Da Vinci Hoax Blog

Atheist scholar: I dislike TDVC as much as Christians do. And here's why...

An unexpected e-mail arrived a couple of days ago:

As a medievalist, I have been bemused and frustrated by the way Brown's novel has been taken as historical fact since I first had the displeasure of struggling through his turgid prose in late 2004.  Since then I have found myself in discussions/debates with Da Vinci fans regarding the many and various historical errors in the novel both online and in 'real life'.  In many of those online discussions I have pointed people to online resources on the subject as well as to the small library of books on the novel's claims.  I have often recommended your The Da Vinci Hoax and several of the online articles by yourself and Sandra Miesel, particularly "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine: Reading Too Little Into  The Da Vinci Code".

Inevitably, the response to these recommendations has often been that you and writers like you are simply "dupes of the Vatican" (something Darrell Bock would, no doubt, find highly amusing) and that you are simply defending your faith because you are scared of the 'revelations about history' that the Code supposedly makes.  These people usually assume that I am a Christian as well and are often confused when I explain that I'm an atheist.

Frustrated by this, I set out about 18 months ago to produce an online resource which examines the claims made in the DVC from a purely historical, religiously-neutral perspective.  This has been partly to counter the idea that only Christians disagree with this novel's silly claims, partly to show that religious critics like yourself make arguments which are soundly based on historical research and partly to provide a resource that non-Christians can regard as 'unbiased'.

The site is not fully complete, but the 'Chapter by Chapter' analysis of the 'historical' claims made in the novel is up (weighing in at 45,000 words in total), along with other resources.

While I appreciate that your beliefs and mine are diametrically 'opposed', I hope you might find my site useful and would also hope that you might feature it on your blog.  I have already received enthusiastic feedback on it from Christians, who have thanked me for the respectful way I have handled sensitive religious subjects.  They've also mentioned they've found it useful to direct people to a 'non-religious' site, to counter the regular accusations of 'bias'.

Thanks in advance,

Tim O'Neill
'History vs the Da Vinci Code' Webmaster
www.historyvsthedavincicode.com

In the "Author" section of his site, O'Neill writes:

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 supprted 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.

Be sure to check out this excellent resource, especially the "Chapters" section, which provides a running commentary on the novel's many errors, chapter by chapter. And don't miss the "Fiction?" page, which explains why an atheist would bother to spend time responding to a work of fiction.

BTW, here is part of my response to Mr. O'Neill's initial e-mail:

I especially appreciate your work because I am so tired of hearing that Christians who are responding to TDVC are "angry" or "afraid" or "weak in their faith" or "narrow minded." As Sandra Miesel has noted on many occasions, even if she was atheist and had little or no interest in the theological/religious issues involved, she would still be offended by Brown's novel because of how it purports to be based on fact, has been accepted as a well-researched work by many reviewers and readers, and yet is filled with errors, howlers, and outright falsehoods about verifiable historical facts. And the way that Brown was initially touted as being some sort of great researcher is incredibly pathetic. And the shrugs and "so what?" attitudes that have accompanied the movie have been equally exasperating.

I also appreciate the kind remarks made on your site about our book. Obviously, as you note, we do come from different perspectives and, in a different time and place, we might have a rousing (and civilized, I think) debate about theism and atheism. But just as I know that many Christians do have a blind and poorly informed faith, I also know that many atheists and agnostics do indeed respect and value truth. And so your efforts to educate people about the many historical errors of TDVC is greatly appreciated.

How is the movie different from the novel?

I've been meaning to write a bit on this question, but have been spared some of the time and effort by Greg Wright, who wrote this short but insightful review of TDVC movie when it first came out (oh so many days ago). Wright (who is not a Catholic, btw) observed the following:

Earlier today, MSNBC carried an AP story which reported that Ron Howard's movie "subtly softens" the material of Dan Brown's book. The Associated Press couldn't have it more wrong.

Yes, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon does find some new dialogue in his mouth courtesy of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, words that at least play devil's advocate with Ian McKellen's Leigh Teabing. But in the end, the cinematic Langdon becomes much more of a true believer than does his literary counterpart.

Three major innovations introduced by Howard's movie:

First, his film portrays Opus Dei and the "shadow council" of the Vatican as really being in cahoots, really conspiring to kill people in the name of God, really trying to supress intellectual inquiry, really turning its back on truth and righteousness. In short, Ron Howard turns the Catholic Church into a genuine villain. Shameful.

Second, the movie further fabricates ancient history, making the charge that history is unclear whether the Roman Empire or the Christians were the first agressors. Please!

