The Da Vinci Code
by Dan Brown

	List Price: $26.95 Our Price: $1.62 You Save: $25.33 (94%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Book See more book details and other editions

Book Reviews of The Da Vinci Code

Book Review: Several important historical inaccuracies in this book!
Summary: 3 Stars

THE DA VINCI CODE is, of course, a work of fiction. And, as such, it was enjoyable. Many people will learn quite a bit from this novel. Unfortunately, many people unfamiliar with authentic Catholicism may get a very negative impression of the Church since they might assume that all of the historical references are accurate and meticulously verified. After reading this book, I have come to conclude that this is simply not the case. Which is unfortunate because the book is a runaway bestseller and many will assume that its references to the Church are all accurate.

Brown's novel seems to have many historical inaccuracies. One example of this is found on page 233 of the book. A character named Sir Leigh Teabing, who is a Grail authority, is discussing the history of the Grail. He is speaking with two other characters in the story -- Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. Teabing tells them that the belief in the divinity of Jesus was something that the Council of Nicaea, in effect, made up in 325 AD. Leigh Teabing says to Sophie Neveu, "My dear, until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet...a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal." Sophie Neveu then asks, "Not the Son of God?" Teabing then responds, "Right. Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea."

The fact is that up until the Council of Nicaea, there were a variety of opinions as to the nature of Jesus Christ. The idea of Jesus being human and divine was very difficult for people to fathom back then. And it is still difficult to comprehend today. Some pre-Nicene Christians believed that Jesus was God, but not really a true human being. One of the big reasons that Gnosticism was ruled a heresy by the Nicene Council was ostensibly because they believed Jesus to be divine but not human. Conversely, another group known as Arians were also branded as heretics ostensibly because they believed Jesus to be a human but not God. All Christians, however, believed Jesus to be the Son of God in whatever way they may have understood this at the time. To imply, as I think Dan Brown does, that the Council of Nicaea proposed this new concept of Jesus' divinity in 325 AD is a misleading oversimplification at best.

The assertion in this book that Christians did not view Jesus as the divine Son of God until the Council of Nicaea is factually incorrect. Yes, there were diverse opinions about Jesus' nature in the early church. And some Christians did not understand Jesus to be God per se. But, the majority of the Christians did not view Jesus as simply a mortal prophet. And Mary Magdalene certainly viewed Jesus as divine. We see this in both the New Testament and the Nag Hammadi Library.

What Dan Brown's character goes on to say about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library can also be very misleading. He says the following:

***Fortunately for historians, some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s (sic) hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls (sic) in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms.
(THE DA VINCI CODE, page 234).***

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 (not the 1950s). They do not mention Jesus Christ at all. And they were hidden in those caves c. 70 AD, some 250 years before the Council of Nicaea for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the as yet unborn Emperor Constantine at all.

The Nag Hammadi texts are incorrectly called "scrolls" in this book. They were, in fact, codices. And they do not mention anything about Jesus and Mary Magdalene having children, being married, or having a sexual relationship at all. Mary Magdalene is referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved and as the "companion" of Jesus. And, granted, some have translated the Coptic word as "consort" rather than "companion." But I think its a leap to say that these documents tell "the true Grail story" based on this. Furthermore, since the Nag Hammadi texts were probably compiled by Gnostics, in them a great emphasis is placed on the divine Risen Jesus who is alive and revealing his divine glory to a select group of people, particularly Mary Magdalene. I would hardly call the image of Jesus in the Nag Hammadi texts as that of a mortal prophet.

Normally, nitpicking about the accuracy of statements of fact in a novel would be a bit much. After all, an author is entitled to a certain amount of creative license. However, I comment on these historical innaccuracies in light of Dan Brown's own statement on the first page preceding his Prologue. Under the heading "Facts" he writes: "All description of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Clearly, some of them, as pointed out here, are not.

On the whole, however, the book was very interesting. I think many people will learn alot of interesting things about the Quest for the Grail, the Templars, Leonardo da Vinci, the secret societies...etc. I was disappointed with the way the book seems to paint the Catholic Church in a negative light with broad brushstrokes. Dan Brown should have made more of an effort to be more historically accurate. I, for one, am not an authority on the Grail history. And I think I learned a lot about it by reading this novel. But, after seeing the way the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, and the Council of Nicaea were discussed in this book, I now feel the need to double check all of the purported facts outlined in this novel.

