Da Vinci Code Decoded [Paperback]

Lunn's chapter on Constantine merely recycles Brown. Nearly everything here has been debunked in the Da Vinci Code critiques by Abanes, Welborn and others. Constantine did not create a hybrid religion by mixing Christianity, Sol Victus and Mithraism. He did not change the Christian day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (that happened in the book of Acts, in the first century). The New Testament was not "rewritten with a political spin". The four gosples and Paul's letters were considered authoritative by 130 A.D. with the full canon solidifying around 367 A.D. In short, the gospels (and Paul's letters) were 'official' long before Constantine and the canon was finalzed some 40 years AFTER the Council of Nicaea. Again, none of this proves Christianity, only that Lunn is engaging is some very bad (or very dishonest) history.

In the chapter Jesus Christ - the facts and fiction, Lunn offers more bad history, basically trotting out the old claim that Paul's Jesus is not the Jesus of history. For a thorough debunking of this contention, get Gregory Boyd's book Cynic Sage of Son of God? He also smears Paul in this chapter, charging, "Manipulative liar to the last, he [Paul] freely admitted in one of his letters that he was all things to all men: "I am a Greek to the Greek, a Jew to the Jew, a Law-Keeper to the Law-Keeper, and will do whatever I have to do to win." Not only does Lunn misquote Paul (read Paul's actual quote in context : 1 Cor. 9:19-25). Lunn twists Paul's statement entirely out of context. The context makes clear that Paul was merely stating that he accommodated himself to his hosts on matters that did not affect salvation in order to put them at ease. Who is being a manipulative liar here?

In the chapter Was Jesus Married?, Lunn simply repeats and elaborates upon Brown's work. Contrary to Brown and Lunn, Jesus did not have to be married, either by cultural mandate or legally. It was normal to be married, but there were also sects of Jews (the Essenes, including the Qumran culture, and the Elkasites) who were both celibate and respected, Lunn also ignores that John the Baptist was not married.

Finally, there is the Priory of Sion. Lunn regurgitates what Brown and the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail claim, though he adds a caveat at the end of the chapter admitting that 'some believe' the Priory is a hoax. He then concludes by saying that we can never really know, because it's all so murky. Not quite. The Priory is a documented hoax. Evidence uncovered by a French court in 1993 (the Pelat Affair) proved that all documents relating to Pierre Plantard's Priory of Sion, including Dossiers Secrets, are forgeries. Further, more forged documents were discovered in Plantard's home claiming he was the true King of France. Plantard was dismissed by the court as a crank and ordered to cease his subversive activity (check out www.priory-of-sion.com). The fact that Lunn is loathe to concede this is telling.
All in all, Lunn's book largely parrots Brown and Brown's sources, soft-pedals and/or ignores the numerous errors Brown makes in his book, lies about the history of the church and the New Testament, and lies about history in general. This book would be appalling coming from anyone, much less a person with a Masters degree in history (I wonder from what university).

I stress again that all of this is not to say that Christianity is true (though I believe it is), but Lunn falls far short of making a solid case against it, which is really what his book is all about.