Debunking "The Da Vinci Code" - Part 2

I really didn't want to post any further on "The Da Vinci Code", but I recently came across the following excellent web site which debunks the novel's many inaccurate historical claims:

History vs. The Da Vinci Code

While this site presents much of the same information as the articles I linked in my previous post, Debunking "The Da Vinci Code", one major difference is that the material on this site was written by a history buff who happens to be an atheist. Therefore, people who might suspect Christian "Da Vinci Code" debunkers of being biased may be more willing to accept the information presented on this site, since it comes from a non-Christian perspective. Here is some information on the site's author and on why he created the site (taken from the site's "Author" page):

As a regular contributor to various online fora on history, I soon began to see the impact this novel was having on peoples' perceptions of history. I saw people making claims about the Gnostic gospels, early Christianity, the Emperor Constantine, the Knights Templar and Jesus which were not supported by the historical evidence but came directly from their reading of this novel. Eventually I got tired of repeating myself in countering these claims and decided that an online resource comparing the assertions in the novel to the evidence could be a useful project.

In the year and a half on which I worked on the text of this site, many books have been published and even more online articles and sites have appeared tackling much of the same material. Most of these, however, were written from a Christian perspective and I felt a similar resource which looked at the novel's claims with a purely non-Christian, historical eye would still be a valid contribution. The release of the Ron Howard film version of the book in May 2006, with its attendant condemnations by various Christian figures, added to my feeling that the web needed a non-Christian resource which could not be accused of religious bias.

Another thing that makes this site different from the articles I linked previously is the approach it takes in organizing the information. In the "Chapters" section of the site, the author gives a chapter-by-chapter refutation of Dan Brown's various historical claims, using direct quotes from the book, with each quote followed by the real historical facts. This method of organizing the information gives the impression that none of Brown's claims are left unanswered, and it also has the advantage that the reader can easily see exactly what the novel says regarding each particular historical claim.

Also the site's author has a good essay on why he is bothering to debunk a work of fiction; here is part of what he says on this topic:

The marketing of The Da Vinci Code capitalised not only on its thriller plot and its puzzles, but also on the idea that it was well researched and that its background was entirely factual. Many early reviewers accepted this marketing hype without question. The Boston Globe called it 'a delightful display of erudition', the Rocky Mountain News said it 'manages to both entertain and educate simultaneously', The Mystery Reader said it incorporates 'massive amounts of historical and academic information', Publisher's Weekly called it 'exhaustively researched' and the Chicago Tribune enthused that it contained 'several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation.'

In a similar way, readers and fans were soon enthusiastically declaring Brown's research impeccable and the 'history' they learned from the novel eye-opening and astounding. A review on Amazon.com has a reader from New York proclaim 'the research is correct. The historical events and people explored in the book are real' . Readers' reviews on Amazon and other bookseller sites talked repeatedly about the solid research, the 'amazing facts' and the ground breaking historical insights of the novel, with many talking almost reverently about how it changed their view of history.

Recent surveys of readers' attitudes to the historical information confirm that a large proportion of them accept Dan Brown's information almost without question. On June 23rd 2005 the National Geographic Society released a survey of readers of The Da Vinci Code which revealed 32% of 1005 readers agreed with the novel's claim that Jesus founded a 'bloodline' which is protected by a secret society to this day. In May 2006 the British pollster Opinion Research Business conducted a similar survey, finding that out of 1000 people surveyed, 60% of readers of the novel believed Jesus had a child by Mary Magdalene, as opposed to 30% of people who had not read the book.

The evidence is clear that many people are not simply reading The Da Vinci Code as merely fiction, but are taking its claims as being well researched, historical and factual.

The only disadvantages of the site that I can see are that the information does not (yet) contain footnotes or references, that several of the pages (such as the bibliography and the topic index) are still under construction, and that the author occasionally demonstrates a slight bias against Christian beliefs.

In conclusion, I strongly recommend this site for anyone who is looking for a good historical analysis of the claims in "The Da Vinci Code". Here's the link again, in case you missed it at the top of this post: History vs. The Da Vinci Code

Bishop Roche on the new Mass translation

For my Catholics readers -- all one or two of you ;-) -- I would like to point out the following address to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds (in Great Britain):

Address to the US Bishops' Conference by Bishop Arthur Roche

Bishop Roche is the head of the recently reconstituted International Committee on English Translations (ICEL), which is overseeing revisions in the English translation of the Mass, which is used by Latin-rite Catholic parishes in all of the world's English-speaking countries. For those who have not followed this Mass translation issue over the past few years, the basic background is that the translation which we currently use was put together rather hastily, and in many places it gives a very loose translation of the standard Latin text of the Mass. Moreover, the current translation makes it harder to see the links between the Bible and the Mass, by failing to translate references to Biblical passages in the same way that the Biblical passages themselves are commonly translated. And furthermore, many people (myself included) think that the current translation is "tone-deaf" in that it sounds rather mundane and banal, rather than sounding poetic and dignified. To remedy these problems, a new (and evidently much improved) translation has been in the works for several years now, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops should be voting very soon on whether to accept it or reject it.

The address by Bishop Roche contains some great insights into the many issues involved, and his address should be of interest to Catholics who want to know what types of changes we might expect in the wording of the Mass in the not-too-distant future, and what the reasoning is for these changes. (However, for my non-Catholic readers, you probably won't find much of interest here.)

Here's the link one more time:
Address to the US Bishops' Conference by Bishop Arthur Roche

(I'd like to credit the Ignatius Insight Scoop blog for making me aware of this story.)

UPDATE: Apparently the U.S. bishops have already voted to accept the revised translation. This is great news for English-speaking Catholics, in my opinion. It easily could be several more years before the new translation actually gets implemented, but this is a key step in that direction.

SECOND UPDATE: More information on the new translation and on the U.S. bishops' vote can be found here, here, and here. Apparently, the U.S. bishops have added a list of requested changes or "adaptations" to the translation, subject to approval by the Vatican. There doesn't seem to be much solid information yet on exactly what these changes are, but it at least appears that they are minor, and that the proposed translation is largely unchanged.

MORE UPDATES: Here is a good article from OpinionJournal.com that gives a brief overview of the current situation regarding the English translation of the Mass. Also, Fr. Stephanos has a couple of excellent examples on his blog (here and here) of just how inaccurate and inadequate the current translation is.

Media coverage of "The Passion" and "The Da Vinci Code"

Roughly two years ago, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ presented an orthodox, traditional Christian view of Jesus.  This year, Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code presents a radically different view of Jesus and of Christianity. Both movies were the subject of much hype and controversy prior to their releases, and both movies made big bucks at the box office.  Given these facts, it would be reasonable to expect that media outlets with no bias either for or against Christianity would give roughly equivalent coverage to both movies, right?  So was this true of the major U.S. TV networks?  Did they give roughly equivalent coverage to both The Passion and The Da Vinci Code?  Not even close, say the folks at the Media Research Center, and they have the research to back it up....

"The Trashing of the Christ": Executive Summary
"The Trashing of the Christ": Full Report

So does this report indicate that there is some level of anti-Christian bias in the news divisions at ABC, NBC, and CBS?  I'll report, and let you decide. ;-)