Da Vinci Code.?

Question

If you have anything to say about the Da Vinci Code write it here.

Answer 1

This will be insanely long, but I wrote this a while ago, using personal research and excerpts from some of the books used for the research...


The Da Vinci Code begins under the heading "FACT, All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

The reality however, is that The Da Vinci Code, authored by Dan Brown, holds very little truth in it composition. This of course, is the opposite of what Dan Brown would like his readers to believe. So why is it a big deal? Why do Christians care about this silly little novel? The answer to that, is impact. This novel has arranged a very misleading impact on pop-culture. Here are a couple of references to that very impact I'm speaking of....

Actual conversation on an airplane over Iowa:


Passenger 1: You're a Christian, too? So am I. That's great.

Passenger 2: Yeah, that's great.

(pause)

Passenger 1: I just read The Da Vinci Code. Have you read it?

Passenger 2: Sure did.

Passenger 1: What percentage do you think is true?

(pause)

Passenger 2: Oh, about 80 percent.

USA Today said the book consists of "historical fact with a contemporary storyline."

Charles Taylor or the popular website salon.com said, "The most amazing thing about this novel is that it's based on fact."

A survey by Decima Research, Inc. showed that one out of three Canadians who have read the book now believes there are descendants of Jesus walking among us today.

According to pollster George Barna, 53 percent of Americans who've read the book said it had been helpful in their "personal spiritual growth and understanding."



These are frightening statistics. Let's be clear about something though. The Da Vinci Code is an excellent novel. A novel by the way, that is appropriately shelved under 'fiction' at Barnes & Noble. People simply need to realize the truth of what they are reading as they navigate the pages. Brown exhibits amazing talent as he's able to weave fact and fiction. The question is, "are his stunning allegations actually supported by the historical evidence? Or are they as fanciful as the novel's colorful characters?" We'll examine the allegations of what he calls 'fact.' You'll find arresting amounts of information that discredit and discount the author's claims. We'll look at some major claims and explore them briefly. If I were to thoroughly maneuver through the entire book, I'd end up writing a book's-worth myself, which I'm not really qualified to do. So if anything explored below leaves any unanswered questions, feel free to respond back to me. I'll also reference at the end several good books on this topic, which I've pulled information and excerpts from in this post. If you do finish reading this with more questions or a desire to research this topic more, I would definitely encourage you to follow up.

The very 'lifeblood' of The Da Vinci Code is the Priory of Sion. By pulling on this crucial thread of the Brown's claims, which unravels rather easily, it basically tears down the entire book. So let's look at the Priory of Sion; One of the claims in The Da Vinci Code is that the Knights Templar, the part-military, part-religious organization was the protector of the secrets about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "Before nearly all of the Knights Templar were slain centuries ago, their task became passing down these secrets, Brown claims, to the Priory of Sion, a clandestine organization supposedly founded by a descendant of Jesus in 1099. Among the Priory's purported Grand Masters: Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo -- and Leonardo Da Vinci, who allegedly left clues in some of his most famous artwork. The true fact is that it was actually founded in 1956, in Paris, by Pierre Plantard, who planted secret documents (known as Les Dossier Secrets) in the Bibliotheque Nationale. As this is the central strand of the novel's claims, we will explore this very thoroughly.


"So error-laden is The Da Vinci Code that the educated reader actually applauds those rare occasions where Brown stumbled (despite himself) into the truth."
-Sandra Miesel in Crisis magazine




First, let's explore Pierre Plantard and define his invention of The Priory of Sion. Plantard was a crook and forger, an anti-Semitic, anti-'Masonic, and a Nazi-sympathizer who served time in Fresnes Prison for fraud and embezzlement. On December 6, 1940 Plantard wrote a letter to Marshal Petain (a French general), expressing his belief in a "terrible 'Masonic and Jewish conspiracy" against France and warned that Petain should act quickly to counter this threat -- with Plantard offering "a hundred reliable men... who are devoted to the cause." In the police report on Plantard's French National Renewal, dated May 9, 1941, it was observed about him that: "Plantard, who boasts of having links with numerous politicians, seems to be one of those dotty, pretentious young men who run more or less fictitious groups in an effort to look important and who are taking advantage of the present trend towards taking a greater interest in young people in order to attract the Government's attention."

