The Da Vinci Code Deception

November 25, 2005

Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code has sold over 25 million copies in 44 languages since it was published in 2003. Amazon lists it (as this is written) as #36 on their sales list. It is, (according to Brown), a fictional story set against a background that leads the reader to assume is real. In fact, the background is a story is poorly researched and highly inaccurate. There is a tiny, tiny bit of truth there and this is awash in a mountain of lies and untruths. Dan Brown himself should be aware of the errors in his book, leaving you to guess as to his own motives and purpose.

 

The basic premises of Brown’s story are that:

 

  • Jesus was not divine and married Mary Magdalene. A child resulted.
  • There are people alive today who descend from that marriage.
  • This secret was carried by a Priory of Sion through the centuries in hidden documents.
  • The church suppressed knowledge about the marriage that, if known, would destroy Christianity.

 

At the time the book opens, the last four men carrying this secret are murdered. One of the four leaves a clue at his death that is followed, much like a scavenger hunt, through the book.

 

This same book is now being made into a movie to be released next year. Directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks with an international cast, those producing the movie are already aware of the errors and are trying to downplay the religious themes in the book. The scriptwriter for the movie is Akiva Goldsman (“A Beautiful Mind”, “Cinderella Man”).

 

The Apostle John writes of the Bible in Revelation:

 

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Rev 22:18-19 NKJV

 

Let’s take a look at some of the specific errors.

 

The So-Called “Facts”

 

At the beginning of the book Brown states a few so-called facts. These “facts” are expanded later in the book. The “facts” are shown here in italics. Are they really facts?

 

Brown: The Priory of Sion – a European secret society founded in 1099 – is a real organization. The Knights Templar, in turn, was a militant order that had as a primary purpose to look for documents in the ruins of Jerusalem that established Jesus had married Mary Magdalene and a child resulted.

 

Fact: The Priory of Sion is a hoax and did not exist until 1956. Only in that sense is it real. The Knights Templar was a Crusade order that, among other things, was looking for the Holy Grail. The Knights Templar has no connection to any Priory of Sion, as the priory was not founded until 1956. The Priory of Sion, as founded, was a social club established by a Pierre Plantard and three others. The club was dissolved in 1957.

 

Brown: In 1975 Paris’s Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

 

Fact: This document (and was indeed “found” in 1975) supposedly “proved” a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day including a name “Pierre Plantard”. It was later proven a forgery. Pierre Plantard, who with two others instigated the forgery, confessed the fraud on British television in February of 2005 (4). Brown should have known that Leonardo da Vinci was never in any Priory – neither were the others members mentioned in the documents. The Priory of Sion didn’t even exist then. As for the documents – the Judge dismissed Plantard as a harmless crank and gave him a stern warning (3).

 

Brown: The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as “corporal mortification.” Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.

 

Fact: Opus Dei is a real organization headquartered at the address given by Brown, but is not secret and is a highly respected organization endorsed by Pope John Paul II. The “Opus Dei” means “worship God.” It has over 80,000 members in 60 countries.

 

Brown:  All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

 

Fact: There is almost nothing accurate about the descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel. The artwork, architecture, documents, and rituals are all falsified as necessary to force Brown’s plot and conclusion. There is no six-point Star of David (as Brown indicates) in the Rosslyn Chapel where story ends. Brown states the Chapel was built by the Knights Templar in 1446. The Knights Templar had nothing to do with this Chapel. The opening location in the Louvre where the murder took place does not exist in the museum. The sexual ritual in the book is real and accurate, but has nothing to do with Christianity or true spirituality.

 

The Painting of the Lord’s Supper

 

Brown uses Leonardo da Vinci’s painting of the Lord’s Supper to show how Leonardo sent a secret message about the so-called deity of Mary Magdalene. Brown believes the painting to show the Eucharist, and that the painting is actually Mary sitting at the right (or your left as you view the painting) of Jesus. According to Brown, Mary is the Holy Grail of history. The Holy Grail is not a chalice as generally assumed, but Mary Magdalene herself.

 

In reality, this is a painting of the moment of betrayal. John is to the right of Jesus, and it is Peter and John in the painting declaring they cannot betray Jesus. Leonardo and other painters of the time painted their figures from styles, of which several hundred existed. Leonardo used a “student” style for John, the youngest apostle and as a result John does not even have a beard here. Leonardo developed the figures in his paintings from sketches. We have his sketches of the figures in this painting, and Leonardo’s sketch of the “John” figure to the right of Christ is labeled with his name in the sketches.