Book Review: Okay, I have read the novel and here is what I think...
Summary: 4 Stars

That would seem to explain some of the reaction to Dan Brown's bestseller, "The Da Vinci Code," that has enraged many theologians who have denounced it as anti-Catholic. Brown takes some credible theories about the early Christians, mines the paintings of Leonardo for helpful symbolism, and creates a series of codes left behind by a dying man, to create a thriller with Biblical implications. However, along the way there is a consistent and compelling critique, not so much of the Catholic Church of today, but of the early history of Christianity. The person who takes the biggest drubbing in the book is not the Pope (either one of them that figure in the story), but the Emperor Constantine. The idea that "The Da Vinci Code" constitutes a revisionist view of Christianity is pretty ironic since it was Paul's transformation of the teachings of Jesus into something more palatable for the Gentiles of the Roman Empire, the history of Christianity has been one of transformation.

The big question then becomes whether or not "The Da Vinci Code" is a theological argument dressed up as a mystery that should have been advanced as a scholarly treatise. The position that Christianity fueled a patriarchal society at the expense of Mother Earth permeates the novel, but ultimately it is part of the rationale for solving the mystery, existing more as a function of narrative than a rhetorical stance. Then again, I have no problem with the idea that Jesus will always be an important historical figure, regardless of what information might be discovered or revealed in the future. By the same token, speculation about a possible marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene does nothing to distract from the power of his ministry. On the other hand, I fully realize that such a position will be regarded by a great many as heresy, so I grant that the very premise of Brown's novel will be considered offensive by a great many people. All I can offer in response is the belief that Brown was not intending to challenge such beliefs, but wanted to take some interesting ideas and creatively filling some gaps to make a compelling mystery. The key supporting evidence for this idea would be that most of the key characters take all of this for granted, so that they are always explaining rather than advocating these various ideas.

Of course, there will be those who are disappointed to find out that everything in this fictional novel is not true and who will be upset that this is indeed a work of fiction. But so what if Leonardo Da Vinci did not hide clues about church secrets in his paintings? All Brown needs is a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of his readers (which may be another reason that true believers are grossly offended by the theological "politics" of this novel); from the perspective of symbolists you can "find" lots of things in any artwork from Da Vinci to Degas to Dali to Dr. Seuss. The idea that that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is a potent one because it speaks to the power of redemption, where even a fallen woman can be saved. Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion are real organizations, but unless you were well vested in such things it would not have mattered if Brown had made up names for the two groups. But clearly Brown wanted to keep his story as close to the real world as possible, for obvious reasons. If you want to separate the truth from fiction with "The Da Vinci Code," then just wait patiently: I am sure several books claiming to do just that will be published in 2004 (and all of them together will probably sell one-tenth as many copies as Brown's novel). It would especially be nice to have a book that collects images of all the works of art and places that are so pivotal in the novel.

"The Da Vinci Code" is a quick and engaging read, where the storytelling matters more than the writing, especially when we are involved in breaking the various codes and making the pieces fit. Actually, I was rather surprised that the cast of characters remained rather small, but the scope of the conspiracy has historical depth rather than contemporary breadth (turning the novel into a screenplay is not going to be difficult: i.e., no characters of subplots have to be eliminated). The characters exist to play the games, solve the riddles, and break the codes because very few readers are going to have a chance to do any of that. I know that Da Vinci wrote backwards in his notebooks and that there are strong similarities between the face of the Mona Lisa and Da Vinci's self portrait, so I was ahead of the curve on a few points, but overall I was just along for the ride (I also knew a bit from playing "Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned"). The ending made sense to me from both a narrative standpoint, especially in terms of what ending you could hope to get away with in the context of keeping the story as "real" as possible. But there is also the attendant irony, given the controversy over the book's "attack" on the Chruch, that the ending constitutes more of a matter of faith.

Book Review: Where's the fact in this fiction?
Summary: 2 Stars

The pain of childbirth did not give birth to the "idea" of original sin. Genesis, which came into written form in the 11th or 10th century before Christ, used that pain as one of a half-dozen symbol sets (joy and pain in childbirth) of the ambiguity-good and evil-brought into God's good world by the sin of Adam and Eve.