Now, the Priory was founded in 1956, but it wasn't until the mid-1960's that the Priory redeveloped itself into a 'centuries-old' organization entitled with the responsibility of protecting the 'secrets' about Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. Plantard at this time, begins developing the story that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were actually married and birthed a daughter, Sarah. Plantard than produced a series of forged genealogies tracing the alleged bloodline of Christ. The bloodline descends from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, to the present day. To his amazement (I'm sure), the bloodline of Christ passed directly through Plantard himself! In addition, the official stamp of the Bibliotheque National on Les Dossier Secrets reveals the date May 7, 1952. So it isn't some age-old document that corroborates the ancient history of the Priory as Plantard (and later, author Dan Brown) claim. Unfortunately, Pierre Plantard died in February, 2000 which was two years before the release of The Da Vinci Code. It would be intriguing to see his reaction to Brown's novel and the ensuing ridicule. Especially considering Plantard's own admittance of the hoax of the Priory of Sion. In the 1970's, one of Plantard's original Priory co-conspirators began revealing the hoax and the truths about Plantard himself. As the ****-and-bull story began to unravel, Plantard immediately started revealing to friends how he forged these documents. Following this, under oath in a French court in 1993, Plantard admitted that the entire Priory of Sion was a scam.

In all reality, there seems little point in exploring Brown's novel further. The Priory of Sion was invented by an erratic individual who lived a life of fraud, questionable beliefs, and criminal activity. This same individual was observed by French authorities to be "not of sound mental state." Yet this hoax became the catalyst for Brown's claims of 'fact.' The only palpable result is a reversal of Brown's claims. His novel is not based on fact as he so emphatically stated. The Da Vinci Code is in all truth, based on fraud. However, even if only for my enjoyment, let's continue to dismantle the claims of The Da Vinci Code as we examine them under a microscope of truth, reason, and actuality.

"The Da Vinci Code clearly contains many historical errors covering a wide variety of issues: church architecture, religious symbolism, the Roman Empire, ancient Israel, and different spiritual belief systems. If Brown cannot be relied upon to accurately recount the most basic of historical facts, then how can he be trusted to correctly explain more complex subjects?"
-Richard Abanes in The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code



Another (pratfall) claim of The Da Vinci Code is that the Bible was put together by Constantine, a pagan Roman Emperor. "Brown called him a pagan who only reluctantly converted to Christianity on his deathbed and who decided which gospels went into the Bible and which were destroyed because they revealed that Jesus was a mere human being." To answer this claim, I'll quote an interview with Dr. Paul Maier, a "wiry and feisty" professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University. Maier has achieved acclaim as a well-respected and straight-shooting scholar, teacher, and author of both academic and popular writings. He earned his doctorate at the University of Basel in Switzerland in 1957 and has become a recognized expert on ancient Near East history, ancient Greek and Roman history, and Christianity and the Roman Empire. He has written more than 250 articles and reviews for professional journals, including the Harvard Theological Review. His teaching awards include Professor of the Year from the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education.

When interviewed on the subject, Maier was riled by the above-mentioned statement. He activates the interview by stating "I think it's the greatest character assassination I've even seen -- either fact or fiction -- in my life. This flies flat in the face of all the historical evidence we have. Constantine was a true convert to Christianity. After the Battle of Milvian Bridge, he announced the Edict of Toleration for the faith. He built cathedrals as though there were no tomorrow. All the main identification spots associated with Jesus in Palestine are Constantinian construction: the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. He couldn't do enough for the church. He reimbursed the church for all the damage it had suffered in the persecutions. He invited the clergy regularly for dinner. He called himself a bishop of those outside the church in order to bring them into the church. He felt that God had appointed him to convert the Roman Empire to Christianity. He was active in church affairs. He exempted the clergy from taxation. He called the first great ecumenical council into session -- and I could go on. It's ridiculous to say he was a lifelong pagan. It's simply a bald lie."

