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

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. ;-)

Why are Christians so worked up about "The Da Vinci Code"?

...After all, don't they understand that it's just a novel (or just a movie)? These are common questions in response to Christian reactions to "The Da Vinci Code", and they are understandable questions. In answer to these questions, I would say that the problem is that many people who read this novel are in fact believing its outlandish historical claims, as evidenced by this recent article from the London Telegraph newspaper. Here are some relevant (and somewhat disconcerting) quotes from the article:

Two thirds of Britons who have read Dan Brown's thriller believe that Jesus fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, a claim rejected as baseless by historians and Bible scholars.

Those who have read it are also four times as likely to think that the conservative Roman Catholic organisation Opus Dei, whose members include the Cabinet minister Ruth Kelly, is a murderous sect.

Seventeen per cent of readers are convinced that the lay group, whose founder was canonised by the late Pope John Paul II, has ordered or carried out a murder, compared with four per cent of those who have not read the book.

The poll has shocked Church leaders who have mounted a massive campaign to debunk The Da Vinci Code in advance of the release of the Hollywood film version this week. The findings suggest that the book has significantly shifted attitudes towards traditional Christianity and will fuel fears that people increasingly prefer to believe in conspiracy theories that taint the Church rather than historical evidence.

Of course, I think that these numbers say more about widespread historical illiteracy, inherent biases toward Christianity and the Catholic Church, and a general willingness to believe in conspiracy theories, than they say about "The Da Vinci Code" itself. But still, these numbers give a very good indication as to why many serious Christians are not willing to ignore the impact of "The Da Vinci Code" based on the fact that it's "just fiction".

Archbishop of San Francisco on "The Da Vinci Code"

San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer recently wrote a great article on "The Da Vinci Code", though the title of the article could have been better. Here is the link:

"How Dark the Con of Dan"

I like the article for several reasons. For starters, I like that he quotes Mark Twain a couple of times. I'm a big fan Mark Twain, and the quote at the beginning of the article ("A lie is halfway round the world while the truth is still putting its boots on") is very appropriate to the whole Da Vinci Code phenomenon.

But mostly I like the article because he gives a very readable and even-handed explanation of just exactly why this book and movie are offensive to Catholics, and what the real truth is behind several of Dan Brown's historical claims.

(Hat tip to "The Da Vinci Hoax" blog for the link to this article.)

Debunking "The Da Vinci Code"

With the movie version of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code set to hit theaters later this month, I figured it that this would be a good time to link to some information about this novel. First, I should state that I haven't read the novel. However, I have read enough about it to know that it bashes Christianity, and particularly the Catholic Church, and that it does so by portraying a wildly inaccurate version of Christian history. It also appears that some readers of the novel are buying into Dan Brown's bizarre historical claims, and accepting them as an accurate portrayal of history. For this reason, I think that there is legitimate value in debunking the historical myths perpetuated by this novel. In fact, many entire books, web sites, and blogs have been devoted to this exact purpose.

Just to make sure that my words above are not misunderstood, the major problem I see with this book is not that its author disagrees with Christian ideas. Rather, the problem is that Brown claims to have based his book on extensive research, and yet he gets his facts (regarding history, art, religion, geography, etc.) hopelessly wrong, again and again. The following two-part essay by Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel provides a well-researched and well-documented antidote to these errors in The Da Vinci Code:

"Planet Envoy" Critique of The Da Vinci Code, Part 1
"Planet Envoy" Critique of The Da Vinci Code, Part 2

These same authors have also written a book called The Da Vinci Hoax, which is basically an expansion of the above essay. You can read some lengthy excerpts from this book at the following link, though obviously it will have some overlap with the essay linked above:

Exposing the Errors in the Da Vinci Code

Finally, for those who would say, "why make such a big deal about a novel, after all, it's just fiction!", Carl Olson has a great response in the following article:

The "It's Just Fiction!" Doctrine