One poster wrote:

Of course he did. Sells more books, doesn’t it? You’d prefer he believed the Churches’ made up version of history?

Another:

The difference is that the Chruch has historical documents to support it’s “version” Dan Brown, does not.

Another:

What? The Bible?

Dan Brown is writing Fiction, he doesn’t need any.

Dan Brown claims numerous things are “fact”. A lot of which is not. Even the inside of the novel has a “fact page”. Ironically he could not even get the correct dimensions of one of the paintings he describes correct (but he claims all art is fact etc)

Here is some more interesting tid bits –

From the book, ‘The Da Vinci Hoax – Exposing the Errors of the Da Vinci Code’ by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel 2004 Ignatius Press pages 33-38. Any spelling mistakes are probably mine, the {} represents footnotes and the numbers in () are page numbers from the book ‘The Da Vinci Code’.

What’s the Matter with the Code?

Here is a list of what we believe are the major problems with ‘The Da Vinci Code’:

1. It claims to be historically accurate and based on fact, but often is not

Many novelists who write historical fiction take some liberties with facts. This is usually not mallicious, but rather it often-times is meant to help drive the plot or help develop the characters. In other words, the background is changed a bit in the interest of the story. However, Brown’s novel (which is not historical fiction, strictly speaking) is unique because its historical claims are the central focus – they are the real characters and plot. A serious reading of ‘The Da Vinci Code’ reveals that the characters are simply devices meant to promote Brown’s central concerns, which are ideological. Without its radical rewritting of historical fact, Brown’s novel does not exist in any shape or form. ‘The Da Vinci Code’ also includes the before-mentioned “FACT” page, and Brown insists in interviews that his book is thorough and accurate in its representations of events, historical personages, and beliefs. But this simply is not the case, as this book will show in detail. Considering the sort of claims Brown makes, historical accuracy is a mjor issue with his novel.

2. It repeatedly misunderstands or misrepresents people, places, and events

‘The Da Vinci Code’ misrepresent, purposefully or otherwise, many historical events, persons, and institutions. These are discussed in detail in the pages that follw, but some examples will help make the point.

Brown confuses the Vatican and the Catholic Church and writes as though they were synonymous, with references to “the Vatican” often used in place of the Catholic Church. He has his fictional character the historian Leigh Teabing state that Constantine created a “new Vatican power base” (233), an amazing fact considering the fact that in Constantine’s day the Vatican did not exist; the land it would one day occupy was then still a swampy marsh. The Vatican did not become the offical residence of the pope until the fourteenth century.

Similar confusion exists about the status of Opus Dei, a Catholic group maligned at several points in the novel. A key character is Silas, a “hulking albino” monk (12). Never mind that Opus Dei is not a religious order and that it consists of mostly lay people with fewer than 2 percent of its members being priests{26}. Brown has a Vatican secretarius tell the bishop heading Opus Dei, “You will be a church unto yourself” (415). Opus Dei is not a church, nor can it be. Other descriptions are also flawed, as Peter Bancroft of the Opus Dei Information Office in the United States explains:

“The various permutations of “personal prelature” the author uses to describe Opus Dei are deolent of something like the papal equivalent of a personal army, i.e., an extra-legal operation not subject to the rest of the Church’s established authorities. But personal prelature is a jurisdictional status provided for by Canons 294-97 of the ‘Code of Canon Law’. “Personal” does not mean that Opus Dei belongs personally to the Pope or Vatican officials, but refers to the fact that the prelature’s jurisdiction applies to persons rather than a particular territory. Lay faithful of a personal prelature are subject to the bishop of their local diocese in just the same way as other lay faithful; the prelature’s juristiction over them pertains only to guidance given to their spiritual life and apostolate.”{27}

Other people or groups that are depicted in dubious or strange ways include Mary Magdalene, Emperor Constantine, Leonardo Da Vinci, the Knights Templar, and the Priory of Sion. Perhaps this should not be a surprise. In his previous novel ‘Angels and Demons’, a main character states that Copernicus (1473-1543) was “murdered” by the Catholic Church{28} (actually, Copernicus, a devot Catholic, was bed-ridden for several days and then died of a cerebral hemorrhage at the age of seventy) and that Galileo was a member of the Illuminati and was “severely punished” for believing that man was not the center of the universe (Galileo was put under house arrest for three years and was assisted by his daughter, a nun). ‘Angels and Demons’, which is set largely in and around the Vatican, feature a “FACT” page and also an Author’s Note stating: “References to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and architecture in Rome are entirely factual….”

