Dan Brown's Assertions about
the Bible
Introduction
In the Da Vinci Code Dan Brown makes 15 assertions (by my count) about the New Testament and particularly how it came to exist in its final form. In the process he misrepresents the facts of history and makes up his own wishful alternative history. Because he words his assertions like hollow sound bites for the evening news or a political rally many people who haven't studied early Church history are being duped and led astray from the truth. In a nutshell he believes that the books that were included in the New Testament should never have been included, while the books that were excluded are the ones that should have been included. He thinks that powerful chauvinistic church leaders like the Emperor Constantine kept out of the New Testament any book that was pro-feminist or portrayed Jesus as a mere man, assuming that those would have been the books that presented Jesus and His teachings corrrectly. Instead they chose the books they did in order to suppress women and derive their authority from a Jesus Christ of contrived divinity rather than a human Christ. Therefore, the books that are now in the New Testament are the heretical ones. In other words we ought to have been given a completely different New Testament than the one we have today, one that is pro-feminist and presents Jesus Christ in only human terms.
In this article I address each of his fourteen assertions, quoting the actual dialogues in his book, providing the page number where it is found. I also include the chapter number in case the text appears on different page numbers in future editions. Second, I give brief answers to each assertion to show how it is wrong. I know that many people are only seeking a brief answer and will be satisfied. For those desiring more explanation I provide links to other resources that give more detailed background information to support my answers.
Assertion 1: The Bible is merely a product of man.
"The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven." .... "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically 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." (Chapter 55, p. 231)
Brief Answer
Putting his sarcasm aside, that the Bible is not a fax from heaven and that it did not fall magically from the clouds is one of the assertions he actually did get right; however, that no one contests anyway. However, his statement that "The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God." is certainly contestable. While God did not print it in heaven and drop it from the sky and while men were the ones who put their pens to the papyrus the orthodox position that God inspired them to write what they wrote is very plausible and even probable. This does not mean they took dictation or their hands were remotely controlled by God's hand, but it does mean that God was involved. There are good reasons to believe the Bible is ultimately from God yet through human thoughts, language and penmanship. The times in which they wrote were, indeed, often tumultuous, but he is not clear about what he thinks that had to with the project. Perhaps he thinks that would cause its writing and development to be unreliable; however, there is no evidence of that. The Bible did evolve in the sense that it was written over a span of about 1500 years (c. 1500 B.C. - c. 100 A.D.) instead of being written all at one sitting. Naurally there were additions, revisions and translations, but the final product is unique among sacred literature in its remarkable consistency in the themes it addresses. This is one of the main reasons why we believe that ultimately God superintended the whole project. Its production has "miraculous" written between every line. Finally, it is a gross oversimplification to say, "History has never had a definitive version of the book." Since sometime in the second or third centuries Christians have used essentially the same Bible, with relatively little variation, that we use today. One could point out that the Roman Catholic Church includes additional books (Apocrypha) and so Roman Catholics and Protestants use different Bibles. However, the core doctrines of Christianity (especially about the divinity of Jesus) come from the non-Apocryphal books. Brown is really just trying to introduce doubts about the Bible as the monolithic and authoritative text for Christianity, but he does not succeed.
Assertion 2: There were thousands of records of Christ's life
"His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land." (Chapter 55, p. 231)
Brief answer
If by record he means written and if by followers he means people who followed Him around Palestine when He was still alive he is clearly making this up. We are told in the Gospels that on a few occasions thousands of people came to Him (e.g. Matthew 15: 29 - 39), but because most of them would have been illiterate they would not have written anything down. By the time Jesus was executed he certainly had been seen and heard by thousands of people (e.g. Matthew 14:13-21). We don't know how many, if asked, would have claimed to be "followers." Again, most of them would not have been literate enough to take notes. His life was recorded, but only by a relative few, the four New Testament Gospels being the only "Gospels" (see Assertion 3) we know of that were written in the first century. Luke alludes to other possibly written accounts (Luke 1:1 - 2).