 

Probably little, if any, or the original fresco is there today. It has been repainted and restored at least seven times.

 

Brown’s Gender Problem

 

There are so many problem Brown’s view of women and sex that I can only touch on them here. The problems involve both errors on how God views women and the role of sex as well as historical errors. For a more detail overview, see the book by Garlow & Jones (3).

 

At creation we see God created both man and woman. God imparted His sense of wildness and adventure in both the man and the woman. God Himself is genderless. Both man and woman were created in God’s image. In the man God put his strength, in the woman God put his beauty and mystery. These are counterparts, and together they form a unity and intimacy that points to the relationship that God wants to have with Man. The Bible says God took Adam’s rib and made a “helpmate” for Adam. This is the phrase God used to name the woman. The two words used in the Hebrew, ezer kenegdo, are difficult to translate, but ezer is more accurately translated as “lifesaver.” The phrase ezer is used 20 times in the Old Testament, and at all the other times refers to God’s relationship to the individual or Israel as lifesaver, generally when there is a desperate need for God to come through.  The word kenegdo translates as companion. Adam eventually names her Eve, which now means lifegiver or the mother of all.

 

Brown says that Eve ate the fruit and brought sin into the world. In truth, in Genesis 2 we see the command not to eat the fruit was given to the male, Adam, before Eve was created. Adam was there when Eve ate the fruit – read the account. Adam said nothing and did not give Eve any protection. The initial disobedience was the failure of the man to give protection to Eve. This was first the sin of Adam. In Romans 5:17 Paul says sin entered the world through the actions of one man, Adam.

 

Unlike Brown’s thesis that the New Testament was birthed by male chauvinists, we see in Matthew a genealogy of Jesus that lists three women – a very unusual listing for the culture of the time. In the Gospels we see Jesus treating women with great tenderness, leading a cultural change that continued into the early church. Remember it was a woman – Mary Magdalene – who was the first evangelist. She was the first to witness the risen Christ and went to share the news with the apostles.

 

There were many distortions of the gospel by the early church from the third through the fifth centuries in role of women in the church and culture. Church leaders such as Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine all made anti-women statements. Other writers, however, affirmed the role of women in the church. The Church today has a long list of women who made spectacular contributions to the growth of the Kingdom. Again Brown twists the historical facts to fit his fantasy.

 

The Sources for Brown’s Heresy and Plot

 

Where did Brown get such outlandish ideas? Let’s begin by looking at what is known as the canon of the Bible.

 

The word “canon” is a biblical idea. Paul, in Galatians 6:16, uses the Greek word  kanon, or rule, to refer to the basic apostolic teaching which they were asked to follow. It was a rule of faith, Truth, and what the Christian should live by. For inclusion in the New Testament:

  1. The writing had to be a first-person account by the apostles or those who traveled with them who recorded what they saw and heard.
  2. It was inspired by God.
  3. It completed the prophecies of the Old Testament

 

The Old Testament books for the canon were well defined by 400 B.C. and used in the synagogue teachings. The definitive Old Testament canon was defined at the Council of Jamnia in A.D.90. In Acts 17:11 we see the early church searched the Old Testament to confirm Paul’s message.

 

For the New Testament canon, the issue is more complex. At first the church had no real need of a written word, as they had the Apostles. The Gospel was transmitted orally. In addition, they expected the return of Christ to be imminent. As time passed and the churches spread, there was an increasing need to have this message in a written form as well as the letters by the apostles to the early churches. Some 20 of the 27 books we have in the New Testament were easily accepted as inspired and became an undisputed “canon” in the early church. The other seven books: Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Jude, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation – were eventually accepted as inspired and added. All of the gospels were written before 100 A.D, and probably by 70 A.D..- with the Gospel of John being the last written (2). The early church did not define a canon. The canon defined the early church. Unlike the fantasies of Brown, there was little if any political games defining this in the early church with respect to this canon. People were being persecuted and dying for their faith.

