Exposing The Da Vinci Code

Media Monitor ^ | 4/17/2006 | Cliff Kincaid

[Mike Bates]

Carl E. Olson says the The Da Vinci Code book by Dan Brown can be easily refuted by examining the history of Christianity, using mostly non-Christian sources. The Brown book, which insists that the figure of Jesus Christ is a fraud concocted by desperate church leaders, claims Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, producing a bloodline and a shocking and scandalous truth that has been protected over the course of human history by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. True Christian believers, in other words, are fools and dupes.

SNIP

The problem with The Da Vinci Code, Olson says, is that it purports to describe historical characters and events: "When The Da Vinci Code refers to Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Leonardo Da Vinci, Emperor Constantine, and other historical people who clearly existed and events that happened, then the question is: what did happen and who were these people?"

But when the novel is challenged about factual matters, Brown and his publisher "want to have their cake and eat it too," he said. They dismiss criticism on the ground that it is a novel but also want to sell the book as well-researched.

The media like this cake, too. It's an opportunity to bash Christians as simple-minded. But it's doubtful the media will take the time or trouble to read the Olson book and discover the true facts. We should.

[Mike Bates]

I expect to hear from the regulars on this.

[theDentist]

You mean the people who remind all that the Book is a work of fiction, and stae that anyone basing their religious beliefs upon it are lacking common sense? :)

[Buck W.]

"The Da Vinci Code book by Dan Brown can be easily refuted..."
Of course it can be refuted. It's a novel.

[Claud]

You mean the people who remind all that the Book is a work of fiction, and stae that anyone basing their religious beliefs upon it are lacking common sense? :)

My brother in law said the same to me over the weekend (just the work of fiction part anyway--nothing about me being an idiot or anything).

I didn't read DVC, but I read Brown's Angels and Demons, and the problem is that he writes, well, like a professorial know-it-all who is very full of his own knowledge, but what purports to be his scholarship is actually abysmally sloppy mixture of known facts with wild conjectures. As an editor, speaking just in terms of its fiction value, I would refuse any his work purely on that ground alone--even if it were 100% pro-Christianity.

I have read many a manuscript of supposed "scholarship" and know the difference between BS and the real thing when I see it.

[Mike Bates]

I knew I wouldn't be disappointed. Thanks!

[theDentist]

Davinci Code and others are something liek Tom Clancy novels that use present events, politics, and technology to spin a fascinating yarn. That's pretty much it.

[kerryusama04]

What's all the hubbub? The scriptures mention nothing of Jesus marrying, so it didn't happen. I listened to it on CD and loved it. I might watch the movie if the casting isn't pure left.

[Claud]

Davinci Code and others are something liek Tom Clancy novels that use present events, politics, and technology to spin a fascinating yarn. That's pretty much it.

Gonna have to disagree there, my friend.

The concern here is that people get into the yarn, and meanwhile in the course of the yarn they get fed a load of BS about the Council of Nicaea or what have you. They've been entertained, but they also been misinformed about a fact of history that they, not being specialists, have no idea is a lie.

A lie, I might add, that the mainstream media and much of academia will do absolutely nothing to correct. So readers come away with a completely idiotic but nevertheless lasting notion of the Council of Nicaea, which they now accept as history. Which might not be so bad in itself, except that these lies are then rehashed over and over again as "facts" of history, proving that, say, Christianity is premised on false foundations--so therefore we shouldn't have to listen to what it has to teach on matters of faith or morals on abortion or homosexuality.

Dan Brown goes to great lengths--GREAT lengths, I might emphasize, from having read Angels and Demons--to show everyone just how smart he is in his books. And I think he's just clever enough to pull it off for those that are not aquainted with ecclesiastical history.

[Claud]

What's all the hubbub? ...I listened to it on CD and loved it.

And what did you love most about it, pray tell?

[kerryusama04]

And what did you love most about it, pray tell?

The who dunnit part, of course. Murdering a guy with peanuts? Wow, that was intriguing. The perspective here is that one of the bad guys was trying to frame the Vatican and in the end, the good guy exonerates the Vatican.

[Claud]

Ah, so you like the story. Fair enough.

Did you learn anything from the book, quite aside from the story?

[A.A. Cunningham]

Carl Olson

[kerryusama04]

Ah, so you like the story. Fair enough. Did you learn anything from the book, quite aside from the story?