The Gospel of Thomas (2nd century) is not a gospel in the sense of a biography, but is mostly a compilation of supposed sayings of Jesus. However, it is hotly debated how many, if any, are authentic. Even if some are actual words of Jesus they would not tell us anything we don't already know from the New Testament Gospels. Some other second century writers allude to a few written compilations of some of Jesus' sayings. Unfortunately, none have survived.
In summary, even if we add up all of the written records from the first century that we know of and make it a generous estimate we can still only count them on two hands. That said we do have thousands of copies of various parts of the Gospels that verify the remarkable accuracy in the copying process. (see How We Got Our Bible: The Bibliographic Test)
Assertion 3: Eighty gospels competed for a place in the New Testament
"More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them." (Chapter 55, p. 231)
Brief answer
There were indeed some other "Gospels," and Brown apparently thinks they are worthy of inclusion in the New Testament, but Gnostic Christians wrote them in the second and third centuries and they did not them to be records of Jesus' actual life on earth. The authors did not write them as biographical records of Jesus' actual life. They say nothing about His earthly life like the New Testament Gospels do. Instead, they use allegorical (fictitious and symbolic) conversations between the risen Jesus and his disciples as literary devices to convey Gnostic ideas. In short, they were fiction, like Brown's novel, and therefore are not reliable sources of historical information about Jesus and his disciples.
Some scholars claim that the Gospel of Thomas contains some authentic sayings of Jesus, but this is hotly debated.1 More importantly it was written sometime in the second century, at least one hundred years after Jesus died, as well as after Thomas and the other Apostles died. In addition, it is not a biographical work like the four Gospels; rather, it is mostly a compilation of sayings, supposedly of Jesus. For these reasons, it is not a reliable historical record of Jesus' life. It is sufficient to say there were nowhere near eighty Gospels. Most importantly, all the historical sources from the first few centuries show that no other Gospels but the four Gospels now in the New Testament were ever seriously considered for inclusion. Finally, Brown apparently did not think through the implications of his own fictional numbers. If there were thousands of documents (Gospels by his implied definition) chronicling Jesus' life (Assertion 5), why were there only eighty gospels?
Assertion 4: Constantine created our Bible
"The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great." (Chapter 55, p. 231)
Brief answer
Constantine collated our Bible? Hardly. He did commission the copying of 50 Bibles for use by churches, but he did not dictate which books they would contain. He assumed that the church leaders already had a Bible to copy 50 times. There is no evidence to suggest he influenced the selection of books. The selection process was well underway in the early second century while Constantine converted to Christianity in the early fourth century. At first, the New Testament books were selected on the local level; then, as the early Church grew, spread, and became more organized these books were increasingly recognized as belonging together in a bound volume similar to the Old Testament. Most of the decisions as to which books to include were made long before Constantine came to power.2
Assertion 5: Thousands of documents taught Jesus was only a man.
(As of the fourth century) "... thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man." (Chapter 55, p. 234)
Brief answer
He is wrong on both counts. First, there were not thousands of documents, if he means unique works. If he means copies of the Gospels made in the first few centuries then he is correct. However, given Brown's lack of knowledge about the development of the New Testament I doubt he even knows about these! Second, the vast majority of sacred literature from the first few centuries teaches that Jesus was divine. As I mentioned, there were thousands of copies of a relatively few number of works like the New Testament Gospels; moreover, the four Gospels are the rare few that actually show Jesus' human nature as well as his divine nature. The rest (still far from thousands) portray Him as being divine and not human at all, a view called Docetism.3 Therefore, Christians and heretics both almost unanimously believed Jesus was divine from the beginning. The irony here is that the very books that Brown thinks show Jesus' human side show just the opposite. They teach that Jesus was not human at all! They only undermine his argument. He obviously did not read them before he wrote The DaVinci Code.
