Dan Brown's Assertions about
Jesus' Divinity
Introduction
In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes 6 (by my count) assertions about Jesus and His divinity. He asserts that Jesus' followers viewed Him as merely a mortal man, having no divinity. Then in the fourth century, the first Christian emperor Constantine the Great and other power-hungry men ruled that He was divine in order to claim they derived their political and spiritual authority from God.
In this article I address each of his 6 assertions, quoting the actual dialogs in his book and 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.
Some of the assertions are mixed in with other assertions he makes about how the New Testament was formed. I address those in the article: Assertions About the Bible.
Assertion 1: Jesus is one of the most influential persons in history.
"Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus toppled kings, inspired millions, and founded new philosophies. As a descendant of the lines of King Solomon and King David, Jesus possessed a rightful claim to the throne of the King of the Jews." (Chapter 55, p. 231)
Brief answer
This will be the only assertion Brown makes about Jesus that is correct. Jesus Christ is the pivotal person in the history of the Western World as the abbreviations B.C. and A.D. attest. He is, indeed, the most enigmatic leader the world has ever seen. He claimed and was understood to be divine and human at the same time. Many of his teachings are difficult to fully grasp and even more difficult to know how to obey. He claimed to fulfill the prophesies made in Old Testament times concerning the Jewish Messiah, but He did not fulfill them in the ways the Jews incorrectly expected them to be fulfilled. Jesus didn't personally topple any kings or found new philosophies, but I assume Brown is using a figure of speech to suggest that his followers in succeeding centuries did. The pagan Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire. However, rather than a few leaders forcing Christianity on the pagan masses the imperial edict in a lot of ways instituted a government in line with what was already taking place. Sociologist Rodney Stark estimates that Christians made up half of the population of the Roman Empire by 350 BC!1 Christianity was very attractive because of how Christians lived out the teachings of Christ especially through persecutions, plagues and natural disasters. Probably the worst thing that ever did happen to institutional Christianity was that it was merged with governments. The attrocities that came from those unions is one of the reasons why Dan Brown and others want to destroy Christianity. Based on Jesus' teachings I doubt He would have wanted state churches. Think what the world would be like if Christians would simply attempt to live out Jesus' teachings, using only a minimal amount of organization and church government to aid them in that lifestyle? There would still be many enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church, but then the issue would be obedience to Jesus rather than to a church or government. Even so, Brown and many others would still attack the Bible's and Jesus's teachings on a lot of issues including sexuality and women's roles.
Assertion 2: The Council of Nicea voted to make Christ divine.
"At this gathering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon-the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus." "I don't follow. His divinity?" "My dear," Teabing declared, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." "Not the Son of God?" "Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea." "Hold on. You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?" "A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. "Nonetheless, establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity, but now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channel-the Roman Catholic Church." Sophie glanced at Langdon, and he gave her a soft nod of concurrence. "It was all about power," Teabing continued. "Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of Church and state. Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power. (Chapter 55, p. 234)
Brief answer
The gathering Teabing is referring to is the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D. in the city of Nicea (also spelled Nicaea). Brown either completely misunderstands or intentionally misconstrues the issue about Christ's divinity the Council decided upon. Anyone can read what the ancient writers have to say about this Council. English translations of their books are open to public inspection. It is just plain wrong that Christians thought Jesus was just a mere mortal man up to the point of the Council, but then the Council decided to say He was divine, especially to cement their political power. There was an issue about Jesus' divinity that was decided on by the Council, but the issue was not whether or not Jesus was divine. They already believed He was divine. Jesus' divinity was an unquestioned doctrine from the beginning of the first century Church.2 The issue they decided on at the Council of Nicea was whether Jesus was of the same divine substance as God the Father. I know this sounds like theological hairsplitting, but it is important. Space does not allow for a detailed review of the issue, but what is important to realize is that Brown is wrong about the Council of Nicea. Everyone came to the Council firmly believing Jesus was divine. They just had problems with some of the finer details. These theologians did not steal Jesus from His original followers. They were trying to be as faithful as possible to Jesus and them. It is Dan Brown who is trying to steal Jesus and remake Him into what he wants Him to be. This is a temptation for us, as well. We must always be careful to accept Jesus the way He truly is and let Him remake us to be more like Him instead of the other way around.
Assertion 3: Constantine shaped Christian doctrine to his advantage.
Teabing: "The vast majority of educated Christians know the history of their faith. Jesus was indeed a great and powerful man. Constantine's underhanded political maneuvers don't diminish the majesty of Christ's life. Nobody is saying Christ was a fraud, or denying that He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives. All we are saying is that Constantine took advantage of Christ's substantial influence and importance. And in doing so, he shaped the face of Christianity as we know it today." (Chapter 55, p. 234)
Brief answer
Unfortunately, the vast majority of educated Christians do not know the history of their faith; that is why so many Christians and those who think of themselves as Christian (i.e. not Buddhist, etc) are falling for Brown's sales job. While it is true that Constantine did have a powerful role in the fourth century Church, that role was more often than not to support the theology and practices already in place long before.3 It was exactly "the majesty of Christ's life" that captivated the early Church and then Constantine. As noted above, the Church leaders already believed Jesus is divine, but since they were having disunifying disagreements on the fine details, he convened the Council to influence them to officially recongnize the position that most of them already held. Constantine probably did at times act out of selfish power motives. He was, in part, a product of his Roman times and traditions. However, rather than changing who Christ is Christ changed him, instead.
