Review of "The Da Vinci Code"- Attempt to separate fact from fiction

My past blogs were all related to sports, as FIFA World Cup was looming over my mind and heart when I created this blog. I was mesmerized by the thrill and the excitement of the game- Soccer. But now, everything has settled down placing me in a situation to find a new abode where I'll be able to mesmerize myself. And, as I did some soul-searching I got stuck into this. Yeah, it was "The Da Vinci Code" that managed to create a sort of thrill in my thoughts in the near past. Though, it was released in 2003, I never cared to read this book at that juncture. It was only when the news of this book getting filmed reached my ear, I decided to give this fictional novel a try. I was in a kind of mission to explore the facts mentioned in the books that had manged to create a stir in the religious world. Here, I am trying to present a few collected Q&A that would surely help to separate fact from fiction. Go through this Q&A and mesmerize yourself with the reality.

What is the plotline of The Da Vinci Code?

The complex story of The Da Vinci Code is one of intrigue and conspiracy. While in Paris on business, a Harvard professor by the name of Robert Langdon receives an urgent call. The curator of the Louvre art museum has been found murdered. The police are baffled by an encoded message left by the dead man and written with his own blood. Langdon follows the trail of this mystery, which leads to clues left in the works of Leonardo Da Vinci. He joins efforts with cryptologist Sophie Neveu, Saunière’s granddaughter, and together they discover that the dead curator was part of a secret society, the Priory of Sion, whose members included Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. Behind the scenes, Opus Dei, a Catholic lay organization, is plotting to prevent the discovery of an ancient secret, the Holy Grail, kept hidden by the Priory of Sion for centuries. If discovered, it would shake the foundations of the church and the faith it has proclaimed for millennia. Dan Brown’s plotline draws strength from public knowledge of past and present church scandals and has been recommended as a good and provocative read by prestigious critics. The Library Journal recommends The Da Vinci Code as “a compelling blend of history and page-turning suspense.”

Why are some readers shaken by this novel?

Central to the controversy is the book’s alleged exposé of the historic church and its Bible. Since followers of Christ stake their lives on the biblical record, The Da Vinci Code touches a nerve when its alleged expert declares, “The church has two thousand years of experience pressuring those who threaten to unveil its lies. Since the days of Constantine, the church has successfully hidden the truth about Mary
Magdalene and Jesus. We should not be surprised that now, once again, they have found a way to keep the world in the dark” (p.407). Brown claims ancient evidence that Jesus was not a God-man as described by the church. Instead, the novel’s “experts” describe Jesus as a mere man who had a child with Mary Magdalene and gave her the responsibility of leading His disciples after He was gone. The source of these allegations is a collection of ancient Gnostic gospels found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. The Secret
Books Of James and The Gospel Of Thomas are just two of these documents that reflect the ancient philosophy of Gnosticism. From the early days of the Christian church, Gnostics promoted a different view of Christ.

They claimed to have a “secret knowledge” that was necessary to know the truth about God. Regarding the second-century teaching of Gnosticism, one modern source says, From the standpoint of traditional Christianity, Gnostic thinking is quite alien. Its mythological setting of redemption leads to a depreciation of the historical events of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Its view of man’s relationship to God leads to a denial of the importance of the person and work of Christ, while, in a Gnostic context, “salvation” is not understood in terms of deliverance from sin, but as a form of existential self-realization (The New Bible Dictionary). Although the Gnostic gospels are second- and third-century writings, The Da Vinci Code regards them as the “lost books of the Bible” that represent the true picture of Jesus and His teachings. Secret knowledge, goddess worship, and self-deification emerge as an alternative theory to the historic record of the Bible.

Why are so many taking The Da Vinci Code seriously?

