The Da Vinci Code movie is being released on DVD on November 14th. If you haven’t seen it yet, now’s your chance to finally see what everyone’s been talking about. The international best-selling novel has sold over 60 million copies in 44 languages, and now the movie has grossed hundreds of millions of dollars around the world. Why is this story so popular? What’s the big attraction?
The reason that The Da Vinci Code sold so many books, movie tickets, and soon DVDs isn’t Dan Brown’s writing ability. (It’s a fast paced, fun tale, but plenty of those are written every year.) No, it’s clearly the controversial content that has made it such a bestseller.
So if you’re wondering which, if any, of the supposedly historical facts in the movie are accurate, you aren’t alone. Here is a sampling of some of the issues raised by the movie:
- Was Jesus considered “merely a man” before Constantine? - No. There’s no evidence the early church believed this. Even the early 2nd century heretics were suggesting that Jesus was only God and NOT a man. (See also this streaming video)
- Did the church run a “smear campaign” against Mary Magdalene? - No. Mary is spoken of positively in the Gospels and made a Saint by the church.
- Were there really “more than eighty gospels” written? - No. The few other ancient writings we possess are much later than the biblical records and thus were never considered historically accurate.
- Did Leonardo Paint Mary into the Last Supper? - No. It would make no difference even if he did; but read the article for six good reasons why we know he didn’t.
- Did Leonardo Da Vinci hate the Bible? - No. All of the quotes from Leonardo in The Da Vinci Code are misquoted. Leonardo was not referring to the Bible or Christianity in any of them!
The reason the story captivates people is that there is something about the person of Jesus Christ that just intrigues. He enchants our minds and our hearts. When we consider what really know about Him, the real Jesus outside of The Da Vinci Code fiction, author Max Lucado asks “What do we do with such a person? We applaud men for doing good things. We enshrine God for doing great things. But when a man does God things? One thing is for sure, we can’t ignore him. Why would we want to?” (Max Lucado, Next Door Savior)
The real Jesus is much more incredible than the false one portrayed in Brown’s Code. If Brown’s book has piqued your curiosity, you can explore the life of Christ for yourself with an interactive online experience called Who is Jesus?, a free, guided, 5 part course available through thelife.com, or continue reading this blog.
15 Comments
Feed for this entry
Trackback Address
November 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
?All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” Brown is correct. –this statement of truth does not include any of the topics you are talking about, emmzee.
All the discriptions of the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are actually true. The scholars may disagree with the number of gospels written, or the ancient “smear campaign”, but no scholar denies the description of the Mona Lisa or the structure of the Rose, as Brown promised.
I also have to say Dan Brown has an exceptional writing ability and wit. True the material for the story is compelling and exiting, but I fail to see how this makes Brown any less of an author or unworthy of being a bestseller. The story is thought provoking and I surely hope no one thinks such a story is a bad thing.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Xander, thanks for your comments! Though I think that saying Brown’s truth statement doesn’t include anything I referred to above is not really correct. For example, when Brown (through Teabing) suggests that the pre-Constantine Jesus was considered just a man, he must be relying on documents … that’s the way that a historical case must be made. Without documents, it’s just an unfounded idea. The reference to the “80 gospels” that were being considered is false, and directly refers to documents. Another incorrect statement re documents: the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any “gospels”, or any new testament writings for that matter. They contain Old Testament documents and Old Testament Apocrypha as well as other Jewish (pre-Christian) writings.
There’s plenty of other examples too, like for example re architecture: There are not 666 panes of glass in the Louvre. There are actually 673, as confirmed by Louvre staff. That’s a clear (albeit minor) example of a description of architecture, changed subtly by Brown to fit his novel.
A relatively complete list of such discrepancies can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_Da_Vinci_Code
Again, there’s nothing wrong with writing a “thought provoking” story, and no one thinks writing stories is a bad thing. The problem is that Brown’s book has caused a lot of confusion about issues that are extremely important to Christians, and all of the problems and criticisms could have been solved by Brown including a simple disclaimer re the tenuous (at best) nature of the historicity of the book; but there is no such disclaimer. Brown wants to have his cake and eat it too: He wants to be able to market the book as a “historical thriller” while at the same time hiding behind the “it’s just fiction” excuse when his work is challenged.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I agree fully with Xander. Whether or not a book is based on facts or is purely fiction should not matter at all. Both the book and the movie are excellent works of art that have moved many people.
December 30th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Can I direct anyone with an interest in The Da Vinci Code to my new blog, The Chasms of the Earth, an attempt to unpick the stylistic enigmas of Brown’s prose….
