Overrated: Dan Brown

July/August 2013

It was only at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, wrote Brown, that Jesus was said to be divine. Not quite. Jesus is called "God" seven times in the New Testament and is referred to as being divine on dozens of occasions. He was crucified not for being a prophet or an ethicist, or for that matter a champion of social justice, but for claiming to be the Son of God.

There are numerous letters from pagan and thus objective writers from the first and second centuries, long before Nicaea, describing how Christians believe Jesus to be divine, including one written to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who died in AD 180. All the Council of Nicaea did was to affirm that Jesus was in fact the Son of God.

But Brown didn't stop there. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest Christian writings in existence, opined our boy, and the Gnostic Gospels frequently mention Mary Magdalene and her marriage to Jesus. Actually the Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish writings and have no direct connection with Christianity at all, and as for those much-discussed Gnostic Gospels, they at no time mention Jesus as being married to Mary.

But here's the point, and one that applies equally to the latest book. Dan Brown doesn't expect his readers actually to read the Gnostic Gospels or Dante, any more than he worries that they will know that there are no monks — albino or otherwise — in the largely lay Catholic organisation Opus Dei, or that the Emperor Constantine did not write any of the Gospels. He knows that if you say these things with apparent authority, and also imply that it's esoteric and dangerous knowledge, some of the more credulous out there will drink the unholy blood from the unholy grail. In other words, Brown condescends and relies on mass ignorance, and in the contemporary world there's a lot of it about.

Tags:

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Anonymous

October 5th, 2013
2:10 AM

The NT gives many examples of Jesus ambivalent statements about who he was. And his disciples and contemporary audience certainly have were puzzled most of the time. But more puzzling is why a Christian apologist should be concerned about the plot lines of aDan Brown potboiler work of fiction .

Anonymous

July 25th, 2013
6:07 PM

Very enjoyable critique that's right on the money. I liked the last couple of sentences in particular.

Stephen

July 23rd, 2013
7:07 PM

Brilliant! Dan Brown's books are truly awful, and it's ludicrous that he gets the exposure he does when so many other, far better, authors struggle to make a living.

Anonymous

July 20th, 2013
11:07 PM

Sky Don't quite agree with you. John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." Caiaphas and those who ran the Temple had no love for Jesus (they would later take advantage of the temporary absence of Roman authority in Jerusalem in the early AD 60s, to kill his brother, James). But the Temple authorities were aware that Jesus was no pretender to Earthly power and had probably heard Jesus preach in previous years and on previous Passovers (John seems to refer to frequent visits to Jerusalem by Jesus). But the Temple authorities were likely to be held responsible by the Romans for disorder at Passover time. Hence the comment in John about Caiaphas i.e. better Jesus be sacrificed than that the Romans see a potential insurrection, panic, and slaughter anyone in sight whilst Jerusalem was crowded at Passover.

MalcolmMcLean

July 15th, 2013
11:07 PM

It's harder than it looks to write a trashy thriller. Maybe not so difficult, but you should try it. After all, not many people would reject a million pounds for a few months' work. The books are trashy thriller, and the historical claims are largely nonsense, and not even original. The Mary Magdalene had Jesus' baby idea is in the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. The authors sued. That's kind of an admission that the theory is nonsense, serious historians don't try to protect their ideas from development and expansion by other historians, or from popularisation.

Sygurd

July 11th, 2013
10:07 PM

Dan Brown's popularity only reflects the abysmal ignorance of our times. If many of us are able to believe that two men or two women can marry one another, they can believe anything, even the poorly written, error-ridden potboilers.

sky

July 11th, 2013
12:07 PM

Anonymous, I think you need to read the Gospel a little closer. Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus for anything. He did so because the Jewish leaders insisted. They persuaded him that Jesus threatened Roman authority but it is clear their real motivation was they saw Jesus as a blasphemer for making Himself equal to God. There is no other interpretation possible. At His trial, the Lord clearly declares His divinity and it is then that the Sanhedrin, that did not for one moment consider His claim might be true, decided He had to die. Enough said.

spudnik

July 11th, 2013
4:07 AM

There are those who want the Catholic Church to be discredited and Christianity disproven. Brown allows them do believe that they have been so that they can feel safe in rejecting the Gospel and encouraging others to do likewise. That the whole enterprise depends on mendacity suggests rather the opposite.

JDJL

July 11th, 2013
1:07 AM

If we go by the Gospel accounts, Pilate had no legal justification for killing Jesus. Having told the crowd he believed Jesus to be innocent of any wrongdoing, Pilate crucified him anyway because that was what the crowd demanded. The question then is, why did the mob want Jesus dead? Not because he claimed to be a king, but because he claimed to be the Son of God.

MSewell

July 10th, 2013
11:07 PM

Anonymous, "King of the Jews" was written on the sign in mockery of Jesus' blasphemous statements in the eyes of the Jewish people. Crucifixion was indeed the Roman punishment of choice, and Jesus was a threat to the kingdom in their eyes, but it went a step further and was caused first and foremost by his claim.

Post your comment

More Reputations