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.

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.

"And the truth is no one will ever know the truth."

A lady from Eugene, Oregon (where I live), sends along some not-so-positive remarks about this April 23rd article about me that appeared in the local paper, The Register Guard:

The Christian Hoax

Much has been made of “The DaVinci Code”; fiction, not fiction, lies, conjecture, posturing, disapproval from the Roman Catholic Church.    Carl Olson’s comments were far from my own reality.  (April 23, 2006)    “ …anti-Catholicism is the last accepted prejudice”?   Really?  What then is genocide?  How do you explain the failure of levees in New Orleans?  Or the placement of landfills and toxic waste dumps?  This is not “prejudice” against christians, Carl, this is well-deserved disgust and aversion, a product of sowing and reaping.   

There are hints of truth in the DaVinci Code.  Don’t let history sway your predisposition.  Look at the ‘christian agenda’ for what it truly is.

‘Holy Wars’’? A revealing oxymoron.  400 (four hundred) years of looting were the Crusades.   They set the foundation for the standard method of dealing with heathens and heretics.   The cost of Christianizing then Europe?  Eight million to ten million lives.  But it was worth it, as Madeleine Albright would say.

Members of the Cathars and the Knights Tempar were condemned by the ‘church’ as heretics and slaughtered, their lands, titles and holdings absorbed by church and by state.  First demonize, then condemn, then demand blood in the name of god.  Secure the booty.  Make full the holy coffers.  Don’t forget to justify the destruction.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church under Pope Innocent IV did adopt and authorize  (1252 ACE) torture for ecclesiastical trials.   Torture was honed by the Christian crusaders and the Inquisition.  Pagan common law opposed torture.  What a Christ-like action that was. 

For 500 (five hundred) years the Inquisition reigned hellbent, literally; a mockery to justice, fanatical, cruel, arbitrary and invented to force the public to embrace or be exterminated.  Noted as ’the most elaborate extortion racket ever devised’, an all-for-profit organization.   The first corporation? 

Pope Boniface directed the trial of a witch must be conducted ‘simply, without the voice and form of lawyers’.  The ‘church’ created the crime and acted judge and jury.  Inquisitors were placed entirely above the law.  Why does this sound so familiar? 

Condemn all who do not submit quietly.  Burn them at the stake.  Excommunicate them.  The list includes  Copernicus,  Galilei, Joan de’Arc, Giordano Bruno, Hypatia, Michael Servetus, Martin Luther, Matthew Fox, witches, herbalists, healers, midwives, pagans, heathens, savages, natives.

What about the usurping of pagan holy days, like Christmas and Easter?  And all of the adopted relics and traditions, like the yule log, gifts, lights, mistletoe, holly, eggs, rabbits, wreaths?  Altogether pagan in origin.  And if Christmas is about Christ, what are all those ‘Christians’ doing at the mall?

Jesus and Magdalene married?  Or not?  So what?   What if they shared a bed?  And had sexual intercourse?  And made a family?  What difference does it make?  And the truth is no one will ever know the truth. 

The wrap up at the end of your article/interview is priceless.  The perfect black-and-white, with-us –or-against-us, good-versus-evil, patriot-or-terrorist, love-it-or-leave-it divisive spew.  You say that if your Jesus Christ is not who you think he is/was “then Christianity is a complete sham….It’s really an all-or-nothing proposition”.   

When it comes to the ‘all-or-nothing’ ness of Christianity, I prefer the latter. Christianity unveiled is nothing less than unbridled corruption and insatiable greed, the evolution of hypocrisy.  The only consistency in Christianity is the hypocrisy.   

Your ‘god’ is not my ‘god’. 

Your Jesus is not my Jesus.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of ‘god’.

Beware the scribes.

Reap and sow accordingly.

Pax vobiscum,

S-------

Sounds like the start of a rewarding and logical dialogue...

Sandra and I are interviewed by Ankle Biting Pundits

The interview can be read here.

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.

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.

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"...

Ignatius Press: Promoter of Big, Greedy, Corporate Gnosticism?

Apparently Steve Kellmeyer, a Catholic apologist and author of Fact and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, thinks so. Yesterday he published a column, "Does Ignatius Press promote Gnosticism?", on the Renew America website. This came fast on the heels of a series of comments made by Kellmeyer on the Insight Scoop and Da Vinci Hoax blogs (go here and here for the pertinent posts and comments). In his article, Kellmeyer makes a number of strange and sensational statements, including:

Recently, Carl Olson wrote a column for Ignatius Insight complaining about the uproar over the Gnostic Gospel of Judas. Since his column accepts comments from readers, I pointed out that the uproar was in part fueled by his erroneous book and DVD — he and Ignatius have been promulgating information on a heresy that the Da Vinci Code never even refers to. Two years of Ignatius' hype concerning this straw-man argument undoubtedly played no small role in the rising interest in Gnosticism. [emphasis added]

That's an amazing and wild claim, without a doubt. He also writes:

So, when I heard about Carl's column, in which he laments the existence of an uproar he and Ignatius helped to create, I asked Carl and Mark to give me one example of Gnostic philosophy, theology or even general thought in the Da Vinci Code. They couldn't.

Really? Since I have yet to respond to Kellmeyer's comments and column (all of which were published in the last three days, when I've been both buried with work and away from my computer for long stretches dealing with various responsibilities), I'm not sure why Kellmeyer is so confident I cannot respond adequately. In fact, I now have a lengthy response written, but have decided to wait until Monday to post it — I think it can (and should) wait until after the Easter Triduum. But I did want curious readers to know that I'm aware of Kellmeyer's column and will be responding first thing next week.