Meet the Real Dan Brown, A Couple of things You Should Know About the Author

TFP ^ | 04.28.06 | Michael Whitcraft

[Coleus]

I was recently browsing Dan Brown’s web site to gather information in preparation for the one thousand theater protests against The Da Vinci Code movie, planned by the American TFP.   Since I hope to organize several protests, I felt obliged to get to know the real Dan Brown.  I wanted to hear, from his own mouth, why he wrote The Da Vinci Code and whether he believes the information contained in it.

As I was clicking around, I came across a section containing TV and radio interviews that utterly shocked me.  While the articles I had read, left it rather dubious whether or not Dan Brown considered his book historically correct, here he clearly claimed that the theories set forth in The Da Vinci Code are accurate.  Whereas former articles suggested that he was Christian and somewhat ambivalent to the Catholic Church, here he demonstrated a clearly anti-Catholic bias.

As I listened to these interviews, I was filled with the desire to spread the information I was gathering to the hundreds of protest organizers across the country, so I transcribed the more useful quotes in this article.¹  Thus, I hope it will help these organizers tackle some of the more difficult questions they may encounter.

History or Fiction?
One argument protest organizers are certain to come across states that The Da Vinci Code is fiction and therefore harmless.  Common responses to this argument include showing that even a novel can be harmful or explaining that fiction does not give one the right to slander or blaspheme.  However, such a line of reasoning presupposes that Dan Brown’s book was intended as fiction.  This is a presupposition that he, himself, refutes.

In the book, Dan Brown leaves the historicity of The Da Vinci Code ambiguous.  Although the book is termed a “novel” on the cover, the first page informs readers that: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”²

However, Dan Brown is not nearly so restrained in later interviews.  When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?”  Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”³

Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?”  Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have.  I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic.  I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.”  In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Our Lord and St. Mary Magdalene being married.  He claimed: “The people who ask me how much is true need to realize that this theory about Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries.  It’s not my theory.  This has been presented, really over the last 2000 years, and it has persisted.”⁴

In another interview labeled “Chronicle,” Dan Brown claims that he wanted his book to be more than just entertaining, but educational as well: “I wanted to write a book that while it entertained at the same time, you close that last page and go ‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’  That is really what I set out to do.”  In that interview he reiterates his belief in the book’s historic value: “When I started researching Da Vinci Code, I really was skeptical and I expected on some level to disprove all this history that is unearthed in the book and after three trips to Paris and a lot of interviews, I became a believer…”⁵

Finally, there is a Time magazine article republished on Dan Brown’s web site calling The Da Vinci Code a “historical” thriller, “purporting to expose a centuries-old Vatican conspiracy to conceal the marriage and offspring of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.”⁶

It is therefore clear that Dan Brown considers the religious heresies expounded in The Da Vinci Code to be the Gospel truth and not just fiction.

Catholic Bashing
I have also heard Dan Brown described as Christian.  However, the extent to which he truly believes in Christ, or any absolute truth, is called into question by a lecture he gave to the New Hampshire Writers Project.  He said:

We were born into a culture.  We worship the gods of our fathers.  I humbly submit that if all of us in this room had been born in Tibet, probably a lot of us would be Buddhists.  I think the chances are pretty good and I also think that we would hold on to all that Buddhist philosophy with all the passion that some of us might hold on to our Christian ideals.

He reaffirmed this viewpoint later in the lecture, saying: “Again, we worship the gods of our fathers.  It is truly that simple.”⁷

Some believe that Dan Brown is ambivalent to Catholicism.  However, twice in this lecture he made statements, critical of the Church.  The first one lashed out against the Catholic belief in the infallibility of Church doctrine: “The world is a big place and now more than ever, there is enormous danger in believing we are infallible.  That our version of the truth is absolute.”

Ironically, Dan Brown is not so relativistic in his own opinions.  His opinion of Catholic doctrine on women priests is rather absolute.  Later in this same lecture, he stated in a pontifical tone:

Prior to 2000 years ago, we lived in world of gods and goddesses.  Today we live in a world solely of gods.  Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power and our male-dominated philosophies of absolutism have a long history of violence and bloodshed, which continues to this day…the fact remains, in the major religions of the world, women remain second-class citizens.  Why can’t there be women priests?  Why is this even an issue?

