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