Assertion 6: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi texts teach Jesus was merely human.
"... some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition, to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms. (Chapter 55, p. 234)
Brief answer
This really shows how little actual research Brown did. First, the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947 not the 1950's) do not contain any Christian literature at all. They only contain Jewish literature that included books of the Hebrew Old Testament. None of the Dead Sea Scrolls even mention Jesus Christ, Christians or anything Christian.4 Second, the texts found at Nag Hammadi were not scrolls. They were bound together in book form called a "codex" similar to the bound books we use today. The ancient world moved away from the scroll format to the codex format in the second century.5 Third, as for the content of the Nag Hammadi texts, the truth is completely the opposite of what Brown tells us; these documents do not tell us of Christ's ministry in "very human terms." If he had read them for himself he could not claim this absurd notion. The "Christian" texts (some texts had nothing to do with Christianity) in the Nag Hammadi Library depicted Jesus in completely divine terms. They are not biographical and teach that Jesus divine. Again, the irony is that the very texts Brown uses to support his idea that Jesus was only human and not divine only support the opposite, that is, that early Christians, both orthodox and Gnostic, believed Jesus was divine. Some Gnostics believed Jesus' body was only an illusion of flesh. Still others believed the divine Christ was not born in a human body but possessed a human body beginning at His baptism and then left the body before it died on the cross! (By the way, I only refer to the Gnostics as Christians because they claimed to be Christians and historians typically put them under this umbrella term. However, their beliefs were incompatible with the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.)6 To summarize, neither the Dead Sea Scrolls nor the texts found at Nag Hammadi portray Jesus in human terms.
Assertion 7: The Bible was created with a political agenda.
"The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda-to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base." (Chapter 55, p. 234)
Brief answer
He is right that there are glaring discrepancies between the four New Testament Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi, but, again, these discrepancies work against Brown rather than for him. As I showed above, the Gnostic Gospels do not promote a human Jesus, rather only a divine one-just the opposite of what Brown maintains. The New Testament Gospels are the ones that promote the idea that Jesus was human. They promote a very human Jesus balanced by a very divine nature. As for the political agenda of church leaders, their agenda was to promote the original Jesus with both his human and divine natures-the Jesus that Jesus promoted-the Jesus His Apostles promoted. The Gnostics were the ones that wanted to promote a different Jesus-the Jesus they wanted Jesus to be and ironically not even the Jesus Dan Brown wants Jesus to be. Dan Brown accusing the early Church leaders of distorting true Christianity for a political agenda is the pot calling the kettle black, for that is exactly what Brown and his followers are doing!
Assertion 8: Gospels that portrayed Jesus as human were omitted.
"...the early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore, any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus' life had to be omitted from the Bible." (Chapter 58, p. 244)
Brief answer
History shows that Jesus and His apostles, all by themselves, convinced the first followers that he was a divine being (as well as a human being).7 In addition, the Gospels that were made part of the New Testament were the ones that did describe earthly aspects of Jesus' life and the ones that were omitted were the ones that did not describe earthly aspects of Jesus' life-just the opposite of Brown's ridiculous assertion.
Assertion 9: The gospels refer to Jesus and Mary Magdalene as being married.
"Unfortunately for the early editors, one particularly troubling earthly theme kept recurring in the gospels. Mary Magdalene. He paused. More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ." (Chapter 58, p. 244)
Brief answer
No Gospel-New Testament Gospel, Gnostic Gospel or other-ever ventures to claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married or had children. There are some old legends, the sources of which no one knows, that claim this, but there is no reliable historical evidence for it. Nonetheless, some people, like Dan Brown, interpret a few passages in the Gnostic Gospel of Philip and the Gnostic Gospel of Mary in light of these later legends. What is particularly disturbing is that Brown and others elevate these works of fiction that were written in the second and third centuries to be as reliable in their information about Jesus as the New Testament Gospels, which were written in the first century as works of non-fiction.
