Is the "Da vinci Hoax"...?

Question

A cover up by the church or Christians who are trying to cover up the TRUTH that Dan Brown uncovered in his novel, claiming it was all fake?

Frankly, I don't believe ALL of what he said was fiction. I personally have not done the research, however

Answer 1

No I do not believe the Da Vinci Code was a hoax. If you go back about 500 years and read a poem written by John Donne, another alleged member of the Priory of Sion and read his poem The Relic you will see that he eludes to a relationship between Mary Magdelene and Jesus, a LONG time before Dan Brown did. Not how he doesn't name Jesus but refers to him as a "something else thereby" and then refers to them as "harmless lovers". 500 years ago, my friend.

If this fall in a time, or land,
Where mass-devotion doth command,
Then he that digs us up will bring
Us to the bishop or the king,
To make us relics; then
Thou shalt be a Mary Magdalen, and I
A something else thereby;
All women shall adore us, and some men.
And, since at such time miracles are sought,
I would have that age by this paper taught
What miracles we harmless lovers wrought.


----
They're, Their, There - Three Different Words.

Careful or you may wind up in my next novel.

Pax - C

Answer 2

Ummm.... Dan Brown did not exactly "uncover" anything.

Some years ago, there was a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln(and several follow-ups by the same authors) presenting a conspiracy theory of history. I got it off a remainder table and read it.

These guys admit that their "research" consisted of being led by the nose by someone whose method of publication consisted of handing in single copies of something they cranked out at a library in France that catalogs such things and makes them available for circulation. They also believe that whoever was doing this knew they were reading the material and researching background on it.

Nevertheless, they took the bait, hook, line, and sinker, and wrote as though they believed whatever they were fed by this source.

Dan Brown's book simply takes the notion, "What if it were true?" and turns it into a mystery/adventure thriller. Not a bad idea, that; it certainly made him a pot of money, and fiction is what this is, really.

On the other hand, the prominent Italian author and literary theorist Umberto Eco wrote an extremely good novel about wacko conspiracy-theory enthusiasts and the temptation to start believing such stuff, even when you know it's a fiction. If you're up for some reasonably ambitious reading, I strongly recommend "Foucault's Pendulum"; it's available in an English translation.

Answer 3

The book is definitely fiction. However, it is based on some controversial books, most notably Baigent's "Holy Blood Holy Grail." Another book to look at is "The Templar Revelation" by Picknett & Prince.

Answer 4

It was fiction, because Da Vinci was not there during the Lord's Evening Meal. That happened hundreds of years before he was born, so why are we taking a painting he made as though it were an eyewitness account? He doesn't know who sat where, or what they looked like, because he wasn't even alive at the time. Heck, his great-grandparents weren't even newborns yet. It was hundreds of years before his time.

Answer 5

it's fiction since there is clearly no evidence of anything Dan Brown stated in his novel.

It's just there to stir up controversy because controversy means LOTS of money and publicity for him!