| Contrary to his word, Dan Brown manipulated historical facts so that he might rise to fame and fortune, blaspheming the church and the names of many men in the process. In order to write a fictional novel based on non-fictional events, it is sometimes necessary to expand on or alter certain facts to better suit the overall quality and effect of the story. Especially in the case of an edge-of-the-seat thriller novel like The Da Vinci Code, poetic licenses can be granted when exaggeration is required to keep readers engaged and engrossed. But usually the author of a historical novel informs the audience firsthand that certain facts have been changed. The fact that Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown states the opposite must give us pause. On page one of his best-selling book are printed the following words: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." This covers an extensive amount of material covered in the book, some of it extremely controversial. What were his motives, one might query. It could be his spite for the Roman Catholic Church. It could be that he wanted its followers to shift their beliefs from its flawed doctrine to other ideas, even if they were merely figments of his imagination. It could be that he wanted followers of his own, like any aspiring paperback writer. And, like many a paperback writer, it could be that he longed for the financial benefits, given his audacity to make such jaw-dropping claims about arching historical events. It is, in fact, all of the above. Making such a brazen statement about the absolute truth of the book would succeed in fooling many. But it would also give him a lot for which to be held accountable. From falsities about the life of Jesus Christ to Leonardo da Vinci’s methods of painting, it is important to pinpoint the errors in this book. Some are highly superficial and easy to spot, and some require much unearthing and research. But whatever the case, for a book that has sold by the million, been translated into a number of languages, and swayed the opinions of many, it is ever so urgent that we bring the truth out in the open, exposing the deceit that lies within the pages of The Da Vinci Code. The errors in the book are so great in number that they can be grouped into many different subcategories, such as "Leonardo Da Vinci", "secret societies and institutions", "the church", and "the life of Jesus Christ." Before I begin to address them in that respective order, I will give a brief summary of what the book is all about for those who are not familiar. The novel is about a secret society called the Priory of Sion created to protect the location of the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail, according to the society, is the secret lineage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and the documents that supposedly prove it. In the story, symbologist Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu are entrusted with clues to locate the Holy Grail, left to them by Sophie's murdered grandfather Jacques Sauniere, an undercover Priory Master. Along the way, they are endangered by others searching for the Grail, either in attempt to gain personal power or to destroy the secret. Langdon and Neveu are stunned as they find that those who are on the quest, from monks to personal comrades, are all willing to stop at nothing, not even murder, to obtain their prize. So what role does Leonardo da Vinci, the title "character", play? The book tells us expressly that Leonardo was a member of the Priory of Sion, the secret society that supposedly held the non-biblical truth about Jesus Christ. The idea of a prominent man in history being a part of such a conspiracy is fascinating to anyone. Having seen some of his most famous Biblical scenarios, who would not be taken aback by the idea that Leonardo planted anti-Biblical messages in such paintings? The Da Vinci Code aims to point them out to the audience as if they are completely obvious, even though they are highly improbable. An example of this is the scene wherein Langdon and his friend Teabing are scrutinizing the famed "Last Supper." They identify the figure to Jesus’ right, whom art historians have come to agree is John, as Mary Magdalene. Why? Because the individual appears 1"young and pious-looking, with a demure face, beautiful red hair, and hands folded quietly." The book goes on to say that "our preconceived notions of this scene are so powerful that our mind blocks out the incongruity and overrides our eyes." However having been shaped by the Biblical account of the Last Supper, our preconceived notions are more reliable than he thinks. If this really were Mary Magdalene, then where is John? Surely the painting would not exclude the "disciple whom Jesus loved." When comparing "The Last Supper" to other pieces of art portraying the apostle John, many times they take on the same criterion- the long flowing hair, the lack of facial hair, etc. This is because John was the youngest, and his youthful and somewhat feminine appearance makes him distinctive. Leonardo had the tendency to paint certain Biblical characters in a way that would embrace