New profile photo by Dominic Agiode

The Truth about the DaVinci Code (8)...

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes many incorrect assertions about a supposed marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, about Mary Magdalene, about how we got the Bible, and about Jesus' divinity. He thinks these assertions are based on historical documents. In these articles I show that each of his assertions is based on faulty interpretations of those documents and the historical facts they present. For those desiring more explanation I provide more informations from other sources that gives more detailed background information to support my answers.

Dan Brown's Assertions about the Council of Nicaea

In the Da Vinci Code Dan Brown makes some assertions about what The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) concluded about Jesus' divinity. In the process he misrepresents the facts of history and makes up his own wishful alternative history in the process. Because he words his assertions like hollow sound bites for the evening news or a political rally he deceives and leads astray many people who haven't studied early Church history. In a nutshell he believes that before the Council was held Christians viewed Jesus as just a man, not God. Then Emperor Constantine hijacked Christianity for political purposes forcing the Council to determine that Jesus was divine.

In this article I address his assertions, quoting the actual dialogs 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 show how he 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 answer.

Assertion: Jesus was "voted" to be divine at the Council of Nicea

Concerning the belief that Jesus is divine Dan Brown asserts that Jesus' early followers did not originally believe He was divine. Instead he was "voted" to be divine by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Furthermore, the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine convened the Council in a brilliant political move to consolidate his power.

In Teabing's little pseudo-history lesson to Sophie about the Council of Nicea he declares,

"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." (Sophie replies in shock) "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." (Chapter 55, p. 233)

A little later in the conversation Teabing even uses hyperbole to stretch the truth about the Council's timing saying,

The Truth about the DaVinci Code (7)...

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes many incorrect assertions about a supposed marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, about Mary Magdalene, about how we got the Bible, and about Jesus' divinity. He thinks these assertions are based on historical documents. In these articles I show that each of his assertions is based on faulty interpretations of those documents and the historical facts they present. For those desiring more explanation I provide more informations from other sources that gives more detailed background information to support my answers.

Dan Brown's Assertions about the Sacred Feminine

Introduction

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes several assertions about the worship of the sacred feminine in Old Testament Israel. In this article I address these 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.

One of the main themes in the The Da Vinci Code is that early Christian leaders revised original Christian teaching to exclude goddesses and goddess worship. Other terms Brown uses are the "sacred feminine," "the feminine divine," and "sacred sex." Brown implies that because the worship of goddesses was ancient and common that it must be right. He sees Christianity's anti-goddess stance as wrong, misguided, and chauvinistic. He attempts to do this by making several (wrong) assertions including: (1) the Jews in Old Testament times worshipped a female goddess, Shekinah, (2) and used temple prostitutes to "experience the divine," (3) the sacred name for God was a union of masculine and feminine names for God.

Assertion 1: The Old Testament teaches that God had a female equal.

Langdon to Sophie: "Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah." (Chapter 74, p. 309)

Brief Answer

Dan Brown is trying to suggest that the Judaism of Old Testament times had two gods, one male and one female. This would make it a polytheistic religion that had pairs of gods just like the other religions of the time. Dan Brown is simply wrong. Its intense monotheism made Judaism distinct from all other religions of the time. The God of the Jews (and Christians) was and is one God who is neither male nor female. Sadly, some Jews at some times lapsed into worshipping other (false) gods (and were severely punished by God for it), but none of them were called Shekinah.

Shekinah does not refer to a goddess at all. Shekinah means "residence." Long after the Old Testament was finished, Jews used the term Shekinah to describe God's

The Truth about the DaVinci Code (6)...

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes many incorrect assertions about a supposed marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, about Mary Magdalene, about how we got the Bible, and about Jesus' divinity. He thinks these assertions are based on historical documents. In these articles I show that each of his assertions is based on faulty interpretations of those documents and the historical facts they present. For those desiring more explanation I provide more informations from other sources that gives more detailed background information to support my answers.

Dan Brown's Assertions about Sex and Christianity

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes several assertions about the relationship between sex and religion and specifically Christianity. In this article I address these 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.

The assertions are: (1) early Christians used ritualistic sex to attain gnosis and to commune with God, (2) a woman became a goddess when she became pregnant and (3) early Christian leaders demonized sex in order to control access to God. With this article I will show that these assertions are completely wrong.

Assertion 1: Religious sex rites are how we should experience God.

The ancients believed that the male was spiritually incomplete until he had carnal knowledge of the sacred feminine. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis—knowledge of the divine. Since the days of Isis, sex rites had been considered man's only bridge from earth to heaven. "By communing with woman," Langdon said, "man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind went totally blank and he could see God." (Chapter 74, p. 308-309)
Brief Answer

His underlying assertion here is that Christianity derailed true religion. Ancient religions had it right and Christianity got it wrong.

In the ancient world polytheistic religions had both male and female gods. Therefore, to put it in Dan Brown's terms, they believed in the "sacred masculine" and the "sacred feminine." In these religions gods often came in pairs, the goddess being the consort of the male god. Some female goddesses were goddesses of fertility-for crops, animals and humans. People believed that the gods had to have sex like humans in order to have good crops and animal and human offspring. If they did not, then failed crops and infertility would result.

These religions even dedicated prostitutes to the service of these goddesses and actually performed their services in special areas of their temples. These religions taught that if you had sex with one of these temple prostitutes you would be symbolically having sex with the goddess or be acting out sex between the male and female god. This would ensure good crops and fertility for your animals and family. Brown uses a variety of terms for this: sacred sex, a sex ritual, the rite of sex, etc.

Ritualistic sex was very common to ancient Near Eastern religions. Dan Brown refers to it by the Greek "heiros gamos," which he says means "sacred

The Truth about the DaVinci Code (5)...

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes many incorrect assertions about a supposed marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, about Mary Magdalene, about how we got the Bible, and about Jesus' divinity. He thinks these assertions are based on historical documents. In these articles I show that each of his assertions is based on faulty interpretations of those documents and the historical facts they present. For those desiring more explanation I provide more informations from other sources that gives more detailed background information to support my answers.

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.

The Truth about the DaVinci Code (4)...

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown makes many incorrect assertions about a supposed marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, about Mary Magdalene, about how we got the Bible, and about Jesus' divinity. He thinks these assertions are based on historical documents. In these articles I show that each of his assertions is based on faulty interpretations of those documents and the historical facts they present. For those desiring more explanation I provide more informations from other sources that gives more detailed background information to support my answers.

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