{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03930817610062893, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015723270440251573, 'mean_word_length': 5.033175355450237, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
DEFINING THE TITLES “CHRIST” AND “SON OF GOD” IN MARK’S NARRATIVE PRESENTATION OF JESUS herbert w. bateman iv*

In Dan Brown’s novel The DaVinci Code Teabing, a fictional character presented as a world-renowned historian, states quite emphatically that “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”1 As twenty-first-century readers of Brown’s book, we know Teabing has questioned, along with the historical events of the Nicean Council, the deity of Jesus. In fact, Bart Ehrman, a present-day historical theologian, clearly understands the meaning of Teabing’s assertion and counters accordingly in his evaluation of Brown’s portrayal of the events at Nicea. “It is absolutely not true,” says Ehrman, “that Jesus was not considered divine until the Council of Nicea, that before that he was considered merely as ‘a mortal prophet.’ The vast majority of Christians by the early fourth century acknowledged him as divine.”2 My point is not to evaluate Brown and his factious theory concerning Christianity. It is, however, to point out our predisposition about Teabing’s statement. Without even thinking about it, we automatically and rightly concluded that it challenges our belief that Jesus is God. Granted, the