Is the history in 'Da Vinci Code' fact?

Answer 1

It is a work of fiction - HOWEVER, as with many works of fiction, the author has taken certain historical facts and run with them. I think the book has been a victim of its own success as people who do not understand this concept and would never have otherwise read this book have helped along with the ridiculous media to create such hype about fact, fiction and inflammatory religious views.

Take some of the "facts" and research them yourself. See what you come up with - but I dont mean simply doing a Google search. I mean go to big libraries, Get out, learn for yourself. Dont read other peoples opinions. Then you will know as much as Dan Brown knew when he decided to write his book.

The truth is out there, as they say!!

Answer 2

This is my opinion about Da Vinci Code
________________________________

The world is seriously concerned and the Christian World (especially the Roman Catholic Church) is hurt through a book of an individual that contains his own manipulations. That too on a subject of more than two thousand years old with no adequate evidence for the views he has.

Dan Brown is nothing but a cunning writer where he found a safe base to start his game. The base from where he started his book is already well known to the whole world and so he had no doubt that his book would a best seller. His mind is nothing better than that of a crazy street boy who tries to spoil or tarnish a sculpture or a statue or a painting that was admired by rest of the world. He succeeded in doing it. The act can be compared with that of the Talibans who destroyed the Budha’s statue. Here, I am not comparing their aims.

Now to the Christian world and the Roman Catholic Church I have a question. If your God is powerful, why don’t you leave the matter to Him to handle? Is not your almighty God powerful enough to handle a Dan Brown, if his views are against Him?

Dan Brown, Salman Rushdie, Kazantzakkis etc.are all such writers who had another indirect aim in their minds that fame is easy when they try to tarnish a famous matter. Keeping aside their literary talents there is nothing worth admiring. But they succeeded and the media and whole world are being fooled. Moreover, when one religion is insulted the rest rejoice. This is another key point of their success.

Answer 3

Dan Brown was taken to court for plagiarism recently by two authors - Michael Baigent and Henry Lincoln who wrote a book called the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. This book was based on their researches for a BBC2 programme called Chronicle. In the programme they had been following up clues and records left by a seemingly real organisation called the Prieure De Sion. This organisation and the documents it claimed it had inherited from previous generations of Prieure Masters - including Leonardo Da Vinci turned out to be an elaborate hoax perpetrated by four Frenchmen - exposed in a later BBC2 Documentary. Many of the ideas that were thrown up by the book were incorporated in Browns book.

They provide food for thought and amount to a sort of jumping off point for anyone interested in the origins of Christianity. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail certainly did that for me and led me to study many different areas - Middle Eastern history, the quest for the historical Jesus, New Testament studies and much more - well worth a read. The Priure De Sion did exist at one time but did not survive into the present day as recounted in the book

Answer 4

The Da Vinci Code is a mixture of fact and fiction. Because the story is set in a factual context-featuring real organisations like Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion-many people have presumed the plot to be fact too, which it isn't. No one knows what secret the Priory of Sion is guarding-Brown just took a wild guess.

Answer 5

No - Dan Brown gets a LOT of minor, easy-to-check details wrong, so one would have to be gullible to accept that such a demonstrably shoddy researcher would get major, important facts correct. I laughed the whole way through it.

Most importantly, the Priory of Sion did not exist between the Crusades and the 1950s, when it was 'revived' by a French fraudster, contrary to the 'fact' he states on page one. The documents he refers to, discovered in the French National Library, were not verified by historians as Brown lies, but proved to be forgeries. There are no monks in Opus Dei, they do not segregate men from women in their offices, it is not a 'personal prelature of the pope', and they do not flagellate.

There is no such thing as a 'diplomatic flying allowance', no such place as 'Biggin Hill Executive Airport' (sic), no metal detectors in Westminster Abbey, and no such job description as a 'British Royal Historian'. There are not 'just a few' knights buried in London but thousands, and cars cannot park on Horse Guards Parade. The beardless figure in The Last Supper is not a woman, but John, who was younger than the other apostles.

And as for Jesus marrying 'because he was Jewish and there was a social convention that Jews wed' - when did Jesus ever follow social convention?

Would you trust a man who got all this, and more, wrong to get right that Christ married and had a family?

Answer 6

I am sure I have answered this question before. Well, basically the book itself is a work of fiction but many things in it are based on facts, or at least things which are believed to be facts.

Answer 7

it is total fiction although dan brown did some intensive research into the da vinci code you just cant make all that up, its blasphemus

Answer 8

The Davinci Code is fiction. Dan Brown made it up. Though at one time he tried to claim otherwise. He no longer makes those claims.

Answer 9

It has to be absolute fact ......anything other than fact (fact being based on documented evidence ) has to be put in a fictional context yet authors deem these revelations to be fact so take it as far as ''fact'' allows it.

Answer 10

Does the fact that it is listed in the fiction section give you a hint