Assertion 10: The gospels inside and outside the Bible disagree.
"These are photocopies of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, which I mentioned earlier," Teabing said. "The earliest Christian records. Troublingly, they do not match up with the gospels in the Bible." (Chapter 58, p. 245)
Brief answer
I dealt with the Nag Hammadi Library and Dead Sea Scrolls briefly above. Again, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not Christian records. They are totally devoid of anything about Jesus or Christians. As far as the Nag Hammadi texts are concerned any historian who claimed they are the earliest Christian records would be laughed out of their profession, which is what should be done to Dan Brown's historian Leagh Teabing! It is only troubling that they do not match up to the Gospels in the Bible for those who simply don't like what the Bible has to say and want excuses to reconstruct the Bible for their own purposes. It certainly wasn't troubling to the authors of the Gnostic gospels (in the Nag Hammadi collection) that they did not match up. They believed that the New Testament Gospels with their intent to relate the actual, earthly, physical, humanly life of Jesus were completely irrelevant. The Gnostics wanted to present Jesus as only divine, not any part human, which is just the opposite of what Dan Brown says they intended. He should read them for himself before pontificating about them.
Assertion 11: One sided accounts of history are unreliable.
"Sophie was startled. "There exists a family tree of Jesus Christ?" "Indeed. And it is purportedly one of the cornerstones of the Sangreal documents. A complete genealogy of the early descendants of Christ." "But what good is a documented genealogy of Christ's bloodline?" Sophie asked. "It's not proof. "Historians could not possibly confirm its (Christ's bloodline) authenticity." Teabing chuckled. "No more so than they can confirm the authenticity of the Bible." "Meaning?" "Meaning that history is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books-books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, "What is history, but a fable agreed upon?" He smiled. 'By its very nature, history is always a one-sided account." (Chapter 60, p. 255-256)
Brief answer
He is right that historians could not possibly confirm the authenticity of any proposed bloodline of Christ but not for the reasons he states. It is simply wrong to say that the winners obliterate the losers and their historical documents. Many of the great empires of the past usually allowed the conquered local cultures to continue their own cultures and historiographies. Also, cultural values, beliefs, and literature are often assimilated into the conquering civilization. For example, the Romans assimilated a lot of Greek culture into their own, and we still have Greek literature to learn from about their culture. Regarding the orthodox Church winning over the Gnostics and other heretics, Gnosticism was already waning on its own, and we have some of their documents in the Nag Hammadi collection. We know what the losers believed. We know what they wrote. Good historians weigh all the evidence in an objective unbiased manner to come to their conclusions. This is the opposite of what the pseudo-historians Brown has relied on have done. Look at the sources he lists on page 253. They are untrained an very biased. These people and Brown want to be the new winners and they are already trying to rewrite history. They are just as guilty of trying to write a one-sided history as those they accuse of doing so in the past. An authentic bloodline of Christ can not be confirmed because there is no reliable historical documentation of one. Until their is we should believe the Bible's account of Jesus and Mary Magdalene because, contrary to what Brown writes, scholars, over and over, have confirmed the authenticity of the Bible. What Dan Brown and others are trying to do is spin history their own way in order to help a modern movement overthrow the existing Church powers so that they can be the new winners. They want to throw out the orthodox history of the early Church because they believe it to be a one-sided account. Using his own standard for throwing out a history we should throw out Dan Brown's new history because it is a one-sided account!
Assertion 12: The geneology of Jesus is well documented.