The Hebrew canon or official list of books that constitute the Bible was determined by a rabbinical council near the end of the 1st century, and the list of what constituted the "New" Testament was evidently fairly well accepted by early Christian communities by the middle of the 2nd century.

Constantine make Sunday the day of worship. From the earliest days, Jewish-Christians observed the Sabbath, which ended on Saturday evening, and then, the same evening when the first day of the week begins, they concluded the Sabbath feast with a Eucharist to commemorate the resurrection of the Jesus. They gave significance to the day as the first day of the new creation (a reference to Genesis and the creation of the world).

If pictures of the Egyptian Isis nursing Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing the baby Jesus, then the blueprint was hidden for a millennium. In earlier depictions, Mary is regal, seated by the side of Jesus. The first depictions of Mary nursing Jesus are medieval.

Altars are found in the Bible, not just in pagan religions. Communion with the divinity is indeed found in pagan religions, but the Eucharistic consumption of Jesus' body and blood comes from Jesus' own transformation of the ritual of the Jewish Seder (or, possibly, a chaburah meal), not from paganism.

The divinity of Jesus was not voted on at Nicea in 325. Belief in the divinity was firmly in place in the earliest Christian communities. Consider only John's Gospel, which was in existence at the beginning of the 2nd century. What was debated strenuously and eventually passed at Nicea was the introduction into a statement of belief of what heretofore had been a philosophical term: homoousios or, `of the same substance.'

The Gnostic gospels were suppressed not on the basis of their depiction of Jesus as human, but because they are fanciful accounts of miracles and distant travels. The four `winning' gospels are really expanded passion/resurrection proclamations with few of the details that are indispensable to biography: childhood accounts, what Jesus did for the first 30 years of his life, etc. More than likely, the gospels of Philip and Mary and Peter and all the rest didn't make the cut because they went way beyond proclaiming the good news of the saving death and resurrection.

The Dead Sea scrolls contain Hebrew and inter-testamental writings, not gospels. They have interest to Christians only as witnesses to the events that formed a background for the ministry of Jesus and travails of the early church.

Mary Magdalene, the prostitute. It is true that Gregory the Great confused the identities of Mary of Magdala and the woman who was a sinner. Whether that culminated a smear campaign in the early church is far from certain. Some `Fathers of the Church" called Mary `the apostle of the apostles."

Social decorum at the time of Jesus did favor marriage, but there were brotherhood societies (chaburah) and religious communities. Scholars today are not sure if the Last Supper was a brotherhood meal or a Seder. In either case, it would not have been surprising for a celibate teacher to gather the family of his disciples for either of those activities.

The tribe of Benjamin is not a royal tribe. Neither is the tribe of Juda, the other of the 12 tribes that survived the Assyrian conquest when the 10 `lost' tribes disappeared. But the family of David of the tribe of Juda was a royal family.

`Q' stands for Quelle (German for source). It refers to a hypothesis favored by biblical scholars of all major persuasions: a common source of the sayings of Jesus might pre-date and underlie the sayings that are found, in near word for word identity, in Matthew, Mark and Luke. This source may have been incorporated into the synoptic gospels, each of which has its unique character. No one believes that such a source would have been written by Jesus in his own hand.

Shekinah is a word meaning `the presence or shining forth of God' and was a circumlocution for the inhabitant of the Holy of Holies, whose name, YHWH, could never be pronounced. When the Israelites said that the Shekinah dwelled or pitched tent in the Temple, they meant that YHWH did so.

A constant message of the prophets was condemnation of those Israelites who forsook YHWH for Baal and his consort, Astarte. Intercourse with Astarte's Temple prostitutes was an act of sacred mimicry that was supposed to guarantee fertility in one's fields and livestock. The practice was a constant temptation to Israelites to forsake their faith in YHWH.

YHWH is not derived from Jehovah. It's just the other way around. Hebrew never showed vowels, only consonants such as the sacred YHWH. For that reason, ancient pronunciations are guesswork. Whenever Jewish readers come across this tetragrammaton, they substitute for it the word ADONAI, which means 'Lord.'Someone in the 16th century evidently asked a Jewish person to pronounce YHWH and got ADONAI. So he took the ADONAI vowel sounds--A,O and A--and inserted them between the four consonants, coming up with JAHOVAH (or Jehovah).