Third, and most importantly, the film invests significant energy in validating the Magdalene myth. While in Brown's book Marie Chauvel basically leaves the existence of the Sangreal documents and Magdalene's bones to the world's imagination, Howard has Langdon and Neveu discover plenty of material evidence to back up the claim.

Where's the mystery that feeds the soul? Where's the adventure? You'll have to find it in the book, I'm afraid. There's no codebreaking here, just polemic.

These are excellent points — but they were missed (or ignored) by most other reviewers of the movie. For many reviewers, the unforgiveable sin of Howard's flick is that it is ponderous, boring, silly. But Wright is absolutely correct that movie, just like the novel, is much more about polemics than storytelling. Which is one reason the storytelling is so ponderous, boring, silly. Which, happily, blunts some of the polemics, but hardly exonerates the filmmakers from going to such lengths to disdainfully (or is it "dis-Dan-fully"?) attack the Catholicism, historical fact, and commonsense.

TDVC Movie: A Bungled (But Influential) Hate Crime

Here is a great review of the cinematic version of the Coded Craziness, written by Rev. Paul W. McNellis, S.J., an assistant adjunct professor of philosophy at Boston College. Excerpts:

Though thoroughly anti-Christian, it is such a bad movie it can’t even get the bigotry right. ...

Nevertheless, the movie pulls off what I would have thought was next to impossible: it is both  mind-numbingly boring and stridently anti-Christian. ...

As for recognizing blasphemy, we hear the objection, “But it’s only fiction.” Would the same defense be offered if Hollywood produced The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Satanic Verses? Furthermore, if Ron Howard had wanted to make a fast-paced murder mystery, there are many scenes he could have cut, all to the movie’s advantage. Scenes of a deranged, nude, sadomasochistic “monk” praying before a crucifix as preparatory to committing murder, intentionally mock Christian faith, and Ron Howard’s decision to include them shows that he shares Dan Brown’s contempt for Christianity. Any normal Christian would be offended. That many will not be offended is an indication of the extent to which our society has become post-Christian. ...

And the coup de grace:

A society incapable of recognizing blasphemy against the God that 80% of its citizens claim to worship, is a post-Christian society lacking self-respect. Those without self-respect will be incapable of seeing why their fellow citizens deserve respect. Such a society becomes capable of believing and tolerating almost anything if it contributes to comfort and demands no sacrifice. This is not a mark of sophistication or virtue; it’s evidence of profound decadence.

"What Do Christians Know?" | Carl E. Olson for Human Events Online

A piece written while in New Jersey this past Thursday, after traveling to Washington, D.C. and New York City and giving a bazillion radio and television interviews.

What Do Christians Know?

by Carl E. Olson
Posted May 19, 2006

The way some pundits and journalists are telling it, you might think that many Christians are too narrow-minded and emotionally fragile to understand that "The Da Vinci Code" is just a novel (and a movie and an industry). The common theme of more than few recent articles and editorials has been, "Hey, Christians, lighten up and realize that it's only fiction!"

Such pieces miss two important facts.

Continue reading...

BTW, the original version of my essay included another, final paragraph:

Howard, to be fair, is simply following in the footsteps of Dan Brown. The novelist has had it both ways for three years now, saying his story is based on truth and fact while hiding behind the skirts of fiction whenever criticism comes his way. As G.K. Chesterton noted a century ago, “A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author. It does much more than that, it tells us the truth about its readers; and, oddly enough, it tell us this all the more the more cynical and immoral be the motive of its manufacture.” But, of course, Chesterton was a Christian, so what did he know?

I saw TDVC and I almost lost my faith...

... in decent screenwriting and filmmaking. One word: pathetic. If I were Dan Brown I would sue Sony and Ron Howard for doing what I thought was impossible: making a movie that was worse than the novel, which is like Isaiah Thomas taking over the Knicks and making that team even worse. Hey, it can be done, but it takes a special sort of, um, genius to do so.

Anyhow, sports comparisons aside, Steve Greydanus's review of The Da Vinci Code is excellent and right on the money. The changes made to the movie do not, as he rightly points out, "soften" the anti-Catholicism, but merely make it that much more insidious. I nearly laughed aloud a couple of times when Langdon and Teabing disagreed about this or that historical point -- and both were wildly wrong. The not-so-funny aspect of such exchanges is that some viewers will see this is as an example of serious debate between two scholars, but will never bother to see if the "competing" perspectives offered have any basis in real scholarship.

