Da Vinci Hoax Blog

U.S. News & World Report cracks TDVC with some help from...

... The Da Vinci Hoax. The May 22, 2006, feature article, "Debating Da Vinci," was written by Jeffery L. Sheler, who quotes from our book a couple of times in the course of addressing some of TDVC's main assertions. Entire article is available online here.

CBC producer: Dan Brown's lies are "historical and institutional"

Peter Kavanagh, a senior producer at CBC Radio One, has written an insightful column about the Coded Craziness for The Toronto Star. He states:

The comparison between James Frey and Dan Brown isn't as odd as it might seem. Frey wrote a non-fiction work, which turned out to be in part fictional, and he was pilloried. Brown wrote a novel, claiming that everything apparently based in historical fact was true, which turned out to be a lie, and became rich and famous. And it says something about our slippery grasp of the idea of truth that this bothers very few of us. Frey's lies were personal; Dan Brown's are historical and institutional.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda. Too extreme a comparison? Of course! But we are left wondering about the attraction of Dan Brown's tale. The "fiction" at the core of the story is the most post-modern of lies: the lack of evidence supporting it is proof of the conspiracy and denials on the part of the Vatican and other Christian leaders is evidence of the continuing cover-up.

It is by no means original; it weaves together a host of myths, legends, suppositions and heresies and packages them in a potboiler of a story of which the most complimentary thing critics can say is that it is a perfect airport book.

The only truly original thing that can be said of the novel is that it somehow proved to be the right book at the right time, or if you are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the wrong book at the wrong time.There's an element of the Christian community, which argues that Christianity is the only religion at which it is still permissible to hurl slander, innuendo and lies. And when you think of the collective glee and profit that corporations, businesses, media outlets and millions of ordinary people indulge in through contemplation of the Code, it's understandable why some Christians believe their faith is under siege.

It is impossible to imagine a comparable collective rubbing of the hands if the heart of a novel alleging a conspiracy of such magnitude were Buddhism, Judaism, Islam or Hinduism.  Fans of the Code will argue that it's just a novel, a little bit of fun and speculation. But even that is an extension of the lie, a dissimilitude about the ping of recognition that reading the novel sparked, "I knew there was something wonky about the story of Christ from the very beginning."

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Or should that be "Danned if you do. Danned if you don't"? I'm referring to some of the responses given by those who are either puzzled, amused, or annoyed that some Christians are (gasp!) responding to the historical and theological claims made in TDVC.

A typical line of inquiry begins, of course, with this question/assertion: "Why are you so worried about a work of fiction?" Once an explanation has been given as to why TDVC is not "just fiction,"  one of these questions inevitably follows:

• "But isn't it a good thing that people are talking about religious beliefs?" That depends. What exactly are they talking about? The notion that it is good to simply talk about how you feel about this or that is nonsensical. Using words isn't good enough; rather, how are the words being used? Are conversations that begin with a question such as, "Why are you a member of a Church that has such a rotten past and hates women?" going to result in much good? Of course, it depends in part on how you respond. But, really, how substantive are the specific conversations that result from people reading TDVC? What sort of questions are being asked If people simply immerse themselves further in the Coded Craziness (by reading, for example, Michael Baigent's The Jesus Papers, or some other piece of pseudo-historical trash), then "talking" is of little value. (Following a recent talk in Portland, I was asked by an audience member: "Why should I believe you instead of Michael Baigent when it comes to deciding whether or not the gnostic texts are historically reliable?" But it's not an issue of Olson vs. Baigent, but of reading the Christian Gospels and comparing them to the gnostic gospels, and recognizing that the latter have little to nothing to say about historical persons, events, and details. Read the sources!)

This question, by the way, was posed by Anderson Cooper of CNN this past week when he interviewed Sandra and me on his late night news program. I think we handled it well enough, but the notion that the TDVC is a good thing because it sparks conversation reminded me of the trick question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You are put immediately on the defensive by an absurd question. Yet many conversations about TDVC begin with absurd questions that immediately put Catholics on the defensive. Then, if you choose to defend yourself ("I've never beaten my wife. Why did you say that?"), you sometimes hear:

• "What are Christians so afraid of? Obviously you are hiding something or else you wouldn't be defensive." Several readers have told me of the frustrations that come with being unexpectedly accosted by a family member or co-worker who has suddenly received his doctorate in Church history by reading TDVC (after all, the Chicago Tribune did write that Brown's novel does "transmit several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation"). They are put on the defensive and often react defensively, naturally. Unfortunately, again, there are some people who really do think that if a Christian tries to defend or explain their beliefs, they have admitted guilt. Period. Say no more! You wouldn't be trying to defend yourself if you weren't guilty! Of course, you can't win, because if you say nothing, your silence is also understood to be an admission of guilt. (For a subtle variation of this approach, see this recent piece in TimesOnline, which also uses the "it's just fiction but it's also true" approach.) If, however, you are able to respond to this "question," you will probably have this reply thrown in your path:

• "Well, you have to admit that the Catholic Church has brought all of this negative attention on itself by being so mean and secretive." This often comes from people who apparently have, for whatever reason, an axe to grind with the Catholic Church and who are of the opinion that simply being Catholic is an offense to reason and humanity. As a former anti-Catholic fundamentalist myself, I am very familiar with the old and tired arguments about how big, secretive, nasty, powerful, and deceptive the Catholic Church was/is.

What I eventually learned was that I was mistaking my gross ignorance of Catholicism and Church history as evidence of some giant conspiracy theory. In other words, the Church must have lots of secrets since I didn't know much about it. Then I made the stunning decision (duh!) to actually read Church history (as written by Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians), early Church writings, gnostic writings, official Church documents, and works of Catholic theology. Yes, there have been many bad Catholics and many bad deeds done in the name of the Catholic Church, which is often different than those acts being supported by the Catholic Church. Fair enough. What I found is that the Catholic Church, more than any other religious institution, has been willing to acknowledge the sins committed by sons and daughters of the Church. Every group has sinners within their ranks; but those groups shouldn't be judged solely by the sinners, but also by those who live and fulfill the mission of the group (also known, within the Catholic contexts,  as saints). After all, if the presence of evil deeds is a good reason to do away with the Catholic Church, it's a good enough reason to do away with all of humanity, regardless of race, color, or creed.

But, sadly, none of this matters to those who are convinced that the Catholic Church has done little but terrorize, oppress, plunder, deceive, manipulate, control, and even murder throughout two thousand years of history (or 1700 years, if you want to believe that Constantine created the Catholic Church, a belief apparently shared, oddly enough, by Dan Brown and Tim LaHaye). Yesterday I was interviewed on a radio program on a large Seattle-area station. One of the two hosts explained he really liked TDVC because it provided a history of Christianity that was different from "99.9%" of the information people are usually given.  He insisted  the Catholic Church  deserved to be portrayed negatively in TDVC because "that's how the Church was." After all, the Church has controlled "the story"of Jesus since the beginning, so isn't it time that people heard a different version? The issue at hand, it seemed, was not one of truth, but of options: I want a story that I like and that works for me. One  problem, I replied, is that Brown's version isn't supported by any evidence and his assertions are often contradictory or go against his supposed sources (e.g., the appeal to gnostic "gospels" for a Jesus who is human only). Which then led to the host launching another question:

• "But isn't it true that we really can't know what happened in the first century? After all, we really don't have any reliable evidence about Jesus, do we?" This is the height of irony (or even cynicism) considering it is usually uttered after a litany of "facts" have been given about the early Church: it destroyed secret gospels, hated Mary Magdalene, oppressed women, was all about political power, etc., etc. So the only established facts about the first few centuries of Christianity are all negative? How convenient. How unconvincing. But this, I think, may be one of the most damaging consequences of the Coded Craziness: the conviction that there is nothing convincing about the historical evidence, especially not if might be in favor of the Catholic Church. In the words of a certain Jennifer "reviewing" our book over at the Barnes & Noble site (and "who is still looking for answers"):

Even thought the book was a work of FICTION, some things ring true & have been proven so. The fact that paganism was around before Christianity came along is true. The fact that the Catholic church did smear the face of it to promote more to Christianity is true. Pagan temples were remade to be Christian churches. As for the rest, NO ONE knows the truth. Who knows if Jesus was married or not, no one can know first hand since it was so long ago. All we have to go on are books written by us (man/woman) alike, and we only write it as WE see it to be. This is the reason they are called BELIEFS. Since religion & information has been passed down through the centuries, the truth has been watered down. Everyone has their own beliefs, & we shouldnt put people down just because their's conflicts with ours.

There you go: No one knows the truth. And that's the truth. But, we do know that Christianity is horrible. End of story. And for many readers, TDVC will be the end of the story. And that is a shame, a problem, and a challenge.