Book Review: Properly categorized as Fiction.
Summary: 2 Stars

Earlier this week, a friend requested that I read it. Did so in one sitting at Barnes and Nobles; would typically purchase those books that I browse, but this would have been $25 illspent.

My immediate reaction was that the author is by no means intellectual. His writing is blatantly elementary, as many reviewers have already pointed out- two dimensional characters, rampant cliches, predictable plot points. The man just doesn't have the imagination or intellect necessary for writing.

My secondary reaction was that I was glad to have read it, for although his writing provoked many groans, the ideas [though not his own] were enticing. Ever the knowledge addict, I expressed my opinions to my friend, and we two went off on a quest for understanding.

It is this quest that brings me here. There was no need, prior to it; I assumed most people would simply enjoy or dislike what they read, and my opinion would be inconsequential. However, at this point I feel it's somewhat necessary to share what we've discovered: that this book is, without question, a work of Fiction.

Mr. Brown strikes me as the type of man who delights in the arrogant appeal of 'knowing more than other people'. The type of man who seeks higher education and book learning, so that he might re-introduce the concepts he's discovered to those "less knowledgeable"; the problem being, of course, that he presents the information as undeniable truth. The idea of challenging what he has been taught would not occur to him, as he is a passive learner.

By writing the book as he did, he is not only promoting false information- he is encouraging a continued pattern of passive learning. Even his characters never question the information presented to them; no matter their degree of so-called 'intelligence', each consequently smiles and nods in agreement when they are presented with a new concept.

I dislike the idea of passive learning, and consequently seek answers and information with a relentless passion. After reading the book, my first experiment in understanding involved the suggested theory of PHI; after some scattered research, I conducted a series of measurements that time and again proved the 'ratio phenomenon' to be false. After searching more, I learned that most individuals attempted this same experiment after reading the book; and, as with myself- were consistently disappointed.

PHI is not a natural phenomenon. While I am not a mathematicean, I enjoy the study of numbers; PHI isn't much more more than a representative variable along the lines of 'i' or 'pi'.

So. Although my friend and I acknowledged this theory to be untrue, we also recognized that it was one of the lesser ones mentioned in The Da Vinci Code- and continued to explore some of the other concepts presented.

Our first involved the much-discussed idea that Da Vinci had painted Mary Magdalene into The Last Supper. Our journey became prolonged due to confusion of names, but in the end came to this result:

John the Apostle was, in fact, effeminate. Most artists depicted the man similarly to Da Vinci [you're welcome to do an image search on google for "John the Apostle"]- long hair, youthful features, no facial hair. Coinciding with this is the fact that Da Vinci simply struggled with depicting the male form; during our search we viewed a massive amount of his work, and portraits of men are quite noticeably absent. Those that we did find were undeniably effeminate, or depicting older men; The reason for the former might have something to do with Da Vinci's rumoured homosexuality, as well as his preoccupation with female beauty- and the latter, as I explained to my friend- is that it's easier to draw what you're familiar with. [In this case, men who looked like himself.]

This said, I'd imagine that the depiction of John the Apostle is strikingly effeminate, not only because of his natural features- but quite simply, because Da Vinci got 'carried away' with the idea of portraying the man as meek and delicate, and inadvertently incorporated his adoration of the female form.

As for Peter leaning across to whisper in his ear, as well as the mysterious dagger; it is said that Peter is informing John of Judas' plans to betray Jesus. [Matthew 26: 14-16; in the painting, Judas is seated in front of the two figures, and turned towards]. Small symbolic subterfuge on the part of Da Vinci, but nothing quite as overwhelming as the author would have us believe.

This is not to say that there isn't some truth to the idea that Mary played a larger part than she is credited for- nor is it to say that Jesus absolutely did not have children. Certainly possiblities, [and in the case of Mary Magdalene, becoming increasingly undisputed]; but this book does not provide any particularly compelling evidence in the case of either.

As for the "Priory of Sion", our research is incomplete. So far it's not looking too good, and I would be entirely unsurprised if it didn't amount to yet another mistruth on the part of Dan Brown.