On the title page of The Da Vinci Code, the author claims: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture,
documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” In addition, Brown offers a lengthy list of acknowledgments that leave the impression that all of these prestigious sources and institutions collaborated with him in his research. Since so much of the complex plot and theme development are dependent upon Dan Brown’s claim of legitimate research into real people, times, and places, it’s easy for the reader to assume that the backbone of The Da Vinci Code is credible. Because the heroes of the novel are “seekers of truth,” they seem to be leading us to higher ground, as when a Harvard professor says, “I’m a historian. I’m opposed to the destruction of documents, and I would love to see religious scholars have more information to ponder the exceptional life of Jesus Christ” (p.342). This is the apparent passion for truth expressed by another of the book’s heroes, a researcher by the name of Teabing, who makes statements like, “It’s a matter of historical record, . . . and Da Vinci was certainly aware of that fact. The Last Supper practically shouts at the viewer that Jesus and Magdalene were a pair. . . . The marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record” (pp.244-245)

On closer look, however, the book’s alleged factual basis does not stand up. Richard Abanes, in his book The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code, writes: Most critics would acknowledge that Brown has the right to say whatever he wants to say. What is problematic, however, is the way that he, his publisher, and the media have been presenting The Da Vinci Code: as a fact-based exposé wherein the characters reveal truths long hidden from, or at the very least ignored by, the general public (p.9). This observation is important because Brown has repeatedly insisted that his novel is based on fact. During an interview he said: One of the many qualities that makes The Da Vinci Code unique is the factual nature of the story. All the history, artwork, ancient documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate—as are the hidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci’s most famous paintings . This is what makes The Da Vinci Code so misleading. It claims to be an accurate portrayal of history. Yet the book is a seductively clever mix of fact and fiction.

Does The Da Vinci Code deserve to be thought of as historical fiction?

Historical fiction is a genre of literature in which imaginary characters live within the realistic boundaries of known facts. In her class syllabus Using Historical Fiction In The History Classroom, Sarah K. Herz writes: The author of historical fiction must blend historical facts with imagination and creative style to master his art. He must be a master of the past so as to portray accurately ideas, attitudes, tendencies, and themes and weave his story—accurate in all its details—into the thematic materials. . . . Historians and novelists often differ in their points of view about the historical novel and its purpose. However, both agree that the writer of historical fiction must not distort past reality; the writer must not manipulate historical facts to make the novel more interesting or exciting (Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute). By this definition, The Da Vinci Code would need to develop its plot with historical integrity. When challenged on his facts, the author cannot rightfully say, “It’s only a novel.” Such positioning places the reader in a schizophrenic world of fact and fiction. Dan Brown writes an “alternative history” without giving the reader the ability to see where his facts begin and end. Literary scholars see the difference; the average reader may not.Let’s look at how the “what if” history of The Da Vinci Code plays out with elements that are alleged to be factual.

Did Da Vinci leave clues to his beliefs hidden in his art?

Dan Brown’s main characters—Robert Langdon, Sophie Neveu, and Leigh Teabing—are experts at deciphering codes and interpreting symbols. This is one of the most compelling aspects of thenovel. The book accurately points out that Leonardo was known to have used reverse text (which could be read with a mirror) for some of his “progressive theories on astronomy, geology, archaeology, and hydrology” (p.300). Yet, his “secrets” were probably more scientific than religious. Leonardo was among the Renaissance scientists who had to be careful not to raise suspicion that their theories were challenging established church doctrine on creation. Brown, however, used the fact of Da Vinci’s reverse-style scientific essays to suggest that Leonardo also left clues in his artwork about secret religious beliefs, which if known would have changed the public’s acceptance of his work. In The Da Vinci Code, the great artist is portrayed as a goddess worshiper who left clues in his artwork to let us know that his views of Christ were not in line with the teachings of the church. But how believable is this claim? Art critics who have no interest in defending the church have rejected the notion. Authorities in the art world believe that the “hidden clues” to Leonardo’s secret faith exist only in the imagination of those looking to make a conspiracy theory plausible (see: Bruce Boucher, “Does The Da Vinci Code Crack Leonardo?” The New York Times, 8/3/03; Sian Gibby, “Mrs. God,” Slate, 11/3/03).

Was Mary Magdalene ever worshiped as a goddess?

According to The Da Vinci Code, Jesus wanted Mary Magdalene to restore to the church the concept of “the sacred feminine.” Robert Langdon, Brown’s Harvard symbologist, explains: “The Holy Grail represents the sacred feminine and the goddess, which of course has now been lost, virtually
eliminated by the church. 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” (p.238). By that rationale, and with second-century Gnostic documents, Brown builds his case that Jesus not only took Mary Magdalene as His wife but planned to make her the founder of His church (p.254). All of this, however, is contrary to what many scholars regard as the oldest and most reliable accounts. The New Testament portrait of Mary Magdalene is in sharp contrast to Dan Brown’s vision of her. According to the gospel of Mark, Jesus delivered her from seven demons (16:9). Grateful for being set free, she became a follower who, along with many others, provided financial support to Jesus and His disciples (Lk. 8:1-3). She was a witness of the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Mt. 27:55-56; Mk. 15:40). John’s gospel says Mary was the first to see Jesus after His resurrection (Jn. 20:11-18).