their youthfulness, including John the Baptist who takes on a similar boyish appearance. It is still obvious to us who these characters are, so why should we be suspicious about the long-haired figure in "The Last Supper?" Worthy of note is the fact that the only information regarding the Last Supper lies within the canonical gospels; no other gnostic or apocryphal writings could have born influence on the idea that John was not present at Passover. That being said, it must be true that John was indeed the figure seated next to Jesus; for the Bible clearly acknowledges that all twelve apostles attended the Supper. The author also takes up several pages trying to convince one of the characters as well as the reader that the Mona Lisa is not a woman, not even a man, but rather an androgynous mixture of the two. Thus the famous enigmatic smile is explained. We can quickly shuffle off this suggestion, thanks to Giorgio Vasari, Leonardo’s biographer who was born around the time Leonardo passed away. According to his biography, the Mona Lisa was named for Lisa del Giocondo the wife of a silk merchant who desired a self portrait to be hung in their new home. Having ascertained her identity, this is no longer a debatable topic, and it is likely that Dan Brown fabricated his own idea solely for shock factor. Throughout the novel in its entirety, the storyline relies heavily on the significance of the lost female goddess. Dan Brown projects the idea that the Church degraded women by obliterating and demonizing the idea of the "sacred feminine", Mary Magdalene herself. It is the narrator’s viewpoint that the union of the divine male and the divine female formed God. While orthodox Christianity has never held that Mary Magdalene was divine, it is and was by no means sexist. In fact, there is much historical evidence against the theory that Christianity tried to diminish the importance of Mary Magdalene when the Bible was being written and organized. If this were so, why would the Bible in its final arrangement show Mary as the first person to witness the resurrection of Christ himself? In addition to this fact, the Roman Catholic Church to this day regards Mary Magdalene as a saint, as well as many other honorable women. The church treasures the role of females setting it apart from the realm of men’s ability. So to suggest that Christianity aimed to belittle the role of the female is very farfetched. Dan Brown managed to conjure up further lies about the Church, presenting it as vindictive against not only woman but against sex as well. He says, "Modern religion decries [sex] as shameful, teaching us to fear our sexual desire as the hand of the devil." This sadly has been a common misconception held by those who disdain Christianity, who accuse it of harboring an unnatural sense of prudishness. But this is far from the truth. Christianity holds sex in high esteem, as a gift from God, which is why it is not seen as a frivolous act, and therefore not to be casually indulged in outside of marriage. Nonetheless, the author ignored Biblical evidence against this theory and raised it as one of the reasons for Leonardo’s supposed anti-Christian world view. This too is false. Although during his glory days Leonardo displayed no personal affiliation with Christianity, except for painting Biblical scenarios, he certainly never showed any contempt for the religion. According to Giorgio Vasari, towards the end of Leonardo’s life, he wished "to be informed of Catholic practice and of the good and holy Christian religion. Then, after many tears, he repented and confessed." Vasari’s biography is not the only evidence of his conversion. Leonardo’s final will and testament, which was spoken before witnesses, also conveys his desire to convert. In his will, he expresses that he "commends his soul to Almighty God" and " to the Blessed Virgin Mary." Dan Brown included a particular statement regarding Leonardo that raises controversy, not because of it being bizarre and unsupported, but because of it being so "matter-of-fact" in explanation. The idea that Leonardo was a homosexual is not completely without merit, but there is no actual proof of such a claim. Although many of his paintings feature the male anatomy and he was without wife or children, it cannot be regarded as concrete evidence. But Dan Brown asserts it as a conclusive fact. He even goes so far as to say he was "flamboyant", which is undoubtedly false, for during that time one would have to be discreet, as practicing homosexuality openly was usually punishable by death. Leonardo Da Vinci is not the only man degraded throughout the pages of this book; entire groups and organizations are also inappropriately demeaned. The Opus Dei is a fundamental organization in the plot, the religion of a scheming monk who is hot on the trail for the Grail. In reality it is an organization within the Roman Catholic Church founded in 1928. It’s founder Josemaria Escriva insisted from the start that it was not a religious movement, as its members were fully immersed in the world, trying "to find God through the mundane details of daily secular life." Therefore Brown’s portrait of a