Meeting The Real Mary Magdalene | An Interview with Amy Welborn | May 12, 2006

Meeting The Real Mary Magdalene | An Interview with Amy Welborn | May 12, 2006

Amy Welborn is a prolific author and widely read blogger. She holds an MA in Church History from Vanderbilt University and has taught theology in Catholic high schools, and served as a parish Director of Religious Education.

Her writings have appeared in many periodicals, including First Things, Commonweal,Writer's Digest, Liguorian, Catholic Digest and Catholic Parent. Her books include the Prove It series, The Loyola Kids' Book of Saints, The Loyola Kids' Book of Heroes, and Here. Now. Two of her most recent books are De-Coding Da Vinci and De-Coding Mary Magdalene, both published by Our Sunday Visitor.

IgnatiusInsight.com recently spoke to Welborn about her books addressing the claims of The Da Vinci Code, especially the many assertions made about Mary Magdalene.

Continue reading...

Authentic Faith vs. Conspiracy Theories

John Mallon, contributing editor of Inside the Vatican magazine, has written a fine essay about the Coded Craziness, the nature of faith, and our culture's obsession with conspiracy theories. He writes:

But what really got me thinking was the nice old-fashioned expression the editor used about “those weak in faith.” It got me thinking about the nature of faith. I could imagine readers of this book, including Catholics, falling into an infinite loop of doubt, asking, “But how do you know?” when someone tries to explain that the book is false regarding Catholicism. For example, the novel asserts that Jesus was not God, but fell in love and married Mary Magdalene and had a child with her, and from the very beginning the Church has sought to cover this up. Why? Critics of the Church would argue because it is a threat to the “male hierarchy’s” “power base” and that the Church has a “negative” view of women and sexuality.

No need to imagine that some readers (both Christian and otherwise) have fallen into doubt and confusion because of the novel. It has happened and is happening. In addition, millions of readers are having their understanding of the Catholic Church and Christianity tainted, even warped, by the claims made within TDVC. Here is just one of many possible example, an e-mail sent to me by a fan of the Coded Craziness:

Dan’s books are an excellent read. My wife loves him. Read Angels and Demons first.

Have I read the Gospels of Thomas and Mary... Yup! At least translations of the fragments found.

Joseph Campbell introduced Thomas to us PBS types some 20 years ago and referred to the Nag Hamadi [sic] library.

Drink from my lips and you will be as me....

Now that works for me.  Epinoae: direct knowledge! That tracks with Jesus’ Buddhist training in India. And the Vedic teachings that I have read.

Then years of Elaine Pagels’ wonderful books.

Her “Beyond Belief” introduced me to the Gospel of Mary. Now this makes sense! Jesus true second... a balanced yin/yang...opposite, yet the same... the two again becoming the One.

But that little hoser, Peter, was having none of that. Equality with a women??  Not this narrow minded patriarch. Like most men of the House of David, he probably preferred goats. In a hissy fit, he declared that only what he knew was true. And, of course, he didn’t know anything because Jesus didn’t give him anything. OOOOOh, he was miffed!

But the followers of Mary grew happily until Iernaeus decided that one size must fit all and ( in memory of the toasted Polycrap) declared believers of views other than his as heretics = ‘able to choose’. Say what?? One little pinhead decides for us all?  the killing in the name of Jesus begin!

Then, several years later, Constantine, ever the political realist, saw in this a simple way to  control people. Divide them into the blessed and the cursed. Give the blessed, through the supervisor, a license to kill the cursed ( ohh, the sweetness of killing in the name of God!!). Works off much animus, that. Veeery clever. Then those who killed feel bad, as they should. The supervisor sez ‘ya done good! now bow down to God....and his rep here on Earth, me....and the emperor too who allows you to kill them free thinkers!’

Nicea froze this insanity for 1600 years with several, politically inspired tracts of quite dubious provinance.

Dan Brown is just a very happy coincidence. He said what many of us believe the orthodox church is all about power and nothing about God. Why would he debate with you?  Your noise sells more of his books!

So we are exploring the true Jesus without the incumberance of parisite-priests trying to keep their bellies fed. Light and sweet! We’re just the meteor at the end of the age of  ‘the church’. ...

Remember, Dan is a storeyteller capitalizing on a growing movement to bring Mary (the sacred feminine) back home again. He didn’t start it. Attacking him just shows your denial of what is really going on: ‘the Rock’ crumbling into sand as the Goddess commands. Evolution.  I love it.