 

As time passed and the original witnesses died, other books were written. The question came up whether they should be included in the canon or not. For one reason or another, none of these met the conditions stated earlier for canon inclusion. These new writings can be put into three groups:

 

  1. Writings of post-apostolic fathers such as Ignatius, bishop of Antioch. These were written in the first and second centuries, and were not written by eye witnesses. Some were accurate writings, referencing earlier writings.

 

  1. Entertainment books – These were more like theological entertainment books (or soaps) and never considered as part of the canon. They were written in the second and third centuries.

  2. Heretical books – These are the books written as distortions of the Gospel, primarily to support some person’s own lifestyle or political ambitions. These were written during the second to fourth centuries. The Gnostic writings fall into this class, and Brown bases his fantasies on these.

 

As the persecution intensified and the attempt was made to burn all sacred books, there was a need to define what a sacred book was. For the purpose of this definition, the New Testament “canon” was defined by Athanasium in A.D. 367. He was the first to list the 27 books of the New Testament in the order they are today (2). This canon was more formerly declared in A.D. 397 at the Synod of Carthage.

 

There was no Gutenberg Press in the early days of the church. The early Bibles were laboriously copied by hand by scribes who did there work very carefully. None of those original manuscripts exist today. Those early copies had a few errors, but enough copies exist so that we have been able to produce a very accurate Gospel that is a translation of the early manuscripts. Scholars believe that earlier is better. The translations we have today are based on the earliest manuscripts available.

 

Most of Brown’s assumptions are based on what is known as the Gnostic gospels discovered in Egypt in 1945. Most of these scrolls are believed to have been written about two centuries after the Gospels of the canon. These included the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, the Gospel of Mary, and others. The Gnostic gospels were a blend of Greek philosophy and Christianity. This Gnostic heresy was known even in the early church. Scholars place little or no value on these gospels today. Since they were written later, they were written further from the events and for that reason (and many others) cannot be as trusted as the earlier manuscripts. The Gospel of Thomas that was found is believed by some to be a variation of an earlier gospel known as “Q” that omits the death and resurrection of Christ; but no copy of that “Q” gospel has ever been found. There is a strong probability that this "Thomas" was put together almost 200 years after life of Jesus (4). The story is considered a figment of the minds of the Gnostics trying to sell their fantasy. Scholars will tell you that the Gnostic gospels contradict the four gospels of our faith. Either the Gnostic gospels are correct in who Jesus is and was, or the canon gospels are right. You can’t have it both ways. And the Gnostic gospels do not live up to historical facts.

 

The Gnostic heresy elevated Mary to a goddess and taught that Jesus was not divine. The Judeo-Christian tradition, in contrast, argues that God lacks gender and created both man and woman in His image. There were several Gnostic sects with varying beliefs, but in all of these we can see the seeds of humanism.

 

According to Brown, Constantine originated the idea that Jesus was divine. From p. 234, Brown has a character declaring that Constantine commissioned a new Bible that upgraded Jesus from a mortal man to divine. My Bible shows Jesus declaring himself as divine, several centuries before Constantine. Others at the time of Christ also referred to Jesus as divine. Among these many biblical references are John 1:1-3 and John 1:14. Historical writers after the Apostles and before Constantine referred to Jesus as divine.

 

Brown says the establishment of Jesus as the Son of God (divine) was officially proposed and voted on at the Council of Nicaea by a close vote. As mentioned, Christ declared himself that He was divine, and the “close” vote Brown’s character refers to centuries later was hardly close – it was 316 to 2 (3). The apostles, early church, and Nicene bishops did not revise history as Brown contends, they affirmed it.

 

Brown’s description of the history of early Jewish history, the Gnostic gospels, and the history of the church is loaded with multiple factual errors. Brown says Constantine made Christianity a state religion. In reality, Constantine gave his kingdom a freedom of religion in 313. Theodosius in 381 made Christianity the state religion. As a result, people became “Christians” by degree – not by faith. In addition (contrary to what Brown says), Constantine had nothing to do with what books are in the canon. Brown made many other errors - too many to list here.

 

Much of Brown’s invention of Mary as the wife of Jesus is based on a 1983 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and others. They are suing Brown now for copyright infringement. The fact that the lawsuit exists at all would tell anyone that Baigent and others are suing Brown for copying their invention.