"The Sangreal documents simply tell the other side of the story. In the end, which side of the story you believe becomes a matter of faith and personal exploration, but at least the information has survived. The Sangreal documents include tens of thousands of pages of information. Eyewitness accounts of the Sangreal treasure describe it as being carried in four enormous trunks. In those trunks are reputed to be the Purist Documents-thousands of pages of unaltered, pre-Constantine documents, written by the early followers of Jesus, revering Him as a wholly human teacher and prophet. (Chapter 60, p. 256)
Brief answer
At first I thought, "Well the Sangreal documents are Dan Brown's fictional creation (or maybe some other fiction writer's creation which he copied), and as such they can contain as many pages as he wants with whatever content he wants. But then there is the fact page in his book that states, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." And then there is the FAQ page on his website. Here is the FAQ that relates to this: BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT? (This is in capital letters on his FAQ page.) If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. Combining these two statements we must conclude that Dan Brown really believes that the Sangreal documents "exist" and his descriptions of them are "accurate." The problem is there is no evidence they do exist. In stark contrast there is an enormous weight of evidence to support the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels. He is right that faith that something exists or is right ought to be based on what has the best evidence for that faith. Should we base our faith on what fictitious documents say happened or on what documents that actually exist and are open to public inspection say happened? I'll go with the latter.
Assertion 13: Jesus chronicled his own life.
"Also rumored to be part of the treasure is the legendary "Q" document-a manuscript that even the Vatican admits they believe exists. Allegedly, it is a book of Jesus' teachings, possibly written in His own hand. "Writings by Christ Himself?" "Of course," Teabing said. "Why wouldn't Jesus have kept a chronicle of His ministry? Most people did in those days." (Chapter 60, p. 256)
Brief answer
The "Q" document is not a legendary document and there is nothing conspiratorial about the Vatican believing that it may once have existed; no reputable scholar believes it still exists. "Q" is an abreviation of the German word "Quelle," meaning "Source." It is a hypothetical document. It is an attempt by scholars to explain the source materials that are common to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark or John. Scholars simply hypothesize or speculate that the two authors relied on a previously existing written (or oral) record (source) of Jesus life, ministry, teachings, death and post-resurrection appearances. No reputable scholar believes Jesus Christ wrote it (or anything else). That was not His style of teaching and He didn't have a need to write anything down anyway. He could leave that up to His followers. It is not true that most people kept a written chronicle of their lives in those days any more than it would be true today. Most people in those days were illiterate. Most importantly, if "Q" is ever discovered in a cave somewhere it will simply tell us what we already know. It will not be "The Lost Gospel" as some have called it. It will be like reading portions of the New Testament Gospels.8
Assertion 14: Mary Magdalene chronicled her own life.
"Another explosive document believed to be in the treasure is a manuscript called The Magdalene Diaries-Mary Magdalene's personal account of her relationship with Christ, His crucifixion, and her time in France." (Chapter 60, p. 256)
Brief answer
Again, anything of this nature is pure fiction with absolutely no historical support.
Assertion 15: Religious faith is built on falsehood.
(Sophie asks Langdon for his opinion about what she should do if they find the Sangreal Documents. He hesitates to make them public:)
"There's an enormous difference between hypothetically discussing an alternate history of Christ, and ..." He paused.
"And what?"
"And presenting to the world thousands of ancient documents as scientific evidence that the new Testament is false testimony."
"But you told me the New Testament is based on fabrifications."
Langdon smiled. "Sophie, every faith in the world is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith-acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove. Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration, from the early Egyptians through modern Sunday school. Metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible. The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors."
....
"...The Bible represents a fundamental guidepost for millions of people on the planet, in much the same way the Koran, Torah, and Pali Canon offer guidance to people of other religions. If you and I could dig up documentation that contradicted the holy stories of Islamic belief, Judaic belief, Buddhist belief, pagan belief, should we do that: Should we wave a flag and tell the Buddhists that we have proof the Buddha did not come from a lotus blossom? Or that Jesus was not born of a literal virgin birth? Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical."
Sophie looked skeptical. "My friends who are devout Christians definitely believe that Christ literally walked on waater, literally turned water into wine, and was born of a literal virgin birth."
"My point exactly," Langdon said. "Religious allegory has become a part of the fabric of reality. And living in that reality helps millions of people cope and be better people."