David Klinghoffer: Jews need to be concerned about the Coded Craziness

Klinghoffer has written an excellent column for The Jewish Week about how The Da Vinci Code could lead to the sort of bigotry that another book (initially written as a novel) spawned many decades ago. He asks the question: "But why should a Jew care" about Dan Brown's novel? Answer:

Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the “biggest cover-up in human history” bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony conspiracy: the famous hoax called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu Golovinski in 1898, “Protocols” tells of a secret society of Jewish elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world through “Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism.”

In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Brown’s version, the “Priory of Sion” (“Sion” simply means “Zion” in French) members are the good guys. They’ve been waiting for the right moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to introduce the world to the worship of the “Goddess,” a.k.a. Mary Magdalene.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church plots to suppress forever the truth about the “sacred feminine.” Opus Dei is willing to go to any lengths, including murder, to keep the male church hierarchy in power.

A very good and timely piece. Highly recommended.

Disciple of the Code: "I consider my hardbound-copy a priceless possession."

A fan of The Code wonders why anyone could have a single, solitary negative thing to say about The Novel That Changed Her Life:

What's the big fuss about "The Da Vinci Code"? What are Christian leaders so afraid of? I have read that novel of Dan Brown and I consider my hardbound-copy a priceless possession. But my faith has not been swayed at all even after reading it for a second time. On the contrary, it confirmed my convictions about the matter, not that they were not already firm.

The Catholic leaders, in raising arms against the showing and publication of "The Da Vinci Code," are actually doing what the book would like to portray the Church has done, that is, to hide facts about the Christian faith, for its own selfish ends.

I find no blasphemous part in the story. There's nothing to hide. Whether it is offensive to the faithful or not, it is better to open it and for the readers to judge it. If one's faith is strong, no book or film can shake it.

If I understand this correctly, it means that only positive emotions and thoughts and comments are allowed when it comes to The Da Vinci Code — a "priceless possession" (my copy cost $15.95 at Costco, btw). But, more seriously, is Dan Brown's novel blasphemous? This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the word:

Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion. Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin. (CCC 2148. Emphasis added)

Well, Dan Brown has reportedly said that he's a "committed Christian." But he has also said in interviews and in his novel, through his protagonists, that humanity needs to return to an embrace of the "sacred feminine" and, apparently, goddess worship. He makes numerous false claims about Jesus, the followers of Jesus, Saint Mary Magdalene, and, of course, the Catholic Church. Is that blasphemy? Perhaps not. But it does add up to a lot of falsehood. Whether or not promoting falsehood about religious beliefs and history is bothersome or  serious I'll leave up to readers.

Meanwhile, another reader is kind enough to e-mail us and point out that Dan Brown's novel is fiction. Gasp. No!

Dear Sirs,

After reading the write up on your book, "The DaVinci Code Hoax", it seems to me like a whole lot of folks need a time out.

I've read the Da Vinci code and, guess what?  It's just what it purports to be - a work of fiction, nothing more!  It does what fiction is supposed to do, it entertains, and does so quite well.

Get a grip guys!

Yep, "nothing more." Which is why it has a "FACT" page — to accentuate that it is just fiction and nothing more. Of course! How did I miss it? Oh, and for the (factual) record, my co-author, Sandra Miesel, doesn't like to be called "sir" or referred to as a "guy."

And, finally, this new "review" of our book, The Da Vinci Hoax, left by a reader on Amazon.com:

Wonderfully Boring!!!, April 25, 2006

Reviewer:

Jose Gonzalez  - See all my reviews

This book has very little merit. Do some real research and stop the nonsense talk! The aggression against Dan Brown is a waist of time. A novelist can write anything he/she pleases. Criticize the religious scholars, the gnostics, and the historians... Not Dan Brown!! His facts came from his interests in those areas of study, not from him alone... Idiot!

Ah yes, the Cult of the Untouchable Novelist. He is an Artist and therefore enthroned on high, above mere mortals and philistine scholars and historians. Of course, The Novelist has embarked upon study — but he remains safe from criticism because, well, Jose Gonzalez says so! 'Nuf said. It's a waist of time. And perhaps even a waste of time. Period.

It's just fiction. But it's a great book. But it's full of errors. But...

Sharan Newman is a medieval historian who lives somewhere in Oregon, where I also reside. She is the author of The Real History Behind The Da Vinci Code, which she wrote, her website explains, to meet "the needs of the curious non-partisan" by being "completely unbiased by religious opinion." Sounds to me like she has a bias against bias — especially Christian bias. As though all Christian books about The Da Vinci Code are filled with errors caused by "religious bias." Thank goodness for non-religious non-bias!

Anyhow, a news piece about Newman reports that she hopes readers keep in mind that The Da Vinci Code is fiction.

