naturally, this silly story enjoys the enthusiastic backing of Hollywood and the mainstream media, in contrast to their hatred of Mel Gibson’s serious and reverent The Passion of the Christ, which presumes that the Gospel narratives are accurate.
Let us examine the basic question: Did Jesus of Nazareth really die and really rise from the dead? Since these events took place nearly 2000 years ago, we rely on the testimony of those who were present at the death of Christ and who saw and touched Him, not merely alive, but gloriously transformed and immortal, after His death, and the judgment of subsequent teachers that this testimony is honest and accurate.

For the faked-death-and-resurrection theory to work, one has to accept that childlike peasant fishermen suddenly became cynical conspirators in a blasphemous hoax which held no earthly advantage for them whatsoever. Keep in mind that no real historian seriously doubts that the Apostles and their disciples, within a generation, fanned out to the ends of the Roman Empire and beyond, preaching the Gospel at the cost of their families, their security, and ultimately their lives, meanwhile making countless converts to the new Way, the Life in Christ, based entirely on their witness to His real death and real resurrection from the dead.

---

The Testimony of the Fishermen

Seeing Christ yet alive and merely seized, the Apostles had fled; and after His death were they likely to speak boldly on His behalf, unless He had risen again? And how should these things be reasonable? For that they were neither willing nor able to feign a resurrection that did not take place, is plain from hence. He discoursed to them much of a resurrection, and continually said, as indeed the Pharisees who went to Pilate themselves stated, “After three days I will rise again.” If therefore He rose not again, it is quite clear that the Apostles (having been deceived and made enemies to an entire nation for His sake, and come to be without home and without city) would have abhorred Him, and would not have been willing to invest Him with such glory; as having been deceived, and having fallen into the utmost dangers on His account. For that they would not even have been able, if the resurrection were not true, to feign it, this does not so much as need reasoning. For in what were they confident? In the shrewdness of their arguments? Nay, of all men they were the most unlearned. But in the abundance of their possessions? Nay, they had neither staff nor shoes. But in the distinction of their race? Nay, they were lowly, and of lowly ancestors. But in the greatness of their country? Nay, they were of obscure places. But in their own numbers? Nay, they were not more than eleven, and scattered abroad. But in their Master’s promises?…if He were not risen, neither would His promises be likely to be trusted by them.

- St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew 27:62-64