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.

Sandra and I are interviewed by Ankle Biting Pundits

The interview can be read here.

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...

Michael Baigent and "The Jesus Papers" featured on "Dateline"

I didn't see it since I don't watch silly "investigative" shows that feature wingnut theories that aren't taken seriously by 99.9999999% of historians. Baigent, of course, is one of the three authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and one of the plaintiffs in the recent (and failed) lawsuit against Dan Brown's publisher for copyright infringement. Baigent's new book is simply another tired riff on the 1965 book, The Passover Plot: Jesus really didn't die on the Cross, but escaped and moved to Toledo, Ohio, where he opened an espresso shop and did palm readings. (BTW, John Lennon said of Hugh Schonfield's book, "My views on Christianity are directly influenced by [the] book." What's up with Brits and weird, nutty theories about Jesus?) Or something like that. Anyhow, NewsBusters.org has a piece about the nonsense that's worth reading. Personally, I can't wait for NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc., etc., to start doing "investigative" pieces about how Mohammed never existed, that Buddha didn't found Buddhism, that Moses was actually a member of the PLO, and so forth and so on. Should happen any day now, just as soon as the talking heads at N(ever) B(elieve) C(hristians) finish telling the world the truth about the "'Gospel' of 'Judas'."

By the way, NBC pitched the infomercial by using slogans including, "What if everything you think you know about Jesus is wrong?" (Sounds very similar to the ominous voice overs in the DVC trailers). I say: Hey, what if everything you saw on NBC was wrong? And everything spouted on "Dateline" was a pile of steaming mashed potatoes? Now that's something with a ring of truth to it.

Justice Peter Smith on Dan Brown: "the reality of his research is that it is superficial"

The newspapers and evening news have been announcing victory for Dan Brown and Doubleday in the now concluded trial that took place in London. Fair enough. But the point of interest for me has always been what the case and trial might reveal about Brown's "impeccable research" (New York Daily News and a bazilion other newspapers, magazines, and reader reviews. See some examples listed in this essay). Much was revealed, or brought into a brighter light. And while many news accounts are reporting this story as though Brown is some sort of literary martyr, the judge, Justice Peter Smith, was quite frank in his criticisms of Brown's vague testimony and scholarly pretensions (Smith's entire statement can be read here, in PDF format. My thanks to Lewis Perdue for the link. Pithy extracts from the 70+ page judgment can be accessed on this BBC page.) Here are some of Justice Smith's remarks:

In the synopsis for The Da Vinci Code he says it was written long before they bought or consulted The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. I have considerable difficulties with that statement.

I cannot accept the book was acquired at a much later time if it is going to be seriously contended that extensive research is gone into before The Da Vinci Code is written.

What is extraordinary about Mr Brown's evidence is that he appears to have acquired all of the books that cover this area apart from the one that is described as essential reading. ...

---------------

It is quite clear that Mr Brown has not been able to provide all the answers as to the material which Blythe prepared for him.

Second I do not regard the reasons put forward in the third witness statement for her absence as satisfactory.

How DVC was researched and created is vital to the issues in this case.

Blythe Brown's role in that exercise is crucial and I do not accept that there are reasons of a credible nature put forward as to why she has not appeared to give evidence.

---------------

It ought to have been obvious to Mr Brown that if he had carefully prepared his  witness statement that his case on HBHG as he put it would simply fall apart on an examination of the US HBHG, the copying similarities and the other documents to which I have referred.  I do not believe he consciously lied.  His failure to address these points in my view shows once again that the reality of his research is that it is  superficial.  This in my view is the explanation for his evidence.  He has presented  himself as being a deep and thorough researcher for all of the books he produced. 

The evidence in this case demonstrates that as regards DVC that is simply not correct with respect to historical lectures.  The Synopsis was prepared using a minimal amount of material from the books TR, WAJ and GG primarily.  The major part of the writings of the lectures at a later stage have substantially come from HBHG.

The references immediately above are to The Templar Revelation by Picknett and Prince, Woman With the Alabaster Jar and Goddess in the Gospels, the latter two written by Margaret Starbird, apparently a favorite source for Blythe Brown's research. All, of course, are mentioned in TDVC. Those three books, in addition to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, constitute about 95-99% (I estimate) of Brown's research. And he admitted that he didn't even read HBHG in its entirety. As Lewis Purdue wrote not long before Friday's judgment:

Regardless of how the trial comes out in London, Dan and Blythe are now known as shameless rippers-off of other people's work -- a far cry from their previous statements about their so-called extensive research.