The Real Dan Brown
After hearing the real Dan Brown in his own words, I saw clearly something that the media are not telling us. Dan Brown is not an innocent fiction writer with an overactive imagination.  He is a man with an agenda.  He is committed to harm the Church and promote his Gnostic and neo-pagan religious beliefs.  He wants to persuade others to accept his false view of history.

That is why, as faithful Catholics, we must reject The Da Vinci Code.  We must confront the growing tide of blasphemy and send a strong message that Catholics will not stand by while the Faith is dragged through the mud.  We must make it clear that we will resist this attack on the Faith with the absolute certainty that the Church, our immortal Mother, will weather this storm unsullied.

Perhaps Dan Brown knows this as well.  During of his lecture to the New Hampshire Writer’s Project, he finished by cynically quoting a British priest who said: “Christian theology has survived the writings of Galileo and the writings of Darwin, surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire.” 

At least I can say that on this matter, Dan Brown and I see eye to eye.

___________________

1. The interviews themselves can be viewed at http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/breakingnews.html.
2. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, Doubleday, New York, 2003.
3. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/final/larger/today_show2.mov
4. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/final/larger/gma_cbds.mov
5. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/chronicle/large/chronicle_edited.mov
6. http://www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time041505.htm
7. http://www.danbrown.com/media/audio/DVC_NH_talk.mov

[knarf]

MY premise? Read my post.

[MindBender26]

I want to ask them, but I won't, "Since Jesus is all powerful, if there was anything wrong with the book, this work of fiction, would he have allowed it to be published?

But I won't ask....

:~)

[knarf]

"There are those ... "

"I'm not Catholic bashing, but pointing out a division in religious doctrine(s)."

[afraidfortherepublic]

I base my claim about the authorship of the Book of John on the teachings of numerous Catholic theologians, Biblical scholars, and priests. We have been taught that repeatedly in our diocese. I've seen it written both in our diocesan newspaper (Catholic) and in our Parish bulletin (Catholic) and have been taught that in various Bible study groups held at my church (Catholic).

I can assure you that NONE of those people ever denied the virginity of Mary or the divinity of Christ.

The Book of John was the last Gospel written -- more than 100 years after the crucifixion. It is assumed that it was written by someone who knew the disciples and learned at the knee of one of them -- but not by an actual disciple. An actual disciple would have had to have been about 150 years old when the book was first written. It is thought to be the compilation of accounts that were taught by the disciples who were present when Jesus walked the HOly Land and who were present at the crucifixion and the resurrection.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I did read your post. Perhaps I should have said "the premise that you articulated". Your post was not clear, if you did not believe what you stated.

[TexanToTheCore]

"The Da Vinci Code" is nothing more than "Wheel of Fortune" with car chases.

Even the car chase sucked. It was done in a "Le Car".

[SaintDismas]

You're mixing apples with oranges. Speculation about Jesus childhood in no way compares to the rot we are examining in this moment. I don't mind for a minute about theories concerning what may or may not have happened to Jesus during those years. Heck, I've seen stories over the years saying that Jesus went to China during that time. That's not the point. Left behind series? Yeah, thats a Protestant thing and we can argue til the cows come home on that. But we must stand side by side with our separated brothers in Christ to slay this lie once and for all.

[Binghamton_native]

Well, I repect your opinion. This will have to be an issue upon which evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics will have to agree to disagree.

[SaintDismas]

I'm glad you can. But to me its like letting people around you tell you and everyone else lies about someone you love (bearing false witness?), and my question remains, how are you not offended by that? If people were spreading vicious rumors about your mom, would you buy the book?

[Binghamton_native]

"But we must stand side by side with our separated brothers in Christ to slay this lie once and for all."

I'm with you.