In regard to Constantine collating the Bible, Maier began "Dan Brown almost makes Constantine a universal editor of the earliest Bible, which is just pathetic, because the canon was already known a century and a half to two hundred years before Constantine. Eusebius, the earliest Christian church historian, tells us how the canon came to be and how other books were added later on, but by Constantine's time, it was already determined. There's no question about that. And the Council of Nicea in 325 (AD) did not decide which books should go in the canon or which should not. Nothing of that is true. Not one of the decrees of the Council of Nicea deals with the canon. So, again, you simply have falsehood multiplied here."

In response to another Da Vinci Code claim.. that Constantine used the Council of Nicea to deify Jesus in 325, Maier alludes, "Well this is what Dan Brown says. But the deity of Jesus was never under discussion at the Council of Nicea. What was under discussion was whether Jesus was coeternal with the Father or not." Which, "By the way," he concluded, "Dan Brown says it was a very close vote. Well, let me tell you what the close vote was: about 300 to 2. Not too close, as far as I can tell."

When asked to sum up the reliability of The Da Vinci Code in terms of reporting on what Constantine did, Maier stated, "I would say 20 percent truth, 80 percent falsehood."

"Some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s.... The Vatican, in keeping with their tradition of misinformation, tried very hard to suppress the release of these scrolls."
-The Da Vinci Code

"Constantine was not in the business of eradicating any gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, not the 1950s. And they did not contain any gospels or any references to Jesus."
-Historian Paul Maier in The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?





The DVC also claims that in the original gospels, Mary Magdalene was demonized by the church. In addition, it claims Mary Magdalene was to be worshiped as a goddess.


First, let me just shoot the latter claim right between the eyes. In ancient Hebrew, there is no word for 'goddess.' No like-word, no similar word, no word that even loosely means the same thing. No word. Period. As far as the former claim, I'll summarize an interview with Dr. Katherine McReynolds, who received her master's degree in theology from the Talbot School of Theology and then went on to earn her doctorate of religion and social ethics at USC. She has been a faculty member at the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University, and currently serves as an adjunct professor at Biola. She is well-regarded as an expert in dealing with issues involving women. Her co-authored book Women as Christ's Disciples analyzes historical information about Mary Magdalene and other women followers of Jesus.

To get started, it's important to acknowledge Jesus' revolutionary views toward women, especially given the society in which he lived. He raised them to a level of respect in society that was "really unheard of in His day." Dan Brown says Jesus was the original feminist. Dr. McReynolds acknowledges that, but states she "wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus was the original feminist." She goes on to say "The church has done a pretty good job, overall, in acknowledging and encouraging the contributions of women, although without a doubt there have been stretches of time where they might not have been acknowledged to the extent that they should." She concludes that it wouldn't be fair though to call it suppression, and that it "would not be a fair assessment." As Strobel notes following her statement -- it's an interesting analysis coming from a woman scholar.

To quote The Da Vinci Code, "The power of the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed a threat to the rise of the predominantly male Church, and so the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean. It was man, not God, who created the concept of 'original sin,' whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy." McReynolds responds to this, saying "that is a completely misguided view of the way it happened." The church in no way views women this way. The enemy in the garden is clearly the serpent. She goes on stating with certainty, "women have not been viewed as an enemy in the church."

The interview then progresses with Strobel asking her, to what degree is the 'sacred feminine' present among early Christians? She is very quick and states bluntly, "It wasn't present at all." In more detail, it's not there from the first century through the second and third-century Gnostic gospels. Now for those who aren't too familiar with the Gnostic gospels and why they aren't a part of the Bible, let me break it down briefly and simply. These gospels were written later and have proven to be historically unreliable. In addition, it isn't our modern society alone that deemed them unworthy or unreliable, though it has been affirmed through modern scholar research. In ancient Israel, they weren't even considered because the early church considered them to be false teachings. They weren't written by any of the apostles, or anyone associated with the apostles. No one can even prove who authored them, though some ideas have been formulated here and there. Dan Brown also claims that there were some 80 (or so) Gnostic gospels. The truth however, is there are about 26 Gnostic gospels, written in Egyptian with Greek letters.