The movie is painfully long and dreadfully self-important. It is, in fact, very much like the novel, which is a poorly written, overwrought, pseudo-intellectual piece of anti-Catholic rot. In The Da Vinci Hoax, Sandra Miesel and I offered a description of the novel that fits the movie just as well: "The Da Vinci Code is custom-made fiction for our time: pretentious, posturing, self-serving, arrogant, self-congratulatory, condescending, glib, illogical, superficial, and deviant." Thus, it's irritating to read so many reviews (not Steve's, of course) insisting that the movie lacks the magic, charm, wit, excitement, intensity, blah, blah, blah of the novel. Poppycock. The movie simply reveals many of the serious artistic flaws of the novel; it hardly could avoid doing so, unless the screenplay had completely departed from the novel. It seems to me that most people today make more demands of what they see in a theater than they make of what they read on the page. Part of that, I'm sure, is because many fans of TDVC don't read many books, or, to be more precise, many good books.

The movie, like the novel, takes its message very, very seriously. This is blatantly obvious in the final 15 minutes, when Langdon (Tom Hanks) yammers endlessly about how the most important thing is what you believe -- not whether or not it is true, good, or right. While deviating in exact language from the novel, this is essentially Brown's message (as he as expressed in interviews): we must be able to create our own truth and not have truth shoved down our throats by nasty old men who are selling us the lie called Christianity. This is a misleading and false choice, of course, but one that plays very well in today's culture.

Finally, I figured (as did nearly everyone else) that the opening weekend would be huge for this movie. And it was. But I also thought that its numbers would substantially decrease after the first weekend. However, I wonder now if I was wrong in thinking so. Like the novel, the movie will continue to attract attention. The only advantage held by the novel, so to speak, was that it came out of the blue; the movie has been met with a flood of criticism and response, which has, to some extent, changed perceptions of the movie, if only to cause nearly every review on the planet to condescendingly point out that it's "just a movie" and "just entertainment." And why is it so entertaining to millions of people? Well, it's not because of the writing, the characters, or the plot. In large part it's because many people want to be told that it's alright to reject and bash Catholicism, and feel as though they are smart and sophisticated in doing so. However, if, as I think is the case, people do take their movies more seriously then their reading material, perhaps the movie will end up sinking quickly.

I plan to post a few more thoughts about the movie and reaction to it in the next couple of days. Again, Steve's review is an excellent and accurate assessment of the movie.

Why most newspaper articles about the Coded Craziness drive me...crazy

News Today is a large English newspaper in southern India. Today it published an article that perfectly demonstrates how lazy, incorrect, and clueless some articles about The Da Vinci Code can be -- and often are. A couple of examples:

Author of the book and its upcoming big-screen adaptation from Columbia Pictures, Dan Brown, in his website, categorically explained that The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist, like the Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings.

Uh, yeah. But why not also note that the novel's "FACT" page states that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate"? And that that statement is not accurate? And that when a novelist describes historical figures and events and insists that his descriptions are accurate, he is the one who has set the bar?

Brown says that the real elements in the book have been interpreted and debated by fictional characters and each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations.

Ah, I think I understand: just because the novel's hero, Robert Langdon, makes bold assertions (including some that have been repeated by Brown in non-fictional interviews) that are clearly meant to be received sympathetically by readers, we shouldn't understand that to be an endorsement of those views. Even though Brown has admitted that Langdon was created, in large part, by drawing upon the persona and outlook of one of Brown's heroes, Joseph Campbell.

  His hope was for the novel to serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

Yes,  probably similar to how the author(s) of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" wanted that text to provide a springboard for people to discuss important ideas, such as "Are Jews controlling the world" and "What's so bad about anti-Semitism?" This particular line of "reasoning" is incredibly disingenuous because it's quite obvious that Brown is not a serious student of history, theology, or artwork. If anything, he's a student of whacky conspiracy theories rooted in unabashed anti-Catholicism.

        'Anti-Christian, it is not', says Brown, in his website, stressing that it is not anti-anything in anyway. It is important to remember that a reader does not have to agree with every word in the novel to use the book as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith.

Let's say I wrote a novel about how Judaism was founded for purely political purposes, that Abraham, Moses, and David weren't actually Hebrews/Jews, that Judaism oppresses women, and that orthodox Jewish beliefs about God are both outdated and superstitious. Let's say I crowed about how well-researched my book was. Let's say I went on national television and said that if I had to write the book as a work of non-fiction, I wouldn't change a thing. Would that provide, say, Jewish readers with a "positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of [their] faith"?

   According to one critic, a historian named James Hitchcock, as quoted in the book, 'The Da Vinci Hoax', by Olson and Miesel, 'The Da Vinci Code' can be viewed as an ephemeral artifact of popular culture, but its immense sales ensure that it will have influence on people who never read serious books. Brown has found a formula for becoming rich: sensationalism, feminism, and the occult'.