"But it appears their reality is false." (Chapter 82, p. 341-342)
Brief answer
It should be obvious by now that Dan Brown's fictional reality is the false one and the biblical reality is the true one. For more information about how we know the Bible is a reliable record of what actually happened please read the articles on this web site in the Bible section. For more information about how we are entitled to believe that Jesus is God and rose from the dead please read the articles in the Jesus section.
At this time I do not yet have an article addressing the controversy of the Virgin Birth. However, I think it is reasonable to believe in this being true in light of the strong evidence for the truth of the rest of the information we have about Jesus from the New Testament Gospels. It is a matter of faith either way and is based on your starting assumptions. If you begin by assuming that there is no God and therefore nothing miraculous ever happens then a virgin birth is logically impossible. However, since you cannot prove there is no God then you have to have faith that there is no God. Also this is a closed-minded position because you have closed out all alternatives before giving them a fair evaluation. If you start with the assumption that we do not know for sure there is no God then it is entirely possible that God does exist. This is an open-minded approach. Then it is perfectly logical that the God described in the Bible inserted Himself into human history in a miraculous way and performed other miracles as well. This is also ultimately a faith conclusion, but I think it is a more logical possibility than the closed-minded alternative.
Summary and Conclusion
Ok, there you have them-brief answers. If you are interested in more background and support for these answers please check out the references at the end of this article.
Dan Brown's assertions about the New Testament can be grouped into the following categories:
- A lack of understanding as to the nature and purposes of the New Testament Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels
- A lack of understanding of how the New Testament was developed and by whom
- A willingness to make up facts
- A willingness to ignore ancient and modern approaches to understanding historical events and processes
First, Dan Brown views the New Testament as completely the work of power-hungry chauvinistic men like the first Christian emperor Constantine. These men, he believes, chose the New Testament Gospels because they teach that Jesus is divine thereby authenticating their own political power by association with God. They did not choose the Gnostic Gospels, he contends, because they portray Jesus as a mortal man and not divine. In other words, books were chosen or not chosen solely for convenience of political power. We have seen that this is just the opposite of the truth. He misunderstands both the New Testament Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels. The New Testament Gospels portray Jesus in both human and divine terms, while the Gnostic Gospels portray Jesus in only divine terms, never human ones. He obviously has not read either set of Gospels, at least not objectively.
He also does not know anything about the "selection" process. The four Gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-were all completed in the second half of the first century. John may have been completed at the very beginning of the second century at the latest. They circulated among the churches and were verified to be authentic and reliable biographies by the other Apostles and their disciples. The letters (Epistles) by Paul and others who also wrote in the first century were verified and circulated as well. All of this happened on the local level of the churches. Then later, in response to persecution and heresies, centralized Councils put them together in the New Testament we have today. Rather than being a top-down authoritarian process these councils (as well as Constantine) merely put their formal stamp of approval on what was already commonly accepted by Christians everywhere.
Second, Dan Brown makes up and exaggerates historical facts such as the number of literate followers (thousands) and their Gospels (was it thousands or eighty?). Literacy was as uncommon then as illiteracy is now; therefore, most of Jesus' followers would not have been able to make written records of Jesus life. But this is not really Brown's concern anyway. He thinks, or would like to think, that there was an overwhelming ancient witness to Jesus being only a mortal man with nothing divine about him. He hopes that recently discovered documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library represent some of these ancient witnesses. This is like grasping for straws when one doesn't know how to swim since the Dead Sea Scrolls say nothing about Jesus or Christianity and the Gnostic Gospels collected at Nag Hammadi portray Jesus in only divine terms. None of these straws will bear the weight of Brown's assertions.
Third, Dan Brown certainly has a literary right to make up facts and artifacts for his own novel, after all that's what a novelist does. The problem is that he claims on page one that "All descriptions of ... documents ... in this novel are accurate." As we have seen, too, his website states that he believes they exist. There is no historical evidence the Sangreal Documents exist. He is really grasping at straws. He is willing to give more weight in his argument to fictional documents than to actual documents like the New Testament and a wealth of other ancient literature that are open to public inspection and scholarship. He shows no concern or taste for objective historical methodology. In my opinion a writer of a historical novel ought to at least base the story, characters, objects and events on sound historical research.