withdrawn society retreating to cloisters and monasteries is inaccurate. In fact, the society does not even consist of monks– for the most part it is an institution of laymen and only three percent clergymen. But in the novel, one of the primary antagonists is Silas, a psychopathic albino monk-assassin who has been brainwashed by the egregious dogma of the Opus Dei. Motivating his evil actions is Bishop Aringarosa, a conniving prelate whose schemes ultimately revolve around "the work" of Opus Dei, which is to salvage Roman Catholic power. He manipulates Silas to do as he pleases and do whatever it takes along the way, be it force or murder, to destroy the Holy Grail which threatens the church’s reputation. In reality, there is no "work" of Opus Dei, none of the members are required to represent the institution or act on its behalf. Not only does the author stretch the doctrine and purpose of the organization, he depicts it in a dark and shady manner so as to disturb the audience, which unrightfully makes one question the reputation of a once high-standing Christian institution. The other significant organization in the story is the Priory of Sion. The author does not introduce the Priory in a negative light so as to repel the audience, rather he butters it up describing it as an almighty ancient institution composed of great men, the only men worthy to know the true whereabouts of the Holy Grail and the full extent of its power. The history he provides of the Priory is that it was founded by a duke named Godefroi de Bouillon in 1099. This is untrue. 2In actuality the secret society was very short-lived, founded in the 1950's by a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard and dissolving towards the end of 1956. Following this array of misleading historical background, Dan Brown proceeds to stain the reputation of the organization with dark, obscene innuendos and even goes so far as to defend them. For example, he claims that members of the Priory commonly practiced the ritual of Hieros Gamos, which symbolizes the harmonization of opposites through sex. The male represents a god, the female a goddess. According to the Code when the ritual was enacted, ‘‘man could achieve a climactic instant when his mind went totally blank and he could see God.’’ Had the statement about Godefroi being the founder of the Priory been true, then the statement regarding the common practice of Hieros Gamos still must have been false. Godefroi was extremely Christian, the son of a saint and relative to the Pope. The added elements of goddess worship and ritualistic sex would have horrified Godefroi to say the least. Therefore this claim is false and unfounded, given the other information provided in the text, but even more outrageous and shocking is the claim that follows. Brown proposesthat the custom of Hieros Gamos originated and endured among Christians and Jews during Old Testament Times, until the established church drove out goddess worship. That anyone would have the boldness, as well as the utter stupidity to suggest that Christianity deemed noble ceremonies of communal sex among believers is beyond comprehension. Anyone remotely familiar with the basic Old Testament laws of Christian morality would be aware of God’s disapproval of extramarital sex and prostitution 1 Kings 14:24 describes the one instance in which the Israelites did permit and exercise ritualistic sex. ("And there were also perverted persons in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.") However, as a result of this, they were driven out and their houses destroyed by honorable kings like Josiah. As we can see, such practices were not tolerated and on the rare occasions in which they occurred instantaneously eliminated from the face of society. Perhaps the reason Dan Brown thought this notion would be accepted by the audience was due to his multiple theories against the validity of Christianity, including the theory that Christianity was based on pagan religions. He states through the mouth of character Leigh Teabing, "Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian god Mithras– called the "Son of God" and the "Light of the World"– was born on December twenty-fifth, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days." Mithraism, the Roman cult did not even set foot in the Roman Empire til nearly 100 A.D. M. J. Vermaseren, an authority on the cult of Mithra certified that no Mithraic documents or artifacts have been dated prior to the end of the first century A.D. Rigorous investigations undergone at Pompeii beneath the ashes of Vesuvius have revealed nothing. Correlation does not imply imitation, but it is not unreasonable to think that the similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are too close for coincidence. If this be the case, nevertheless Christianity remains bona fide, as historical records show that it emerged first chronologically. Brown has it backwards– if either of the two imitated, it was the founders of Mithraism, not the church fathers. The church fathers were overlooked in Dan Brown’s inefficient research on Christendom. Once more taking a stance against the legitimacy of the