Incidentally, regarding the Left Behind series, there is more than one Protestant view of eschatology.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Our Lord and St. Mary Magdalene being married.

Suppose, for a moment, that Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene had been married and had had children.

Would that change the essence of the Gospel--i.e., that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and died to redeem men from their sins?

[JavaTheHutt]

Yeah, thats a Protestant thing and we can argue til the cows come home on that. But we must stand side by side with our separated brothers in Christ to slay this lie once and for all.

Yeah, I've seen the theories about Him making an appearance in China. The Mormons believe He came to America. As far as I'm concerned, this is being made into a tempest in a teapot. There was criticism of the Left Behind series also, because they were telling the story of the end times incorrectly, putting certain events out of order as foretold in the Bible, all for the sake of making the story line more dramatic or flow more smoothly with various character developments. Many people have read those books and believe them to be an accurate portrayal of end times events. I don't. Nor do I believe the DaVinci Code is accurate.

Let me ask you though, just for satisfying my own curiousity. Are you upset about the DaVinci Code because of the claims that Jesus had a conjugal relationship with Mary M., that He had a child, that the Catholic church covered it all up, or a combination of one or more of those? I'm really not sure I understand exactly what part of the book has gotten everyone so riled up. I read it, and it just didn't have that effect on me. I really just don't understand all the hooplah about it.

[Binghamton_native]

From Focus on the Family's discussion of the book as to why does it matter if Jesus was married:

A friend of mine who has read The Da Vinci Code asked, "Why would it matter if Jesus had been married?" Since our faith is the most important thing, would it really have mattered?

Answer: It is important to remember that our views about Jesus should not be in conflict with what the Bible clearly teaches about Him. Any one is free to believe anything, but we must ask, “What is your authority? What basis do you have for your conclusion?”

Dan Brown has written that Jesus was married and the Bible has been corrupted. But scholars from numerous Christian backgrounds have responded by pointing out, “The evidence shows otherwise.” In the Bible (a book shown to be trustworthy by many compelling lines of evidence), we find that Jesus’ mission was not procreation, but salvation. Establishment of marriage, family and an earthly home were not Jesus’ purposes.

Galatians 4:4 (NIV) tells us why Jesus was born: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law." Why should we believe an assumption about Jesus that is non-biblical and without any evidence? In reality, Jesus didn’t need Mary Magdalene, because He already has a bride. The New Testament book of Romans (chapter 7) states that believers are espoused, engaged to be "married" to Jesus. Saved, forgiven, redeemed believers from all of history make up Jesus’ perfect "bride," not a fallen human. As far “faith” being the most important thing — remember that one's beliefs should be shaped in light of God’s revelation, not man’s speculation.

[SaintDismas]

No, I have NO problem with combining God and sex in the same thought, God through our partipation in His divine plan, authors all life, sex is something he created for us. But I do find it truly amazing that you think that this controversy is reduced to something phobic for me, and somehow the way Christians think about sex because I'm offended by the suggestion that Jesus took a wife.

What I find appalling is the need for some people to make it their life's quest to deny and disprove Christ's divinity, deny what He told Peter and the apostles, deny the deposit of faith, and that Christians have been the victim of the biggest hoax in history. How can anyone who claims to love Him and believe He is God and believe that they are a part of His holy people, still have an obsession to make him so human that he MUST possess the same loathsome lustful qualities as men do? Do the things that this trash says He did just to prove that well, Jesus was just a man. That's what it boils down to. You can't pick and choose, this story is not about just anyone, its about JESUS.

In the end, it baffles me beyond any measure how you or anyone else can say you truly believe that Jesus and His Father are one and the same, that you worship Him, have your beginning and ending in Him, live for Him and die for Him if you had to, love Him as your Lord, Saviour and advocate before the Father, that you could possibly and with no remorse be entertained by that garbage.

I'm sorry to offend you because by now I know I have. Don't think I'm saying I am more righteous than you because that would be a disaster for me. I'm just mystified. That book draws a line in the sand. You can't say you love Jesus as the Son, and God the Son and then enjoy Him being maligned

[garylmoore]

But you should save your valuable time for those who believe as you do. Again, thanks all the same.