3. It promotes a radical feminist, neo-gnostic agenda

The fact that the “sacred feminine” and rediscovering the goddess are a major theme of the novel may mean little to some readers, but it is a serious matter to many fans of ‘The Da Vinci Code’. The past few decades have witnessed a rapidly growing interest in these topics, and that the interest has influenced politicial and cultural opinion about sexuality and morality. As Philip G. Davis explains in ‘Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality’, “Goddess spirituality makes dramatic claims about anthropology, archaeology, ancient and modern history, social organizations, psychology, art, and human biology, as well as religion.”{29} ‘The Da Vinci Code’ drawns much of its inspiration from goddess spirituality. As Davis shows, the goddess movement involves a mixture of neo-paganism, neo-gnosticism, wicca, occultism, and radical feminism, all of which are mentioned, at least in passing, within Brown’s novel. In a passage about his studies of goddess spirituality that could just as easily apply to ‘The Da Vinci Code’, Davis laments that “it is perplexing that claims so easily disproved are nevertheless in wide and increasing circulation. An important lesson of this book is the ease with which patent falsehoods may clothe themselves in the garb of scholarship and masquerade as truth.”{30}

4. It incorrectly and unfairly misrepresents Christianity and traditional Christian beliefs about God, Jesus and the Bible

Where to begin? A sampling includes: Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Prior to A.D. 325 no one believed Jesus was divine. Emperor Constantine declared Jesus to be God. Constantine rejected dozens of other “gospels” and rewrote the four that are in the Christian Bible. The Catholic Church burned over five million witches. The Catholic Church’s leaders continue to keep the truth about Jesus from the masses through lies, deception, and violence.

These and other false claims fill ‘The Da Vinci Code’. And although few scholars would take any of them seriously, many readers do not have the background, time or inclination to find out the truth. Even worse, many readers accept Brown’s claims without consulting an encyclopedia or other resources, apparently believing that if it is in print, it must be true. Or perhaps they want it to be true. Or maybe truth is not a concern to them., Regardless, the misrepresentation of Christian beliefs in the novel is so agressive and continual that we can only conclude that it is the result of willful ignorance or purposeful malice.

5. It propagates a relativistic, indifferent attitude toward truth and religion

One of the great dangers of a popular, entertaining work such as, ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is that it reinforces the relativistic attitudes that are already prevalent in Western culture and offers additional reasons for readers to embrace such attitudes. Hitchcock notes, “Millions of people read ‘The Da Vinci Code’ not because they necessarily believe its absurd story but because it creates a myth that serves certain emotional needs and allows them to be ‘religious’ without submitting to any demands of faith.”{31} This idea is evident in remarks made by character Robert Langdon, who talks about “faith” as being built upon “fabrication” and beliefs that cannot be proven in any way (341). The appeal of such notions is obvious. It frees people from sany sense of obligation or discipline, and it allows them to perceive reality in whichever way best suits their desires.

Unfortunately, many Christians who are fans of the novel do not seem to appreciate that it is an attack upon the core beliefs of the Christian faith. ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is not merely another liberal “Revision”, writes Hitchcock. “It is nothing less than the claim that Christianity has been a deliberate fraud almost from its beginning, that the true story of Jesus was suppressed, and that only now are we finally learning what it was all about.”{32} The lack of awareness of the novel’s assaults on history, fact, and logic is evidence of a deep erosion of basic thinking and studying skills as well as an ambivalent attitude towards truth.

{26} See http://www.opusdei.org. Brown seems to have a special dislike for Opus Dei; his novel even includes the address of a web site (30) devoted to “awareness” of the prelature.

{27} Personal letter to Carl Olson, January 22, 2004. In the novel, a bishop, Bishop Manuel Aringarosa, is described as saying Opus Dei is “a Catholic Church” (29) – a comment that no bishop would ever make since it is both false and confused. Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church, not a chruch in and of itself.

{28} Brown, ‘Angels and Demons’, page 31

{29} Philip G. Davis, ‘Goddesss Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality’ (Dallas: Spence, 1998), X.

{30} Ibid., ix.

{31} Hitchcock, ‘Fantasy Faith’, page 16.

{32} Ibid., page 15.