New Testament, he claims that the idea that Jesus was divine was manufactured by pagan Roman emperor Constantine, during the Council of Nicaea, for the sole purpose of manipulating and gaining power. The Council of Nicaea which we know was held in 325 A.D. occurred years after writings by early church fathers had been made. Among these writings is The Epistle to the Philippians by Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna. The letter mentions, "our Lord and God Jesus Christ." Polycarp was alive from 69 to 155 A.D. So the author makes several points that are incorrect: not only the idea that Jesus’ divinity was established at Nicaea, but also that it was devised as political propaganda. Throughout this discussion we have gradually approached the essential issue of The Da Vinci Code, the one around which most argument revolves, the very heart of the controversy surrounding Brown’s bestseller. This utter perversion of Biblical truth, if it be valid as posed, sways the entire span of history as we know it. 3"The early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being. Therefore, any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus’ life had to be omitted from the Bible. Unfortunately for the early editors, one particularly troubling earthly theme kept recurring in the gospels. Mary Magdalene. More specifically, her marriage to Jesus Christ." There are some things to be considered upon hearing such an unfathomable proposition. One, had this been the case, and Mary Magdalene did marry Jesus, we would expect to hear more praise in her name, just as Mary the mother of Jesus received much veneration and even worship in several major areas of the church. Consider also Revelation 19:7, "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife [the church] hath made herself ready." The Bible communicates to us that Jesus Christ became man not to start a family but to salvage His true bride, the church. In insisting upon the truth of this outrageous proclamation unto a baffled character the author commits a number of logical fallacies in the ridiculous premises that follow. He goes further to say, "If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible's gospel's would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood." This statement is weak as it is, as it argues from a negative. It is bad reasoning to say, "since the gospels don’t mention marriage, he must have been married!" In addition to this, Brown has already denounced the validity of the Bible, which includes the New Testament, so why should he use it to try and prove a point? Expanding on the expression "unnatural bachelorhood", he explains that the majority of first-century Jews looked down on celibacy and were married. Concluding that Jesus had to have been married too, the author is guilty of hasty generalization. Since, as I previously noted, Dan Brown used the Bible to prove a point, I will use it to attack that point. Saul of Tarsus, a steadfast Jew prior to his conversion, was a single man. In the book of Corinthians, he commended celibacy and even went out on a limb to encourage others to stay single. Perhaps the Jewish attitude toward marriage was not as dogmatic as The Da Vinci Code depicts it. Brown suggests that there are "countless references" to Jesus and Magdalene’s union. Reliable modern-day research has shown that there are few. Moreover the "scores of historians" whom he listed as men who believed in Jesus’ secret marriage, only amount to four. So the confusion can subside, as Dan Brown’s argument is built on nothing more than flimsy evidence and the urge to generate gossip. In fact, that is the substance that makes up all the flawed statements he contrives. He baselessly accuses the Church of being misogynistic, slaughterous, and surreptitious. He tries to dilute the authority of the Bible, the fundamental book of truth, the standard for the lives of the millions who follow it, and have followed it for centuries. For all the talk that the Da Vinci Code has generated, it is nothing up against the Bible, and it is dangerously rash to challenge the validity of such a revolutionary book. Nonetheless there are still countless vulnerable, susceptible people being deceived by the Code. It is a book so persuasively constructed that it is thought-provoking to all, and can at times make even Christians wonder. But we must acknowledge it is purely fiction; it will never be found in the reference section at the library. This "historical hoax", fashioned by a writer so cunning and crafty has been able to enter the minds of many as truth. And it will most likely continue to trifle with the number of new readers who pick up the book each day. Our society craves truth even if it does not recognize it. So it is vital that among those who are captivated by the excitement of the novel, there are those who will remain level-headed and not get swept up in the suspense. They must be willing to find answers, to decipher the Code, so to speak. With a keen and open mind-set one can enjoy the riveting and enigmatic story while separating fact from fiction, and pointing to the ultimate truth of Christ and God’s Word. |
