Is Dan Brown's theory about the writing of the Bible historically correct?

Question

After reading the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, it is hard to find a historical document proving what he mentions about how the Bible was "conceived".
For those who are unaware, he claims a King came up with the idea of writing Jesus' story to help pagans and non-pagans to live together under his government.
Is there any written proof of this?
I believe the difficulty in finding evidence is due to the fact that what is written about the bible is loaded with religious evidence, which does not interest me at all. I am interested in knowing if this King's actions, whose name ecapes me, is a legend, a theory or if it is still to be proved in any way.
Thanks in advance.

I did mentions his ideas as "theory" because of the way he delivered the information in his book. He makes two professors talk about something as questionable as this issue. As Hitchcock made research's for his fiction movie "Suspiscious" he did indeed find the natural poison to kill somebody. It is fiction but the information is true. As it happens in any silly little novel who wants to go further in scientifical, medical or any other explanation.
I guess I am now wondering if he has done any real research for his novel or if all items are totally made up...

Answer 1

The book is indeed fiction, though Brown has left a lot of evidence (and early statements) that he basically DOES believe these things about how the gospels we have got into the New Testament and how others were left out.

Unfortunately, his view is not even a legend. We know much of what happened, and Brown has his facts all wrong.

For example:

1) He's wrong about the role Constantine played at the Council of Nicea (AD 325). Constantine did NOT "run the show"; it was run by church bishops (= leaders and teachers).

2) This Council did NOT decide to "throw books out of the Bible" at this meeting. To begin with, this Council did not even discuss this particular question!!. More important, the basic canon of the New Testament was widely agreed on in the 2nd century, long before Nicea (only a few of its books, which had not been as widely read, caused much debate)

3) The "Gnostic gospels" were the work of a fringe movement. And Brown's understanding of their views is WAY off. They did NOT view Jesus as "more human".

Quite the contrary, they thought of the whole physical world as evil (only the spiritual world is good). Contradicting the firm belief of the Hebrew Bible, Judaism & Christianity that God created the world good (but people rebelled!) with its hope in the physical resurrection, Gnosticism was a repackaging of Eastern religions and wished to "escape" the physical world.

Gnosticism was also ELITIST, believing that only a handful of people were even capable of the special "knowledge" (gnosis) they possessed (quite the opposite of Christianity, which was proclaimed to ALL --Jew & Gentile, male & female, slave & free..)

4) NO hidden Christian teachings have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That community (the Essenes of Qumran) was JEWISH, and the documents found there are copies of OLD Testament writings & things related to the community's understanding of them.


There are many solid responses to the book. One good collection may be found at:
http://www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/

Answer 2

Okay, this has taken me a little while. You're referring to Chapter 55 of Da Vinci code, and the king is the Roman Emperor Constantine.

What Dan Brown has to say about Constantine, the Roman Emperor:

"The Bible...has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions..."
This is essentially true. One of the great debates of the early church was which books could be considered canonical. The question was not really settled for various faiths until the 16th century a.d. I should add that many Evangelical Christians believe that the books of the Bible were set in place by the apostle Peter.

"More than 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament..."
I can't confirm this number. However, there were other books which many early Christians read as gospel that are now considered apocryphal.

"[Constantine] was a lifetime pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest." In 312, Augustus Constantine went into battle against a rival. He had a vision in which he saw a cross against the sun and the Greek words, "Conquer in this." He put the cross on his battle standards and won the battle; he believed that the Christian God had granted him the victory. Although some believe he didn't have any such vision, it's pretty well accepted he had some kind of religious conversion in 312. In any case he stopped persecuting Christians. Constantine's mother Helena had been a Christian. Deathbed baptism was pretty common in the early church, too.

"Christians and pagans began warring...Constantine...could see that Christianity was on the rise...he created a kind of hybrid religion that was acceptable to both parties."
Well, sort of. Constantine's rival Licinius began persecuting Christians again. Constantine marched off to battle and Licinius was eventually executed. As far as I can figure out, the "hybrid" resulted from Constantine's calling of the Council of Nicaea, at which some Christian practices were standardized, including the biblical canon.

"December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus."
Not even all Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25; some sects celebrate January 6, January 7, or December 24. It is true that December 25 was considered the birthday of several Egyptian and Roman gods. There's speculation that December 25 was chosen because it's 9 months after the vernal equinox. Christmas doesn't seem to have been an important festival for the early church.

So, to answer your question, there is a lot of scholarship about Constantine. Of his actions there isn't much dispute, but his motivations are not so clear.

Answer 3

I think its a good idea to remember that Dan Brown wrote a fictional novel, not a scholarly tome. He has never claimed (to my knowledge) that it was anything other. I believe it unfair to label a fictional plot segment as his "theory". However, the vast volume of response and the virulence of the responses from the Christians cause me to wonder if this book is so flawed why the need for the heavy-handed attacks on Brown?

More to the question; I believe you're referring to Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. A theologian named Arius was part of the council. He's worth some research as he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Answer 4

I personally think Dan Brown truly believes this but just cannot do any more than provide circumstantial evidence.

I cannot say if he is correct or not, and not anyone can truly prove either correct. It really falls down to your own personal faith.

If you have faith then you can believe either story as possible but which one is probable? Dan does bring some strong accusations up but no factual evidence for it, but then again he is argueing with a system that itself cannot prove one way or the other 100% for sure, so as I said it falls purely to what you personally wish to beleive.

Until solid evidence is shown all one can do is either believe the Church or they can believe Dan Brown's story. I think it has some merit to it, but without any support it is not a very strong argument just a speculation he beleives in himself and so rather than stating it is or is not he writes this novel and brings these things up in his story so you the watcher can decide for yourself. He knows his proof is nothing more than circumstantial but it is enough to make enough believe and question. That is a fact.

Good luck with finding a factual answer I wonder if it ever can be. It would be truly History in the remaking.

Answer 5

'does the bible historically correct'? - wtf? Noah AND his wife AND his three sons AND their wives[8 people] survived the flood(which happened anywhere from 2348BC[Ussher] to 2793BC[wisdom of God-Lk11:49]). From these 8 people the world was repopulated after the flood[Gen10+11]. There were 10 generations from Noah to Abraham. Abrahams' sons became races unto themselves; arabs, jews, etc. How much moreso 10 generations prior with the sons of Noah?

Answer 6

No. He's a novelist, and his "theory" is just as fictional as his "history". Yes, Brown did a fair amount of research, but it's still fiction to support his story.

Answer 7

It's b.s.
The four canonical gospels were valued way ahead of the others as early as the second century AD.
The councils like Nicaea and the others didn't change much; they just settled a couple of doubtful cases.

Answer 8

No, this is made up out of whole cloth. There is a mountain of biblical scholarship by people of various faiths (and no faith at all) to provide the real story.

Answer 9

No, it's totally fiction.