The larger concern in all of this is that with his wreckless treatment of the true facts of history, Dan Brown appears to have an agenda to turn people against the Christian Church and is willing to use unethical means to do it. People in the 21st century may disagree with the stance the New Testament books apparently take on issues like women's rights and sexual rights, but they have no right to try to rewrite history to make it support their disagreement. By doing so Brown is using the same technique he condemns the Church for suppossedly using. He may disagree with positions currently held by the Christian Church, but he shows that he is not standing on a higher moral ground when he uses unethical means to attempt to reform or tear down the Church. Why can't he just say, "I disagree with what Jesus and the Christian Church have taught from the very beginning about this or that" and start his own new religion to suit his tastes? I'm not saying there is nothing to reform about the Christian Church. Protestants and Roman Catholics and Protestants and other Protestants do not agree on all things, but original, biblical Christianity at its core is clear about who Jesus Christ was/is and what He accomplished. That has become the core of Christianity, also known as orthodoxy. We can disagree on peripheral issues such as how to baptize or how often to serve Communion, but the orthodox doctrines cannot be rewritten, because they are based on one set of facts in history. Brown is perceptive enough to know that if the core doctrine of Jesus' divinity can be disproven then all of Christianity crumbles like a house of cards. His attempt, however, is the real house of cards and crumbles under the weight of documented historical facts.
Referring to the people of the world who trust in the Church Teabing asks Langdon, "What happens to those people, Robert, if persuasive scientific evidence comes out that the Church's version of the Christ story is inaccurate, and that the greatest story ever told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold?" I hope I have shown that there is no persuasive scientific evidence for any of Brown's false assertions about the Bible. In sharp contrast, professional historians, using ancient documents open to public study and using scientific means of studying them can assure us that the orthodox version of the Christ story is accurate. Brown's version of the Christ story is the one that is inaccurate. Therefore, judging by the number of copies of The Da Vinci Code that have been sold I would say that Dan Brown's story is the greatest story ever sold.
References
1 "The Gospel of Thomas." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html. See also:
Jenkins, Philip. Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. Oxford:Oxford Press. 2001. 54-81.
Koester, Helmut. "The Gospel of Thomas." Robinson, James M., Gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco-HarperCollins Publishers. 1988.
2 Jenkins, Philip. Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. Oxford:Oxford Press. 2001. 85. See also:
McDonald, Lee M. The formation of the Christian biblical canon. Rev. and expanded ed. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1995.
McDonald, Lee Martin and Stanley E. Porter. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2000.
Metzger, Bruce. The early versions of the New Testament: Their origin, transmission, and limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1977.
Metzger, Bruce. The canon of the New Testament: Its origin, developmemnt, and significance. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1987.
3 "Docetism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism.
4Harrison, R. K. "Dead Sea Scrolls." Volume Two D-G. Gen. ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Vol. 2 of The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library-Zondervan. 1976. 5 vols.
5Robinson, James M., Gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco-HarperCollins Publishers. 1988. 10-11.
6See: Jenkins, Philip. Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. See also:
Lee, Philip J. Against the Protestant Gnostics. New York: Oxford Universtiy Press. 1987.
Logan, Alastair. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1996.
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage-Random House. 1979.
Perkins, Pheme. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1993.
Robinson, James M., Gen. ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco-HarperCollins Publishers. 1988.
Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers. 1987.
7Hurtado, Larry. Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003. 2.
8Jenkins, Philip. Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001. 56.
Copyright 2005. Gary C. Burger and New Media Ministries. This article may be reproduced and distributed freely as long as it is done so in its entirety. If quoted it must be properly cited as a reference.