Assertion 4: Thousands of documents already taught Jesus was just a man.
"The twist is this," Teabing said, talking faster now. "Because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. (Chapter 55, p. 234)
Brief answer
Constantine did not "upgrade" Jesus' status to that of divinity. Jesus was already recognized as divine from the very beginning. Jesus, Himself, claimed to be divine. The Apostles of the first century believed He was divine.4 The majority of Christians and their leaders of the second and third centuries believed He was divine. Most Gnostic leaders believed He was divine but denied His humanity.5 Finally, Arius and his followers, who were ruled heretical at the Council of Nicea, believed He was divine.6 So why can't a novelist in the 21st century get this straight? Either he has never studied early Church history or chooses to ignore it in order to make up an alternative history for his own greedy purposes. Brown is every bit as self-serving as he accuses Constantine of being. Only Constantine genuinely wanted to promote the divinity of Christ that everyone held before him, whereas Brown is the one that wants to change everone's view of Christ today. He actually wants to downgrade Jesus' status 20 centuries after Jesus' death. Thousdands of reliable copies of the New Testament Gospels chronicle His life as both a man and God.
I address the assertion that "thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man" in Assertions about the Bible.
Assertion 5: What we were taught about Christ is false.
"What I mean," Teabing countered, is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false. (Chapter 55, p. 235)
Brief answer
This is the logical conclusion if, and only if, Brown's other assertions about the Bible and about Jesus Christ are valid premises. Since they are not, this is an invalid conclusion.
Assertion 6: Religious people believe in a false, allegorical reality.
Langdon: "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 water, 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." (342)
Brief answer
Dan Brown, like so many people who are products of the Enlightment, Modernism and even Post-modernism, do not believe there is a personal omnipotent God who can do miraculous things. They conclude that a miracle like a virgin birth is impossible and don't ever seriously consider the evidence. Granted, there is much symbolic language in the Bible-many figures of speech and literary devices. This is useful to communicate about abstract ideas. Other religions, as Langdon pointed out, do the same. However, this is still not "proof" the miracles by Christ were merely allegorical. The believer wishes there were photographers and videographers on the scene to record Jesus' miracles so skeptics in future generations could believe. Skeptics, too, wish the photographers and videographers had been there to prove Jesus didn't perform any miracles. However, based on the way some people will argue today about photographs and videos taken yesterday and displayed on last night's news, I doubt that ones from nearly 2,000 years ago would be as useful as we would hope. Deciding what happened in history is a matter of deciding what is the most probable explanation. Skeptics would chime in here with, "That's right! And it is very improbable that someone could be born from a virgin, walk on water, turn water into wine, and rise from the dead." Against this we maintain first that there are ample reasons that entitle us to believe in a miracle working God and second, that the rapid spread of Christianity by and among dedicated, monotheistic Jews of the first century can only be adequately explained if those miracles actually happened. This would be, then, the most probable explanation.
Summary and Conclusion
I have shown that Dan Brown's assertions about Jesus' divinity are simply wrong. The vast majority of Christians, both orthodox and heretical, believed from the beginning that Jesus was divine. To risk sounding overly simplistic, Constantine, in effect, merely put a rubber stamp on this belief at the Council of Nicea. In addition, he used his influence in a positive way to force the leaders of the churches to reconcile their differences and be more united. The resolution they adopted strengthened but did not create the view that Jesus Christ is uniquely God and the only true God.
Brown clearly did not study early Church history for himself before writing this novel. Pseudo-historians duped him concerning other matters of history and art, as well. In other historical subjects, like the Civil War, the educated public requires a writer of historical fiction to at least be faithful to the facts of history. Why should the public require less of Dan Brown when writing about Church history? I'm afraid it is probably because the purveyers of Post-modern philosophy have duped people into thinking the only parts of history that matter when it comes to religion are the negative parts. Activists like Brown can use these examples to chip away at people's beliefs. They would like nothing less than to either radically overhaul Christianity after their own values and beliefs or destroy it altogether. They ought to treat history fairly and honestly and not make up an alternative one to use as propaganda on the uneducated public. By doing so they are guilty of the same practices they condemn others for using.
References
1 Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: a Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1996.
2 Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003. 2.
3 See the following references on the role of Constantine:
Davidson, Ivor J. The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30-312. Consult. eds. John D. Woodbridge and David Wright. Series ed. Tim Dowley. Vol. 1 of The Baker History of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker. 2004.
Eusebius. The History of the Church. 1965. Trans. and Introd. G. A. Williamson. New York: Barnes & Noble. 1995.
Hinson, E. Glenn. The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages. Nashville: Abingdon. 1996.
Smith, M. A. From Christ to Constantine. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press. 1971.
4 see again, Hurtado.
5 See the following references on Gnosticism:
Logan, Alastair. Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 1996.
McDonald, Lee Martin and Stanley E. Porter. Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2000.
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.
6 Walter, V.L. "Arianism." Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1984. 74.
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.