Your so nice, really you should get saved. It must be sad to look up at the sky and think, "that goes on and on forever and ever and never stops, there's nothing up there", I can't even imagine. I'm sorry, you must forgive me, I just don't understand atheiest because creation itself proves that there is a God, it couldn't have all just happened.

[DaveTesla]

The Twelve Apostles;

***Writers of the New Testament

***(Simon (Peter) (as reordered by Mark)
Peter eventually went to Rome and while there, it is
believed that Mark (the writer of the Gospel of Mark)
served as his translator as he preached. It is, also,
believed that as Peter told and retold his experiences
with Jesus, Mark interpreted time and time again to
Christian groups and by so doing, gave Mark an almost
verbatim memory of Peter's recollections. After Peter's
death, Mark, realizing the value of Peter's first hand
account, recorded what he remembered so clearly in what we
know as the Gospel of Mark. In this manner, Peter became
the source of our earliest Gospel.

Andrew
Andrew is the brother of the apostle Peter and his
parent's names were Joanna and Jona. Like their father,
Andrew and Peter were also fishermen on the Sea of
Galilee. In fact, the apostles Andrew, Peter, James and
John were all partners in a fishing business prior to
being called by Jesus to follow Him.
Andrew was the first of the Apostles to follow Jesus
(John 1:35-42) and just as John the Baptist introduced Jesus to
the nation of Israel, so Andrew is noted for having
introduced Jesus to individuals. The apostle Peter became
the fisher of men in masse where Andrew was a fisher for individuals.

James (son of Zebedee)
the apostle James was the eldest brother of the apostle
John and that their father's name was Zebedee (their mother's name
was Salome). James, his brother John, Peter and Andrew
were all partners in a fishing business prior to being
called by Christ to follow Him. Zebedee was also a partner
in the business. There is also some evidence that James
was the first cousin of Jesus the Messiah and had been
acquainted with Him from infancy. It is believed that his
mother Salome was the sister of Jesus' mother Mary.

****John
While in Ephesus, by order of the Roman emperor Domitian,
John was exiled to an island called Patmos. In what is
known as the cave of the Apocalypse (located on the
island Patmos), the sacred text of the book of Revelation was
given to the apostle John by Jesus (it is here that John
recorded what is written in the New Testament book of
Revelation.) Other New Testament books accredited to John
are the Gospel of John, along with 1st, 2nd and 3rd John.
All of the apostles met a violent death, however, John
died peacefully in Ephesus, at an advanced age, around the
year 100 AD.

Philip
It's possible that Philip was named in honor of Philip
the Tetrarch who had, some ten years before his birth,
done much to raise the status of the region of his birth.
Philip was born in Bethsaida in Galilee.
Most of his latter ministry took place in Galatia (in
Turkey) and it's believed that at the age of 87, he
suffered martyrdom in Hierapolis.

Bartholomew
The apostle Bartholomew was led to Christ in the region of
Galilee, possibly by the apostle Philip.the apostle Jude
Thaddaeus) was the first to evangelize their region
throughout the years of 43 to 66 AD and that the apostle
Bartholomew joined him in 60 AD (eight years before
Bartholomew was martyred).
It is said that Bartholomew carried with him a copy of the
apostle Matthew's Gospel. This copy was reported to be
found at a later time and a converted stoic philosopher by
the name of Pantaenus is said to have brought it to
Alexandria.The apostle Bartholomew is said to have been
martyred in the year 68 AD.

Thomas
After the resurrection of the Lord Christ Jesus, Thomas
went to Babylon. It is believed that he established the
first Christian church there. He is also known to have
gone to Persia and from there he went to India and
preached the Gospel making many converts. It is also
believed that the apostle Thomas evangelized as far as
China, and while in India, he suffered martyrdom; being
killed with a lance

***Matthew
The apostle Matthew, also called Levi, was the son of
Alphaeus and the brother of the apostle James the Less,
or, James, son of Alphaeus. By profession, Matthew was a
tax collector before being called by Jesus to follow Him.
Matthew was a gifted writer, an ardent disciple, and was
perhaps the best educated of any of the Twelve Apostles.
He was the writer of The Gospel of Matthew.