*There is an irony in Dan Brown's favoritism of these later and historically unreliable gospels. He uses them very favorably in several of his claims. The claim about the church viewing women as the 'enemy,' is entirely contradicting. Case specific -- In these very gospels that Brown loves to use to establish his allegations is where you will find that women are viewed very unfavorably. In opposition, the Bible proves Christ does not view them as such.

In light of Brown's claim about the church 'demonizing Mary Magdalene,' Catholic historian Amy Welborn in her book De-Coding Da Vinci, addresses this. She states, "Brown suggests, repeatedly, that Mary Magdalene was marginalized and demonized by traditional Christianity.... It simply makes no sense. Christianity, both East and West, has honored Mary Magdalene as a saint. They've named churches after her, prayed at her purported tombs before what was believed to be her relics, and ascribed miracles to her. How in the world, in what universe, is that demonizing? Answer: It's not."

"Powerful men in the early Christian church 'conned' the world by propagating lies that devalued the female.... Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine."
-The Da Vinci Code

"Nowhere in serious scholarly work do we find anyone taking seriously the suggestion that Jesus' mission was all about sending forth Mary Magdalene to carry his message of the 'sacred feminine.' "
-Historian Amy Welborn in De-Coding Da Vinci





"It seemed Eve's bite from the apple of knowledge was a debt women were doomed to pay for eternity."
-The Da Vinci Code

"Christianity does not declare that Eve caused humanity's downfall. The church teaches that the Fall came through Eve and Adam - particularly Adam because he deliberately chose to disobey God.
-Robert Abanes in The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code



Now, I'll address my favorite claim that Dan Brown makes in The Da Vinci Code. The claim is that Leonardo Da Vinci's painting, The Last Supper, holds 'secret' proof of the alleged marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Da Vinci hid the proof in this painting. Let's examine this kitchen-sink evidence. I assure you, it won't take long. I would recommend looking at a picture of Da Vinci's painting as you read this. First thing to observe, if you look to the left of Christ, you see John the Baptist. Brown claims that this is obviously Mary Magdalene. One reason for his 'sound' claim, is the sheer femininity of the figure. Now, as 'astonishing' as this evidence is, it gets better. First though, let's look at why this particular evidence is so absurd (even though it's clearly obvious in its own erection).

Renaissance artists were famous for depicting men in their art as very soft and feminine. Look at the painting John the Baptist. It's interesting because this is the same painter (Da Vinci) and is in regard to the very person in question (John the Baptist). When you view this separate painting, it's blatantly obvious that Da Vinci himself painted John the Baptist the same way -- John actually appears to be a semi-attractive female. Another reason art historians recognize the figure in The Last Supper as John the apostle is simply because John is not seen anywhere else in the painting. The most important reason, however, is that Leonardo Da Vinci himself recognized this figure as John the apostle -- he labels the figure as such in his early sketches.

Brown further alleges evidence of the figure being Mary Magdalene by the manner in which a representative letter of the alphabet just 'shouts out' to someone viewing the painting. Shall we continue this absurdity? Let's -- Looking again at The Last Supper, you'll notice Jesus is painted leaning to His left, and John the apostle is leaning to his right. This sort of forms a ' V ' between them. Now, if you draw two more lines from each top-side of the ' V ' , you wind up with an ' M ' -- As this exciting evidence builds, let's acknowledge that according to Brown, this mystical ' M ' is symbolic of 'Mary Magdalene' and 'Marriage.' Wow! I'm absolutely convinced now! Aren't you? I'm absolutely tempted to apply the same playground mentality and see how many letters I can find elsewhere in the painting. Maybe there's a secret crossword puzzle in there, too? I know this is absolutely condescending, but it's just too easy. I'll refrain myself further and get back to the topic at hand.

