Fact, Fiction or Delusion?
Published on May 2, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Entertainment
I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen anything written here on Joe User on the upcoming Da Vinci Code phenomenon in the form of an upcoming movie. I'm sure Brown's movie, as was his novel, will not only be very popular but also widely controversial as well. Because of that he's managed to sell about 46 million books. He has been criticized by many different religious groups and scholars alike.

While I'm no fan of this man's work , I am not worried about Christianity's demise as a result of this work of fiction. I read a quote in the paper this week from a very wise British priest. He said..."Christian theology has survied the writings of Galileo and the writings of Darwin. Surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire." I agree. God is bigger than Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code.

What many seem to forget is that this book is fiction. It is not real. He said on CNN that tho his characters and action are fictional the "background is all true." Of course many scholars beg to differ. Here's a take on a few differences:

Jesus' Divinity

According to Brown and his version, Jesus was but a mere man until 325 AD when Constantine "turned Jesus into a deity" by getting the council of Nicaea to endorse divine status by a relatively close vote.

But his critics contend (that would be me as well) and cite that Jesus was worshipped by many in the early church. Paul wrote in the 50's AD "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped and became a man."
Historians also say that the bishops involved in the Council of Nicaea never questioned the divinity of Christ but rather debated the technicalities of how he could be both divine and human. Their vote was a lopsided one, not even close at all.

The New Testament

According to Brown there were 80 gospels considred for the NT but only four were chosen by Constantine. Brown would like us to believe that the omitted gospels spoke of his human traits and those chosen embellished his godlike ones. These unchosen gospels were gathered up and burned and that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the earliest Christian records not these four gospels.

The historians tells us that Constantine had nothing to do with the decision made about the cannon. The Christians had already reached a concensus on the authority of the gospels well before Constantine in the second century. But some of the 27 NT books were not universally accepted until after the death of Constantine. Some of the "other gospels" are rejected because they lack the narrative histories that characterized the NT four. The four we have today, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not only written earlier but they had won wide approval by the first century believers many of whom lived through what was written.

The rejected books often pointed to Jesus as lacking human qualities depicted in the NT gospels which is the exact opposite of Brown's scenario. These gnostic gospels often spurn Judaism's creator and the OT. Much different than the four we have today.
About the mass burning of books? There is little evidence to support that claim. They simply disappeared from lack of use and nobody bothered to make new copies this being well before the printing press was available.

As far as the Dead Sea Scrolls go, they were Jewish writings, not Christian ones.

Jesus as married

According to Brown's version Jesus married Mary Magdalene and their daughter initiated a royal bloodline in France.

Again his critics would say ,no this isn't true at all. The Magdalene myth came to the forefront in medieval times. I think it is true that the popularity of this whole scene is sensationalism. This is what sells especially to those who are unhappy with traditional answers.

The lawyer, Justice Peter Smith, who recently defended Brown in his troubles with plagiarism said this:

"Merely because an author describes matters as being factually correct does not mean that they are factually correct. It is a way of blending fact and fiction together to create that well known model "faction." The lure of apparent genuineness makes the books and the films more receptive to the readers/audiences. The danger of course is that the faction is all that large parts of the audience read, and they accept it as truth."

That my friends, pretty much sums it up for me. Follow the money trail all the way to the movies.




Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on May 02, 2006
Dan Brown is a conspiracy theorist without peer. He has written books about plots of the Catholic Church, the Illuminati (Angels and Demons) and the US Gevernment (Digital Fortress) to take over the world.

He has also said in an interview that he believes in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, so Jews do not escape his paranoia either.

But KFC, I urge you to read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagel for a historical (not fictional) discussion of the Gnostic Gospels. I also recommend Who Wrote the Bible as a good text. You are clearly a believer and one who is impassioned about their beliefs. Both of which are good things, I might add. The texts that I recommend are not novels, don't have car chases or suspense, but are readable discussions of what we know about the beginnings of religion.

Thanks for the article.
on May 02, 2006
But KFC, I urge you to read The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagel for a historical (not fictional) discussion of the Gnostic Gospels.


Oh heck yes! I have them, as well as 'The Other Bible' and I have to say that they certainly opened my eyes and even renewed my faith. They also answered a lot of questions...

Dan Brown is a conspiracy theorist without peer

He's also a writer of what I consider to be pulp fiction - The Code and Angels and Demons are utter crap, IMO. Not just the conspiracy theories, but the voodoo theology too - plus it's poorly written.

Why and how it managed to make the bestseller list I do not know.
on May 02, 2006
hmm thanks guys. I will check on that book if I can find it. I know how Dharma feels on the gnostics but are you a believer in these books as well Larry?

Why and how it managed to make the bestseller list I do not know.


ya, me too. The only thing I can figure out is that it gives a supposed answer to the traditional held belief that the bible is divine as it is written.



on May 02, 2006

Haven't read the book, won't be seeing the movie.