Finally, something of substance! And don't pass over the FACT that Dr. James Hitchcock is an actual historian and scholar who has published numerous scholarly essays and books on matters of history. Hey, he might know what he's talking about, right? But the author of this "news piece" has a trick up the sleeve:

        The fact is Brown's book is fiction. He himself says so.

Wow! Amazing! It's just fiction! Really? Well, I suppose that's why the writer just penned these words a couple of paragraphs earlier: Brown's "hope was for the novel to serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history." But it's just fiction! But, wait, there's more: "Brown and film director Ron Howard maintain that they are simply encouraging a review of early church history and the roots of the Christian faith." But it's just fiction!

This is the sort of stupidity that makes MTV look thoughtful and People magazine read like Proust. Is this crude charade really so hard to see through? Apparently so.

Oh, by the way, this blog is fiction. I've simply eliminated the characters and plot because no one care about them anyhow.

Cinematic version of the Code getting raked over the coals

Some readers of TDVC (both fans and non-fans) have suggested that the novel is about as ready-made for a movie as can be. I've always disagreed with this notion, believing the novel has far more in common with soap operas than with successful summertime movie fare. Some of the similar elements include: thin characters, laughable dialogue, endless conversations, constant posturing (by characters and novelist), silliness/stupidity, and a complete absence of nuance. Oh -- and the plot is even more thin than the characters, which is saying something. Last summer I was interviewed by The New York Times (for this article) and I said this:

"There's no way you can take out the central point of the novel, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and the Catholic Church has done everything in its power, including murdering millions of people, to cover it up," said Carl Olson, co-author of "The Da Vinci Hoax," a book refuting the "The Da Vinci Code." He predicted that many devout people would be offended "unless they make a movie that bears a pale resemblance to the book, in which case they'd have a lot of irritated fans."

Oddly enough, the first reviews of the movie indicate that Ron Howard has apparently achieved something remarkable, if not altogether commendable for a director: he has made a movie that will both irritate fans and bore and confuse non-fans. The Reuters review calls the movie a "bloated puzzle" and adds:

Strictly as a movie and ignoring the current swirl of controversy no amount of studio money could ever buy, the Ron Howard-directed film features one of Tom Hanks' more remote, even wooden performances in a role that admittedly demands all the wrong sort of things from a thriller protagonist; an only slightly more animated performance from his French co-star, Audrey Tautou; and polished Hollywood production values where camera cranes sweep viewers up to God-like points of view and famous locations and deliciously sinister interiors heighten tension where the movie threatens to turn into a historical treatise.

The movie really only catches fire at the midway point, when Ian McKellen hobbles on the scene as the story's Sphinx-like Sir Leigh Teabing. Here is the one actor having fun with his role and playing a character rather than a piece to a puzzle.

True believers and those who want to understand what all the fuss is about will jam cinemas worldwide in the coming weeks in sufficient numbers so as to fulfill probably even the most optimistic projections of Sony execs. But the movie is so drenched in dialogue musing over arcane mythological and historical lore and scenes grow so static that even camera movement can't disguise the dramatic inertia. Such sins could cut into those rosy projections.

The BBC reviewer, Caroline Briggs, is also underwhelmed:

Taking its cue from the book, conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is depicted as a murderous and power-crazed organisation.

But Howard, who won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind, faced a tougher challenge in translating Brown's narrative to the big screen. And his fondness for historic flashbacks and other gimmicks to tell the story border on patronising.

They are too obviously used to help gel together the two-and-a-half hour screenplay whose storyline may prove confusing for those who have not read the book.

One of the book's triumphs is the way in which it allows the reader to solve the clues before Langdon and Neveu, giving the reader a smug satisfaction at their own perceived intelligence.

The film does not allow the same satisfaction, but instead must join protagonists Langdon and Neveu on their convoluted journey.

Briggs is quite right in describing the "books' triumph", since the novel has certainly been, for many readers, a revelatory text filled with secret knowledge and exciting ideas (How about it, National Geographic? Have a cover with the DVC displayed and the headline: "The Gospel of Dan Brown," Discovered in 2003. Is it true?). But it appears that the movie is actually revealing something else: that the novel is a pile of pseudo-intellectual blatherings that lacks both historical veracity and logical coherence. Of course, we've been saying that all along. But it's rather touching that Sony, Ron Howard, and Co. would spend tens of millions of dollars to prove our point.  For the record, I'll be seeing the movie this Friday night and hope to write a few thoughts here soon thereafter.

Sandra and I are interviewed by Ankle Biting Pundits

The interview can be read 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.