Not that she agrees with the book's premise that Jesus Christ had a child by Mary Magdalene and that his bloodline survives to this day.

But knowing these claims are unsupported by historical evidence did not take away her enjoyment of the book. She hopes other readers will treat the novel's plot devices with a pinch of salt, too.

'When I first read it, I kept putting little notes in the margin, about...'this is definitely wrong'. But after a while, I got into just the story of the murder mystery...that I enjoyed,' said Ms Newman in a phone interview from her home in Oregon in the US.

But if the novel is just a murder mystery and a work of fiction, why did Newman bother to write a book debunking it and go so far as to visit "the places mentioned in The Da Vinci Code, such as the Louvre in Paris and Westminster Abbey in London"? She says:

'There are definite discrepancies. In terms of just geography, I wouldn't try to take the book and actually go anywhere in Paris because that's completely inaccurate,' said Ms Newman, who also writes mystery novels set in mediaeval France.

She also found numerous factual errors in the novel - such as Godefroi de Bouillon being called the king of France when he was only a duke.

Not that such errors aren't significant, one some level, but I don't think that most of the furor surrounding the novel has been generated by an American novelist failing to correctly identify dukes and other assorted members of European royalty. As the article notes:

The Da Vinci Code has sparked outcry from Christians around the world for its controversial claims.

Describing herself as non-religious, she said: 'I really don't look at it from a religious point of view because religion is faith, and faith is what you have when there's no proof.

'I think that certainly, as a writer, I wish the Vatican would condemn a book of mine, because it does wonders for sales.'

Did I mention that Newman and her book are completely free of bias? Not that I'm unhappy that a medieval historian has taken the time to debunk some of the historical errors in The Da Vinci Code. But I should point out — in a very biased, faith-filled and therefore proof-less way — that The Da Vinci Hoax was co-authored by Sandra Miesel, a medieval historian. And that it has been endorsed by Catholics (Francis Cardinal George and Dr. James Hitchcock, for example), Episcopalians (Dr. Philip Jenkins), Evangelicals (Marvin Olasky and Dr. Darrell Bock), and even some atheists. And, yes, we do have a bias, as we've happily admitted before on this blog.

The Code and Gnosticism: A Response to Steve Kellmeyer

The Code and Gnosticism: A Response to Steve Kellmeyer |  Carl E. Olson | April 17, 2006 
      
When Sandra Miesel and I wrote The  Da Vinci Hoax,  we expected to be criticized by fans of The Da Vinci Code (TDVC). And we expected that some of that criticism would be uncharitable and illogical. We haven't, so to speak, been disappointed. But when a fellow Catholic and  critic of TDVC recently wrote a column titled "Does Ignatius Press promote Gnosticism?" and made a number of dubious and incorrect statements about The Da Vinci Hoax, I was both surprised and disappointed.

Continue reading "The Code and Gnosticism"...

"Even thought the book was a work of FICTION, some things ring true & have been proven so."

Via the Barnes & Noble website, a "review" of The Da Vinci Hoax that reveals far more about the fans of Dan Brown's novel than it does about our book (which I doubt the "reviewer" has even touched):

Jennifer, still looking for the answers, April 11, 2006,
The Truth
Even thought the book was a work of FICTION, some things ring true & have been proven so. The fact that paganism was around before Christianity came along is true. The fact that the Catholic church did smear the face of it to promote more to Christianity is true. Pagan temples were remade to be Christian churches. As for the rest, NO ONE knows the truth. Who knows if Jesus was married or not, no one can know first hand since it was so long ago. All we have to go on are books written by us (man/woman) alike, and we only write it as WE see it to be. This is the reason they are called BELIEFS. Since religion & information has been passed down through the centuries, the truth has been watered down. Everyone has their own beliefs, & we shouldnt put people down just because their's conflicts with ours.
Also recommended: The Power of Myth (Joseph Campbell)

There you go: the only thing we know is that the Catholic Church is nasty, mean, rotten, and devious. "As for the rest, NO ONE knows the truth."   And, of course, we shouldn't "put people down because their's conflicts with ours." Unless they are Catholic. Then it's fair game.  Beautiful. Well, Jennifer, I'm curious as to why you are "still looking for answers" when the answer you give is that no one can know the truth. In other words, stop wasting your time! There are no answers! We can't know the truth! And that's the truth! Go back to watching MTV and reading Dan Brown! Talk about the power of myth. How depressing. At least she gave our book 3 out of 5 stars...