As a university faculty member, I frequently gave an "F" to unoriginal and desperate college students who diligently to altered what they copied in hopes that the copying would not be discovered.

The Verdict Is In: Brown is "vindicated"

From Reuters (UK):

Best-selling author Dan Brown was vindicated on Friday in a court battle with two historians who accused him of plagiarising their book in order to write "The Da Vinci Code".

A judge at the High Court in London said that while Brown may have copied bits of the 1982 book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", that did not amount to a breach of copyright.

"Even if the central themes were copied, they are too general or of too low a level of abstraction to be capable of protection by copyright law," judge Peter Smith told the court.

And:

Random House, owned by German media conglomerate Bertelsmann AG, also welcomed the judgement, as did Sony Pictures, which is due to release a Hollywood film based on "The Da Vinci Code".

"We are pleased that justice and common sense have prevailed," Random House's chairman and chief executive Gail Rebuck said in a statement.

Baigent and Leigh were denied leave to appeal and face a legal bill of over 1 million pounds, although an increase in sales of their own book as a result of the publicity surrounding the case may ease the pain.

Da D-Day for Duh Code is At Hand

Bloomberg.com (and many others) reports that Friday, April 7th, will be the day that judgment will be rendered in the Doubleday vs. HBHG Authors case, which began in late February:

A judge in London is due to decide tomorrow whether Dan Brown plagiarized the plot of his best- selling "The Da Vinci Code" from two other writers. Judging by book sales, readers may not care.         

More than 500,000 copies of Brown's thriller were sold in the first week after its paperback release on March 28, Random House Inc.'s Anchor Books said yesterday. Promotion of the film version, due in May, and reports of the U.K. lawsuit have boosted interest in the novel, said Russell Perreault, director of publicity at Anchor and Vintage books.         

"It's really been a perfect storm of events,'' Perreault said in an interview. ``There are still a lot of people out there who have been waiting for the paperback to come out.''         

Historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Random House, Brown's publisher, for copyright infringement. They claim the author lifted the theory that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and fathered a child from their non-fiction ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,'' published more than 20 years earlier.          

The case, which opened at London's High Court on Feb. 27, drew packed courtrooms for three weeks. It has also sparked a sales revival for Baigent and Leigh's book. Sales of ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'', which graced the New York Times bestseller list in the 1980s, surged 26-fold in Britain and sixfold in the U.S. during the trial, according to figures provided by Nielsen BookScan and Bookseller magazine, a trade publication.

What are the stakes? Mercury News reports:

A victory by Baigent and Leigh would stun the world of copyright law, challenging the concept that copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself.

"A victory for Leigh and Baigent would make it very difficult for novelists, particularly historical novelists," said Fiona Crawley, a copyright expert with law firm Bryan Cave LLP.

"They go to source books to research the history to incorporate into their novel. It would call into question how they can research a historical novel without being accused of copyright infringement by the historian who has written the key work on that incident in history."

A win by the plaintiffs also could hold up the scheduled May 19 film release of "The Da Vinci Code" movie, starring Tom Hanks. Sony Pictures says it plans to release the film as scheduled. If Leigh and Baigent lose, they could have to pay costs that legal experts estimate will top $1.75 million.

Hmmmm....I don't think I'd want to be in the shoes of Leigh and Baigent at this point. Sure, it's obvious that Brown relied heavily on their book for key passages in his novel, but my highly subjective and non-expert opinion is that the judge will lean toward Doubleday on this one. Regardless, those who have paid close attention and have actually read Brown's witness statement know that the novelist's claims to deep and serious research have been thoroughly discredited. But does it matter? Probably not much. The paperback version of the novel sold 500,000 copies this past week, setting yet more publishing records.

Holy Grail or Royal Blood?

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the two authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail who happen to be suing Dan Brown for copying too much from their book, claim to have independently noticed that sangreal, one medieval spelling for "Holy Grail" should be split as sang real, "Holy Blood," referring to the "sacred bloodline" of Jesus Christ.

