The Da Vinci Code revisited

Perhaps you are thinking - why this again? Well it's summertime and sadly The Da Vinci Code is still on the best-seller list. So here are just a few points to arm yourself with as you chat at the poolside, or perhaps when the holidays end and you are discussing them with colleagues or friends.

* 'The Da Vinci Code' (TDC) claims the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record. In reality, there is no credible historical record that Jesus was married.

* Christ's divinity, according to TDC, was the result of a close vote at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD. However, the earliest sources consistently witness to a belief in the Lord Jesus as divine. He is referred to in this way both in New Testament documents (written before AD 70) and early creeds, as well as the works of the early church fathers (e.g. Ignatius AD 105, Clement AD 150). There is nothing to support the claim that the vote to affirm the creed was close (some sources indicate 316 to two) and even those opposed hardly considered Jesus to be a mere mortal! Dip into the writings of Arius to see the losing side's beliefs about Jesus and you will see it does not match up to Brown's theories. (Note: Even TDC's own logic is untenable. If Jesus is not divine, why would Mary Magdalene be the Holy Grail even if they had been married and had a child?)

* TDC champions the Gnostic Gospels as the true voice of Christianity, suppressed by those eager to build their own power base when the New Testament canon was formed. It is clear to the overwhelming majority of scholars in this area that the Gnostic Gospels are unreliable, late (AD 150 at the very earliest, more probably third century), and derivative rather than original in nature. This is a particularly interesting point - TDC is asking us to reject the New Testament in favour of material judged by knowledgeable academics to be less reliable and further away in real time from the actual events. How can this be sensible? These writings are manifestly not the work of the authors they claim for themselves.

* What about sex? TDC paints a picture of the church and its Bible as anti-sex. It even casts sex as the original sin (p.125). Here we have just one of many examples of Christian doctrine falsely maligned and misrepresented in this book. Although there have been some Christians with funny ideas throughout history, orthodox teaching and the Bible are clearly positive about sex in its proper setting.

* 'The Church' represents a sort of sinister plot to fool the masses, TDC would have us believe. Those who controlled it were the winners in a power struggle during the time of Constantine and were able to rewrite history to their own advantage. Somehow the way it is written in the book makes it seem so persuasive. But a very few indisputable facts reveal it as the utter fabrication it really is. Position of power? Even Nicaea is only 14 years after the end of Roman persecution of Christianity. Many early Christians and their leaders were witnesses unto death for their beliefs in Jesus and the gospel. Would they have been willing to die for what they knew to be untrue? Much of the New Testament and many of the works of the early church fathers were written at a time when Christians were a harshly persecuted minority. Clearly they were not in a position of power.

* TDC would have us believe these scheming men at the Council of Nicaea picked what they wanted for the Bible and left what they didn't like out. Put in the mouths of confident fictional characters, these assertions may sound plausible to some. But in fact most scholars agree that the New Testament canon was almost what it is now by the time of the late 2nd century (at least), more than 100 years before the Council met.

* There is a big plug for the feminist vote here. According to TDC Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity. Is this intellectual dishonesty or just plain stupidity? Does Brown think that before the advent of Christianity it was the women who ruled the roost? This sort of criticism of the church as women-bashing is highly anachronistic. Before the time of Christ women's lives and rights were not highly regarded. Nor is there evidence of societies ruled by women. On a related note TDC accuses the church of a smear campaign against Mary Magdalene. Rather, we would note that she appears in the Bible as the first person to see the resurrected Jesus and the one who announces this most important event in history.

* And, finally, a look at one of the main sources of this 'highly researched' book. The Priory of Sion, which Brown claims has been protecting the true Grail since 1099, features highly in his book. He bases this information on the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which he refers to directly in TDC. Interestingly, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail used documents provided by Pierre Plantard, a Frenchman who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. In the 1960s and 70s he fabricated documents relating to a bloodline from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France and then on to himself! During a trial in 1993, Plantard testified in court under oath that he had made up the whole Priory scheme. While conducting a court-ordered search of his home, further documents were found that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. This gives us a flavour of the currency of Brown's sources!

It is frustrating. I had to read TDC for my book group (mostly non-Christians). On the one hand people seem to reject criticism of TDC because it is 'just a novel'. On the other hand, the 'facts' it propounds are taken on board uncritically by many as significantly undermining Christianity. The way Brown writes can be alarming - he puts this rubbish across with the air of a truth revealed. But of course it is mere assertion, which falls away under even a moderate amount of research or analysis.

I have relied on a number of books and articles for the above information, but I would particularly like to cite Cracking Da Vinci's Code by Garlow and Jones (reviewed in July's EN). I highly recommend it.

The Da Vinci Code revisited

Alicia Felce

Main Articles

Other articles