The Da Vinci Code - Muddling Fact and Fiction

After all the press releases and online interactions with and criticisms and praises of The Da Vinci Code, I finally caved in and read the book last week. I have to admit that it was a thrilling read and was at times very difficult to put down. The first half of the book was especially good. At times the dialogue was tedious and read much like a textbook or documentary and Brown did not do much with character development, but the plot is what drives this book. The twists, shockers, and surprises at the end of each chapter made the novel read much like one of these television mini-series. As much as many people are hooked on “24” or “LOST,” I have to admit that I was pretty hooked on The Da Vinci Code. If you’re looking for a spectacular, knock-you-out-of-your-seat ending, you’ll be disappointed, but it’s still an entertaining read.

That having been said, as entertaining as it was, the book caused me great concern and much of its contents were quite disturbing. As many have read in the press releases, Dan Brown is not shy about making claims about the historical accuracy of much of the book. Although it is written in the genre of fiction, the book still instructs its readers about various facts and interesting conjectures of history. There is much written concerning art history, European history, and even church history. The problem with this is that Brown does not care to make any distinction between what is true history and what is mere speculation. Most of the claims are presented by characters who are supposed experts of symbology and history who have spent their lifetimes studying such “facts.” And most of the claims ooze believability in the way they are presented.

One of the areas of greatest concern is that when it comes to church history in particular, Brown’s research is less than extraordinary and at times very misleading. Coupled with the fact that many of his claims about church history are made in the immediate context of other interesting facts about art history and symbology, the book essentially deceives readers into believing that the historical claims are all equally true (and this doesn’t take into account that not all of Brown’s claims about art history and European history are very good either).

One example of Brown’s mishandling of art history is with Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper.” This mural depicts the scene in the gospels when Jesus reveals to His disciples in the Upper Room that one of them would betray Him. In The Da Vinci Code, one of the characters points to the fact that at Christ’s right hand, the seat of honor, is not the Apostle John as the vast majority of art historians claim, but actually Mary Magdalene – Jesus’ alleged wife. Woven through the entire plot of the novel is a contrived conspiracy about the Roman Catholic Church and a clandestine group called The Priority of Sion seeking to squelch the truth that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were actually married and bore children. The Holy Grail, then, is not the cup from which Christ drank, but the “holy bloodline” of Christ. This, of course, does not take into account that even Da Vinci’s own notes explain that it is indeed John the Baptist seated at Christ’s right hand – not Mary Magdalene!

One of the biggest heresies in the book is the claim that Jesus was not considered to be divine by His followers until A.D. 325 at the Council of Nicea. Here’s an excerpt from the book:

“My dear,” Teabing declared, “until that moment in history [the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325], Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet. . . a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal.”
“Not the Son of God?”
“Right," Teabing said. "Jesus' establishment as the Son of God was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”
“Hold on. You're saying Jesus divinity was the result of a vote?”
“A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing added (pg. 233).

Of course, anyone who has read the New Testament or studied church history even in a cursory way knows that Jesus’ divinity was not invented in the early 4th century. The Council of Nicea was made necessary because a man named Arius and his followers refused to believe that Christ was of the same substance as God. They claimed that Christ was a created being and not God in the flesh. Contrary to The Da Vinci Code, Jesus’ divinity was believed and confessed by all of His true followers up to the Council of Nicea and even to today. Not only this, but the result of the vote at Nicea was a 300 to 2 landslide in favor of the orthodox belief that Jesus was indeed God, “true God from true God” – hardly a close vote!

There are many more unfortunate historical discrepancies in The Da Vinci Code, but the purpose of this post is to alert the reader to its dangers. If anything, it is probably better to read the historical claims in the novel with a degree of doubt rather than to take everything written at face value. Unfortunately, not all of the book’s readers have done so. One poll suggested that up to 60% of the people who have read the novel believe Jesus was actually married. This is just one indicator of the book’s tremendous influence.

For more on The Da Vinci Code, visit the website created by the staff at Westminster Theological Seminary: www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com.