I liked the clues within ancient artifacts part, too. If you are referring to the theology, I learned that Dan Brown has no problem creating fiction out of that, too. It is really silly to base a story out of a painting that was created a thousand years after the Last Supper, but it made for a cool book.

[Claud]

For the interest of those that think this is "just a work of fiction"...let's hear what Dan himself had to say in an interview with Matt Lauer:

Matt
How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred? I know you did a lot of research for the book.

Dan
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.

Or how 'bout his interview with BookPage:

While the characters and storylines of The Da Vinci Code are manifestly his own contrivances, Brown stresses that all the contextual details about history, biography, location and art are true. "One of the aspects that I try very hard to incorporate in my books is that of learning," he says. "When you finish the book—like it or not—you've learned a ton. I had to do an enormous amount of research [for this book]. My wife is an art historian and a Da Vinci fanatic. So I had a leg up on a lot of this, but it involved numerous trips to Europe, study at the Louvre, some in-depth study about the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei and about the art of Da Vinci."

He had a leg up on his info all right...and unfortunately some of his readers are now soaking wet and smell funny.

[Claud]

If you are referring to the theology, I learned that Dan Brown has no problem creating fiction out of that, too.

Oh, I he is not creating fiction....he is promoting "fact"...see quotes above.

[kerryusama04]

Oh, I he is not creating fiction....he is promoting "fact"...see quotes above.

I know about all that stuff. Isn't it possible that he is trying to get under the skin of people like you to creat a "cult" following and make himself a rich as possible? Even if he does believe this nonsense, he isn't the first nut-job to create something of literary worth.

If you guys keep it up with the pitch forks and torches, this story will never die.

[Claud]

Isn't it possible that he is trying to get under the skin of people like you to creat a "cult" following and make himself a rich as possible?

Possible, heck, it's virtually certain!

Now, as far as pitchforks and torches and the story never dying, well that's silly. The story will die, because Dan Brown is a flash in the pan and will be forgotten, except every few hundred years when a few like himself dredge it up again as some kind of "proof". Ever heard of the blasphemous and slanderous Maria Monk novels of the 1800s? That crap--for crap it was--was forgotten, and so will this. Old Scratch will find new pawns.

The orthodox do owe it to posterity to respond, however, because by responding, we affirm for every generation afterward what it is we DO believe and what we totally reject as suprious, ridiculous, and absurd. Just as Irenaeus responded to the heretics of the 2nd century (whom Brown seems to love). Just as Origen responded to Celsus. Just as Augustine responded to the pagans.

You are asking for silence in the face of lies.

[kerryusama04]

What happened when the libs tried to shut down The Passion?

[Alex Murphy]

The DaVinci Code's historical accuracy is about as reliable as Erich Von Daniken's was nearly forty years earlier. What bothers me isn't the fiction/nonfiction argument, so much as the popularity of the work overall.

Without actually consulting Exodus, I seem to remember that the Ark was often surrounded by flashing sparks and that Moses made use of this ?transmitter? whenever he needed help and advice.
excerpt from page 58

Von Daniken's wild theories were exceedingly popular in his time. His explanation for the Ark of the Covenant was IMO the inspiration for Lucas/Spielberg's blockbuster Raiders of the Lost Ark.

MUSGROVE
What's that supposed to be coming out of there?

INDY
Who knows...lightning...fire...the power of God.

EATON
I'm beginning to understand Hitler's interest in this thing.

INDY
Oh yes. The Bible tells of it level- ing mountains and wasting entire re- gions. Moses promised that when the Ark was with you, "your enemies will be scattered and your foes fell be- fore you".

But what do I know? Well, there is one other thing- the concept of a secret society covering up the "real" Jesus and setting up a fake church to control the masses was already done in American cinema, twenty years ago. It was significantly less popular than The DaVinci Code, which could explain why it didn't catch on back then....

[AnalogReigns]

Most historical novels take an historically verifiable framework (usually historic characters, places and events for example) and weave a plausible personal fictional story within them.

Dan Brown takes a non-historical and un-verifiable framework weaving a plausible personal fictional story within them, seemingly just to raise doubts of people who don't know the actual history (who make up 98% of the population). His story really seems to be an effort to tear apart historic Christianity in the popular mind.