It's unfortunate that this book has become the bestseller that it is; especially given that most will read his words as reality, and go no further. Please do not let yourself be lulled into complacency. You have been played for a fool, by a fool.

Suggested reading:

"Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally", by Marcus. J Borg

"King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom"

"In the Beginning : The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language,and a Culture"

"New Revised Standard Version: Study Bible"

Book Review: A Heretical Book to be Avoided by Christians
Summary: 1 Stars

In his attempt to attack the authenticity of the bible, Dan ridicules the canonization process, making it seem that a group of men came together and picked their favorite four gospels while they discarded over 40 other candidates. This is completely inaccurate, and it is only in a work of fiction that these lies can be presented as truth. In reality, the canonization process took many years, and the ones selected were chosen on three important tenants. 1) The book must have been written by or sponsored by the 12 Apostles of Christ. 2) The content should not contradict the teachings of Christ and 3) It must have been accepted by and widely used by many Churches. Dan also claims that Emperor Constantine heavily influenced the canonization of the Bible. In fact, he had nothing to do with their canonization, and there is sufficient historical documentation to support that assertion.

Why would Dan make these outrageous claims if they are completely false? Dan does not believe as Jewish and Christian scholars believe that God has worked through his faithful people to evaluate, treasure, and collect the Sacred Writings that manifest God's will and purpose into Sacred Collections.

Dan's second purpose is to cast doubt on the Christian Church. He does so by picking on a very vulnerable denomination, the Catholic Church. While a few individuals in the Catholic church have been guilty of wrongs, largely publicized, and denounced by the body as a whole, even he is not able to completely vilify the Church because the acts represent less than one thousandth of one percent of faithful and Godly men of the Church through out the ages. So Dan has to pick on one fringe group of the Church, which is not at all representative of the body as a whole. In the end, Dan decides to exonerate his characters and the Church, but not after trashing them for over 420 pages.

Dan cites wrongs the Church committed throughout history (his charges again inaccurate and unsubstantiated). Claiming the Church was so powerful in the First Century they were able to stamp out anything they didn't agree with, including "divine femininity." In reality, the Church suffered horrible persecution with its members subjected to torture and every horrible painful death imaginable. Yet the church continued to flourish, deeply rooted in the doctrine of the Apostles, and watered with the blood of millions of members. With all this repression, why would such a practice grow if it were not fulfilling? If you have never explored Christianity with an open mind, I invite you to set aside your prejudices and do so.

The books final point, after casting doubt on the authenticity of the Bible and vilifying the Church is to promote an alternative spiritual path. To me, this "sacred femininity" is the most disturbing aspect of this book. Dan suggests that orgy sex, astrology, tarot cards and the worship of other human beings, as gods is as acceptable of a practice for gaining spirituality as the Christian faith. He suggests that sexuality between men and women was an acceptable way of worshiping God before Christ came along, and that Christ participated in this practice, and it was the Church that stamped out this practice because they wanted to suppress the power of women. This is complete and utter nonsense!

The Bible makes a reference to Dan's "sacred femininity," warning us not to have anything to do with the practice:

I have this against you: You tolerate that woman, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Revelation 2:20-23 (NIV)

According to the Bible, the reason the teachings of the "divine femininity" have not survived is because God finds it detestable and wiped out the practice. Dan would have us believe it was the Church who eliminated the practice, but clearly that is not the case.

In summary, this is a trashy book with thin character development and a difficult to follow story line. It's your traditional boy meets girl, boy and girl get in trouble, and boy gets girl plot. The story is just a thin cover for Dan's pulpit of presenting his agnostic views and casting doubt on the Christian faith. Only in a fiction book could he get away with his outrageous claims, and only in these days would people read this filth and swallow it as truth.

Christians, I urge you to skip reading this book, Dan should not receive any support from the Saints for his heretical views. If you did read this book and were intrigued by his philosophy, I urge you to read the New Testament of the Bible and make an informed decision for yourself. Dan himself even says that Jesus was an important spiritual leader. The problem in Dan's statement is Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the light, no man may come before God the Father except through ME." Either Jesus was a complete liar, or he was the Son of God. Jesus doesn't leave any room for a middle ground.