For some reason this never appealed to me.  But books that call Christ a liar, even if fiction, don't do much for me anyway.

on May 02, 2006
"but are you a believer in these books as well Larry?"

Just to clarify, both the books that I referenced are historical texts. I believe in history. I also think that if you believe the Bible to be important, you want to know as much as you can about it.

Saul of Tarsus, who became Paul, for example, was a Pharisee. We know this because he said "I am a Pharisee." (Pretty convincing.) Thats from Acts, if I remember correctly. So, who were the Pharisees? How did they fit into Judaism of that time and what is the connection with Christianity? This is recorded in histories.

The Gnostic Gospels were hidden in an earthenware container in the desert for more than a thousand years. They were found by a murderer and his sons. The story of the Gnostic Gospels unearthing is so odd that if Dan Brown had written it, we would consider it far-fetched.

Dharmagirl, since Gnostic means a seeker or possessor of knowledge, I consider myself one.
on May 02, 2006
I have a pertinant question, slightly off subject.

what kind of hebrew names are JOHN, MARK, MATTHEW AND LUKE?

Which of the 12 tribes did they come from?
on May 02, 2006
what kind of hebrew names are JOHN, MARK, MATTHEW AND LUKE?


I'm not well-versed. A transliteration of the Arabic versions in a modern Bible might be: Matta, Marqus, Luqa, and Yohanna.

Okay, that probably didn't help at all. Still, gave me an excuse to get out my Arabic language Bible.


As far as DVC goes: I harbored no illusions that it was anything but fiction. Unlike Dharma, I found it an entertaining read, and I went on to read his other books (Angels & Demons, Digital Fortress, and Deception Point).

Personally, I think he insists on the "factuality" of his information because it sells better that way. The more plausible it is, the easier it is to talk about. If it's a work of obvious fiction, then it's just a story...
on May 02, 2006
Yohanna.

For some reason now I cant take this song out of my head: "Give me hope Johanna, Give me hope Johanna" *reggae bit* Eehah!
on May 03, 2006
For some reason now I cant take this song out of my head


You're welcome. I seem to have a knack for that.

One time at work, I simply chatted, "Do the Hustle!" on the internal IRC. About 1/2 dozen people immediately got the song stuck in their head.
on May 03, 2006
I read the book. For a work that claimed such a high level of scholarship the number of irritating (to me) errors of fact was phenomenally high and I'm not a scholar of religious history by any means. His quaint stereotypes (particularly the British ones) were (unintentionally) laughable also...
... still the whole thing was couched as an adventure yarn and I did read it through to the end.
on May 03, 2006
and tova, no where in it does the author claim that "Christ was a liar." The church, yes, Christ, no.)


I didn't mean to imply he writes the words "Christ is a liar."

I mean that Christ said when he stood in the temple that the prophecy of the Messiah is fullfilled. What do we know about the Messiah from a Biblical perspective?

So if Christ is the Messiah of prophecy of the OT, then Him being being married for instance does not fit with the prophecy. So the implication being He is lying about who He is....

Of course I may not have a handle on the book at all..and I do understand it is fiction. But I also know there are things in that book (like Christ being married) that just do not mesh with what I believe is truth.

If someone wrote a book of (what I consider) lies about my husband, then called it fiction. I probably wouldn't like it either.
on May 03, 2006

The book does not bother me, nor will the movie.  Truth be told, I find the whole thing very boring, and that is why I probably will not see it.

on May 03, 2006
The book does not bother me, nor will the movie. Truth be told, I find the whole thing very boring, and that is why I probably will not see it.


I'd agree with you Dr Guy. The book was terrible - every single fairly uncontroversial statement buried in a tonne of unnecessary documentation. It was like reading a action story in the columns of a 1978 Holden Ute's service manual. Sure, there was something there, and it may even be interesting, but it's so surrounded by mind-numbing boredom that it's hardly worth it.

And I usually like Church conspiracy theories; there's nothing more comforting in life than blaming its inadequacies on evil plots. Compared to the other versions though this one was pretty ordinary.
on May 03, 2006
I believe in history

As do I.

Dharmagirl, since Gnostic means a seeker or possessor of knowledge, I consider myself one.


Again, as do I. That's why I have an oroborous tattooed on my right arm.

I read the books, but Dan Brown just doesn't entertain me. His style is somewhat predictable, i think....and he just doesn't float my literary boat.
on May 03, 2006
So if Christ is the Messiah of prophecy of the OT, then Him being being married for instance does not fit with the prophecy.

This is really interesting. Could you please tell me where it is prophesied that the Messiah will be unmarried. It seems very unusual from a Jewish (OT) perspective.
2 Pages1 2