Now, the final piece, is the 'mystery' of the Holy Grail. Nowhere in The Last Supper can you see the Holy Grail. According to Brown, that is because, amazingly enough -- The Holy Grail is actually the un-birthed child of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, who is allegedly sitting next to him. So this amazing secret of the Holy Grail, is that in The Last Supper, Mary Magdalene is pregnant.

To wrap up, this allegedly overwhelming evidence is authoritatively and immediately discarded by the artist himself. As I mentioned, Da Vinci labels the figure as John the Baptist in his early sketches of the painting. Pair that with art historians alike making the same determinations -- along with the fact that the rest of these claims are utterly and completely nonsensical. What does that leave you with?


*Author Dan Brown now defends himself by stating that one should not have to defend the statements of a work of fiction. If The Da Vinci Code was presented by Brown as simple fiction, I would feel compelled to agree with him. However, his own claims and allegations simply do not allow the novel to be considered as only fiction. To introduce his novel, and written throughout the pages, Brown administers claim to all these facts. "FACT" this and "FACT" that. His proclamations adapt rather appropriately though -- when confronted by his maverick quantity of factual and historical errors -- he retreats in stating that he is 'just a novelist.'

To conclude my post, there are other claims of The Da Vinci Code that I did not touch on. While most are fairly minor, they are equally discredited. There is also even more evidence that discredits the issues I did touch on. There are several excellent books out there to help in understanding the truths of Brown's allegations of Christ and the Christian church. I mentioned several above. A couple others that I highly recommend -- Breaking the Da Vinci Code, by Darrell Bock and The Da Vinci Deception, by Erwin Lutzer.

Answer 2

Most of it was fiction. Many websites have published articles discrediting "The Da Vinci Code". Granted, there is some historical evidence, but in general, the information is loosely together. For instance, "The Da Vinci Code" makes the claim that the Catholic Church invented the belief in Jesus as God during the Council of Nicaea in 325. This is false. What the Council did was affirm Jesus as God - a belief already held by most Christians of the time. If you can, watch a show that is on the History Channel sometimes, called "Beyond The Da Vinci Code". It debunks many of the claims made by Dan Brown in his book.

Answer 3

it was an entertaining movie.
I don't really believe in a lot of what was said to be true.
but they do have a good point in that the bible when translated into other languages had a lot left out, in the true word of the bible would have to taken from the real bible written in several different languages by the way. and I find it interesting that the bible was written long after what took place. it is possible to have some of what they said be true, however look at the movie national treasure, and ask your self if any of that is true or not.

same type of endless clues only one difference here..the treasure. one is a lineages the other monetary.

Answer 4

Da Vinci code shows extreme conspiracy and the Catholic Church denies it and allegations of opus dei but there is a truth that lays in between very few have seen.

Answer 5

Pure fiction,and I don't even bother worrying about it.The thing that annoys me though,is that some people actually believ it,even though the Priory of Sion has been proven to be a hoax.

Answer 6

A bunch of FICTION, for the purpose of writing a fiction novel (to make some money) and to provide a basis for a movie/cinema by which to make a lot more money on fiction. And perhaps to weaken the faith of some and possibly even make shipwreck those with weak faith.

Answer 7

I though it was well-researched and very accurate in the factual parts (art, Bible, the books that aren't IN the Bible but are Biblical nonetheless). But, the book was AWFUL! It was poorly written, predictable, and went soooo slooooowly. I refuse to even see the movie.

Answer 8

Highly amusing book. I dare say, some of the portraits of me, located in Buckingham Palace and elsewhere, also have secret codes in them!

Answer 9

Just a novel by a guy with a lot of imagination. It is not meant to be taken seriously.

Answer 10

Great book, So So movie. Brown made a killing off of each.

Answer 11

It is fiction. It was written to entertain you (and to make a pile of money for a fiction writer). Don't obsess over it.