In short, the New Testament paints a picture of Jesus and Mary that is honorable and above reproach. Their relationship is consistent with that of a woman who, along with the other disciples, followed a man who could heal withered legs, walk on water, and turn water into wine. The Gospel accountsof their friendship are marked by a reserve and spiritual connection that does not even hint at romantic involvement. Yet despite the historical evidence that Mary Magdalene was one of many followers who witnessed the miracles and unparalleled life of Christ, The Da Vinci Code portrays a romantic relationship that leads to marriage and a child.

Did Jesus and Mary Magdalene marry and have a child?

Although the New Testament never explicitly says that Jesus remained single, it gives indirect evidence that He did not get married like His apostles and brothers. The apostle Paul later wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5). If Jesus had married, Paul would have included Him in the list. The combined evidence that Jesus lived a single life of devotion to His mission, however, does not show up in The Da Vinci Code. In fact, one of its main characters claims, “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false” (p.235). In the context of a novel, such a statement reflects “freedom of speech.” But fiction is not something on which to stake our lives. Darryl Bock, who is a research professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, says this about Jesus being married: Most scholars have long believed that Jesus was single . . . . No early Christian text we possess, either biblical or extrabiblical, indicates the presence of a wife during His ministry, His crucifixion, or after His resurrection. Whenever texts mention Jesus’ family, they refer to His mother, brothers, and sisters but never to a wife.

Furthermore, there is no hint that He was widowed (Breaking The Da Vinci Code, p.41). Bock goes on to give three arguments against the claim that Jesus and Mary were married:

1. Mary is never tied to any male when she was named (Mt. 27:55-56; Mk. 15:40-41; Lk. 8:2; Jn. 19:25).
2. A minister’s right to marry was cited without reference to Jesus (1 Cor. 9:4-6).
3. Jesus showed no special concern for Mary Magdalene at the cross (Jn. 19:25-27). Even though the Bible
gives us compelling reason to conclude that Jesus and Mary were not married, why should we trust its claims over the claims of the Gnostic gospels and The Da Vinci Code?

Why should we trust the biblical accounts of Jesus and Mary?

The trustworthiness of any ancient document depends on its ability to stand up under time-tested criteria. Let’s see what that measure of authenticity is and how the New Testament and the Gnostic gospels stand up to it. In the ancient Greek world, Aristotle cast a giant shadow of scholarly and scientific insight that touches us today. Long before the invention of the printing press, Aristotle used well-reasoned criteria for recognizing the trustworthiness of an ancient document. He listed three guidelines that have stood the test of time:
(1) Was the person an eyewitness to the event he recorded?
(2) How many copies of the record do we have and how close are they to the event they describe?
(3) Are there other sources outside the document that corroborate the document’s claims?

Even today,historians follow these guidelines. They remain foundational to the science of textual criticism. Such guidelines help us to see some of the many reasons that the credibility of the New Testament has stood the test of time. The Nag Hammadi documents (Gnostic gospels), by comparison, were written about 100 to 200 years after the life of Jesus. Being later in time and lacking connection to those who knew Christ, they reflect Gnostic doctrines of the second and third centuries rather than a first-century record of witnesses. By contrast, the New Testament gives us eyewitness accounts, with more copies, closer to the event than any other document from the first century. Even though the oldest manuscripts are not complete, textual critics are able to piece together the evidence. Small portions like the Chester Beatty and John Ryland papyri fragments bring scholars back to within 40 years of the writing of the gospel of John (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents—Are They Reliable? pp.17-18). Likewise, F. F. Bruce in his book Jesus And Christian Origins Outside The New Testament shows how historians have used other early documents to confirm the reliability of New Testament accounts. Even in the face of such evidence, The Da Vinci Code can still cause confusion. By developing a cleverly written plot that commingles “a good read” with a mixture of historical fact and fiction, the casual reader is unable to tell where the truth starts and stops. A good example of this distortion of history is The Da Vinci Code’s view of Emperor Constantine.