James (son of Alphaeus)
The apostle James ( the son of Alphaeus), who is also
called "Less" or "Younger," was a brother of the apostle
Matthew and the son of Mary. Which Mary is not altogether
certain though she seems to be the wife of one Cleopas.

Jude (Thaddaeus)
After the ascension of Jesus, Jude was one of the first
apostles to leave Jerusalem for a foreign country. In
fact, it is believed that Jude was one of the first
apostles to witness directly to a foreign king, a Gentile.
Jude is believed to have evangelized the area of Armenia
associated with the city of Edessa, in company
perhaps of the apostle Bartholomew, and for a brief time,
with the apostle Thomas.

Simon (the Zealot)
Simon ( the Zealot ) was believed to have preached the
Gospel throughout North Africa, from Egypt to Mauritania,
and even into Britain.
There is a church tradition which says that he was
crucified by the Romans in Caistor, Lincolnshire, Britain
and subsequently buried there on May 10, circa 61 A.D.
This cannot be confirmed, however, as there is also a
strong tradition which says, that having left Britain,
Simon, at some point , went to Persia and was martyred
there by being sawn into.

Judas Iscariot
Perhaps the most significant thing that can be said of
Judas Iscariot, was, that, in feeling sorrow for his crime
of betrayal, he did not seek to atone for his sin to the
One (Jesus) whom he had wronged, but , rather, went to his
accomplices in crime (the priests) and there sought
to set himself aright. Because those whom he had served in
his selfishness failed him at the end (the priests), he
went out and hanged himself.

Not of the original twelve apostles:

Matthias
It is believed that Matthias evangelized in regions of
Armenia and great peril befell him in the cities of
Colchis, Sebastopol and elsewhere. It is also believed
that he at one time, was aided by the apostle Andrew.

****Saul (Paul)
The apostle Paul was at first a great enemy to the
Christian, being present at the stoning of Stephen, the
executioners laying their cloaks at his feet. But after
the death of Stephen, while Paul was on his way to
Damascus, the glory of the Lord shone suddenly upon
him, he was struck to the earth and was made blind for
three days. After his recovery (although there is some
evidence he never fully completely recovered his sight), he
was converted and became an apostle and, lastly,
suffered as a martyr for the religion which he had
formerly persecuted. Paul's great abilities and earnest
enthusiasm in spreading the gospel of Christ have made his
name revered wherever the Christian religion is known. It
is his writings, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
which make up much of the New Testament of the Bible.

Matthew 22:34
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the
Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law,
tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the
greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and
greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love
your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets
hang on these two commandments."

[Lord_Baltar]

Oh geez, not this again...

What's up, down time between Harry Potter movies?

[Darkwolf377]

It must be sad to look up at the sky and think, "that goes on and on forever and ever and never stops, there's nothing up there",

Sure it is, sometimes, and life would be a lot easier at times if I could believe. But just because I'd LIKE something to be true doesn't mean BAM! it's suddenly true. (I'd LIKE HRC not to be senator from NY, and Kerry and Kennedy to get booted out, but...)

Anyway, my religious friends say I am needed as an Inside Man when it comes to battling the atheist kooks who seem to spend their time thinking of new ways to "prove" that this country wasn't founded by believers.

[DaveTesla]

It's called faith my friend.
It is not so much what knowledge a man possess
but what is in his heart that drives him to overcome
all odds and achieve the impossible.

[Darkwolf377]

I understand the concept--my mother is deeply religious. No offense, but the reason I hate the libs is because they think with their feelings, and that's what faith is to me. I see no evidence--zero--that we live on after death, and all my life I've believed in things that could be proved; anything else is wishful thinking.

I hasten to repeat again that I am not one of these religion-bashers; this is merely my point of view for myself. In fact, I have only one friend of any sort who is also an atheist, so go figure.