Alas, lads, your word manipulation was far from new. Sir Thomas Malory makes it in one (and only one) place in the Le Morte D'Arthur by defining the" Sankgreal" as "the blessed blood of our Lorde Jhesu Cryste." But Malory clearly means that in Eucharistic not genealogical sense.

And an obscure contemporary of Malory named John Harding (1378-1465) had earlier read san greal as sang real in his longer verse chronicle of Britain. But Harding meant the royal blood of the Grail knights and a chivalric order of the sanke rioall, not the descendants of Jesus.

The latter tidbit of information comes from Richard Barber's The Holy Grail: Imagination and Belief  which unfortunately was published too late for us to use for The Da Vinci Hoax. This is a good survey of the legends down to their modern applications, including Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which rates a guffaw. Barber firmly sets the medieval romances within the Church's teachings on the Holy Eucharist. This would be an excellent place to become acquainted with the authentic stories. Then you might want to read the most spiritual of these, The Quest of the Holy Grail, translated by P.M. Matarasso and available as a Penguin paperback. If you do read it, you'll be ahead of Dan Brown whose deep and profound research didn't extend to studying any medieval sources.

Is there a precedent for the DVC case and trial?

Possibly:

Ravenscroft v Herbert [1980] RPC 193

The plaintiff in this case claimed infringement by the plaintiff in his non-fiction work "The Spear of Destiny". The plaintiff had written a history of the spear which was allegedly used to pierce the side of Christ on the Cross. He detailed the history of the spear from Israel to Hofburg Museum in Vienna. The plaintiff identified it as the spear used by many legendary historical people and claimed that the spear had become a symbolic source of inspiration in Nazi Germany. The plaintiffs book was meticulously researched using a combination of empirical techniques and use of a psychic medium.

The defendant, James Herbert was fascinated by the plaintiffs book and used it as the basis of a fictional account of the post-war fate of the spear entitled "The Spear". The novel concerned a neo-Nazi group, secret agents and terrorists. The book was divided into sections. At the beginning of each section was a prologue. The prologues told the story of the spear from the Crucifixion to the end of the second world war. The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement.

The defendant admitted using the plaintiffs book as a source of inspiration for his novel.

The court upheld the plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement and in finding for the plaintiff decided as follows -

1. The defendant had infringed the plaintiff's copyright by writing the prologues using the same characters, incidents and interpretation of the significance of events

2. In assessing the quantum of damages the court had to assess the value of the infringing part of the defendant's work in relation to the whole of the original work. Although the infringing part represented only 4% of the defendants work, the value of the 4% was 15% of value of the whole derivative book. there were in all, fifty alleged instances of language copying in the defendants work.

In an article at LegalWeek.com, Barrister Amanda Michaels explains some of the issues at stake:

The difficulty is that there is no copyright simply in ideas, but only in the expression of the ideas; copyright protects the skill and labour of the author in creating his work. Naturally, it all depends on what is meant by ‘ideas’. As copying may be substantial in terms of quality rather than quantity, the ‘substantial part’ can be ‘a feature or combination of features abstracted from the claimant’s work, and need not form a discrete part of it’.

That being so, Lord Hoffman in Designers Guild considered that "the original elements in the plot of a play or novel may be a substantial part, so that copyright may be infringed by a work which does not reproduce a single sentence of the original". Here, the defendant challenges the very existence of the central theme upon which the claimants rely, but adds that in any event the theme is of too high a level of abstraction to be protected as a copyright work.

In Ravenscroft v Herbert [1980], features of a non-fictional work tracing the history of the Spear of Destiny — a museum piece which supposedly was the very spear that had pierced Christ’s side on the cross — were used in a thriller based around the spear. Copying of text and of non-textual features, such as characters, incidents and interpretation of events, was found to infringe. The DVC case, of course, relies solely upon copying of the central theme — will this be enough?

There is a spectrum stretching from ‘pure’ ideas through elements of plot, features or themes, to specifics of text. This case raises the issue of where the boundary lies along that spectrum, between ideas which are in the public domain and protectable copyright; this may be impossible to define, but the judge will have to find on which side of it any copying in DVC may fall. His judgment may well affect the approach to be taken by writers of all kinds to copyright source material.

My March 10, 2006, talk in Sioux Falls, SD, about the Coded Craziness...

... can be accessed online here, at the Diocese of Sioux Falls website. It includes the Q&A session and is about 80 minutes in length.