 

The plot line of Brown’s book, to a large extent, is a variation of the plot of two books by Lewis Purdue. One was The Da Vinci Legacy in 1983 and Daughters of God in 2000. The theory that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus lacks any evidence in any of the gospel texts, canon or Gnostic. In fact, there is no evidence anywhere that explicitly indicates that Jesus was married (2). What we do know is that Mary Magdalene was a follower of Christ, Jesus ministered to her, she was at the crucifixion with the other women, and she was the first person to report that Jesus rose from the dead. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate this Mary was a prostitute. Most historians agree that this was an invention of Pope Gregory I (3). There is also nothing to indicate she was an adulteress.

 

Conclusion

 

The elevation of Mary Magdalene to a wife or even divine by Brown and other so-called scholars has no basis in early church history (2). You have to rewrite history to give her that position.

 

Brown’s book was not crafted from serious research (contrary to what he says), but from a fantasy copied from the minds of others. A researcher carefully documents the sources for his or her facts. Brown doesn’t do that, because he “invented” his “facts” or copied them from others that invented them.

 

What was Dan Brown’s purpose in writing a story that has so many errors and distortions? What was his purpose in leading the reader with tiny bits of truth to a conclusion so false? Was Brown after fame? Money? Was he angry at the Church? Christianity? Why does he refuse to dialog with those who know the truth? Perhaps Brown’s reason from writing such a fantasy is the only mystery of his story.

 

And the Holy Grail? There is a bit of truth in Holy Blood, Holy Grail when the authors write that “the Grail is the receptacle or vessel that received and contained Jesus’ blood.”:

 

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins…”. 

Matt 26:27-28  NKJV

 

The Holy Grail is the receptacle of the blood of Jesus, shed for our sins. Those who have received forgiveness through the blood of Christ are the Holy Grail. The Church is the Holy Grail, not Mary.

 

Brown’s book, as well as other Gnostic books, are very popular today beyond the simple fact that Brown can write a good story. There is a growing interest in our culture to throw out the religious absolutes such as the Ten Commandments, Creationism, strong family values, sex only within the marriage vows, and integrity in business and politics. These are then replaced with do-it-yourself religions and liberalism that includes free sex, feminism, lack of legal absolutes, and unethical politicians and corporate leaders (who often claim they are Christians). Humanism, witchcraft, and other aberrations of the faith can be taught in public schools, but not Christianity or the Ten Commandments. There is a broad-based effort to restructure our whole society, and the Christian Gospel is twisted as necessary to accommodate this change. It is for this reason that Brown’s book is dangerous.

 

Brown’s book espouses a brand of neo-paganism and a concept of “the sacred feminine” that is rapidly permeating our culture, much as these same forces permeated Rome centuries ago. Joseph Campbell was a mentor to George Lucas and was a well-known scholar in mythology, He was also a very spiritual person, but this spirituality was pagan (3). Dennis Kucinich, Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2004, said his reason for running for office was “to enable the Goddess of peace to encircle within her arms all the children of this country and all the children of the world.”  During the 1990’s Hillary Clinton had, as friend and counselor, Jean Houston. Houston is a strong supporter of this neo-paganism and the “the sacred feminine.”

 

This doesn’t mean we should ignore Brown’s book, however. We should study it and be prepared to defend the faith, answering to those who are trapped in this Gnostic and humanistic deception. This is a wonderful opportunity to expose Brown’s heresy for what it is and lead people to the true faith in Christ.

 

Resources

 

  1. Lutzer, Erwin. The DaVinci Deception
  2. Bock, Darrell. Breaking the DaVinci Code
  3. Garlow, James and Jones, Peter. Cracking DaVinci’s Code
  4. Wright, NT http://spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/features/davincicode.asp 

Each of these, in turn, leads to many other references.

 

Also on the web:

www.breakingthedavincicode.com

www.jimgarlow.com

www.cwipp.org

 

 

DVD:

The Da Vinci Code Deception: Fact vs. Fiction: Your Guide to the Truth, A Grizzly Adams Production          `

 

© 2005, Strategic Resources Ministry, 20020 Marigold Ct., Suite 24, West Linn, OR 97068

http://www.creatingnewworlds.org

This paper may be distributed or posted on other web sites as long as it is not edited and contains this referenced URL. We expect to update the paper at times, so please refer to this source. This paper is on the site at http://www.creatingnewworlds.org/davinci.htm.