January 8th, 2007 at 1:54 am
http://www.sukip.com/ItemDetail.php?Item=I442
Some interesting facts about hte book can be found here
January 15th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
YOU GUYS
cant you see that dan brown is a illuminati whore who cannot even count the steps at louvre.
there are 673 steps at louvre if your maths is not as bad as brown’s go and recount it.
this illuminati whore dan brown has written slander and you guys buy and read his books.
jesus/God is the saviour
the illuminati random whore published this crap book to brainwash guys like you. you are programmable robots.
open your eyes see the truthFirst they came for Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda
and I did not speak out…
because I was not Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda!
Then they came for General David McCloud,
and I did not speak out…
because I was not General David McCloud!
Then they came for Vince Foster
and I did not speak out…
because I was not Vince Foster!
Then they came for William Colby
and I did not speak out
because I was not William Colby!
Then they came for Princess Diana
and I did not speak out
because I was not Princess Diana!
Then they came for Anna Politkovskaya
and I did not speak out
because I was not Anna Politkovskaya!
Recently they came for Alexander Walterovich Litvinenko,
and I did not speak out
because I was not Alexander Litvinenko!
Tomorrow they will come for me
and alas, there will be no one left
to speak out for me….
———————-
remember me in 2008 before you decide…
“an unknown patriot”
P.S. Please forward to every American on the internet.
January 17th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Illuminatti Order, I think your tinfoil hat has slipped off, keep taking the medication, the voices will eventually stop.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Dear readers,
The ?Da Vinci Code movie? is one of the worst movie I have ever seen.
When you read ?Da Vinci Code? book, you experience a feeling of conspiracy hypothesis. But when I saw the movie ?Da vinci Code?, I thought: way are some parts of the book left away? I think that Hollywood have transformed a real good book to a very annoying movie.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Dear Rimi,
Finally someone sad the truth about the ‘Da Vince Code’ movie! I do also think that this movie is one of the worse filming ever. I have not reed the whole book yet, but I do think the book is much better. I wonder if you also have an opinion about the movie Lord of the Rings, cause I really think this filming is great.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:43 am
The Da Vinci Code
The Book
Dan Browns book The Da Vinci Code is a compelling read a rare novel that you have to continue to read and are unable to put down. The story and the characters draw you in and you believe in them, you are transposed into them so you become a part of the action and you care about what happens to them.
The devilishly clever plot takes you on a journey of discovery through the past and present and the fact that there are elements within the book that are real; such as the places, the art and the organisations leads the reader to believe in the story. You are constantly on the edge of your seat from the very beginning to the very end and never once do you think you know what the outcome will be as the plot twists and turns are so expertly written. The thoroughly enjoyable and compelling read.
The Film
The film was a big disappointment after reading the book, after only 30 minutes I had become disheartened with the calibre of the film. As with a lot of today?s films it was dark and you felt you missed a lot. Tom Hanks was not a great choice for Robert Langdon he often looked uncomfortable and out of his depth. He was not convincing as a professor in the subject. The colourful descriptions used in the book failed to be applied to the film and it lost a lot of its excitement in the translation from book to screen.
March 15th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Hi,
I am posting in the hope of getting some help for my research on the promotion for ‘The Da Vinci Code’ film. I can see you all have an interest in this and wondered if you would like to answer some questions on a forum I have created http://www.network54.com/Forum/559052/, it shouldn’t take long but the more detailed you are the better!
This would really help me out and any comments you give would be really beneficial to my research! I hope you can help!
Thanks!
Tina
December 9th, 2007 at 6:14 am
What people don’t seem to get is that Dan Brown is a writer of fiction. DA VINCI Code was not meant to be factual. Why people are tearing it apart as if it is a text book on Christianity os puzzling. Brown meant Da VINCI to be a page-turning thriller, nothing else. If anything he’s guilty of taking other writer’s concepts ( that Jesus survived crucifixion and with his family moved to southern France where the descendents were protected by a mysterious organization) and turning them into his own profitable book. People shouldn’t get so serious about it. A novel should not be perceived as being a threat to anyone’s faith. If it is, then there is somewthing wreong with that person’s faith. It’s not very strong to be threatened so easily. As to emmzee’s ‘facts’ as to what the earliest Christians thought or didn’t think, this is as much fiction as Brown’s work. How do you know how many gospels were written? How do you know what the first Christians thought about Mary Magdalene? Were you there. Nothing is truly known about Mary or for that matter Jesus. The surviving gospels in the New testament were written after Jesus’s death by men who didn’t personally know him. Who can say how accurate any of it is? If you choose to take certain things on faith, that is fine. That is your right. But other people have the right to believe other thinsg. And Mr. Brown can still be a Christian, and a good one at that, even if he chooses to write a fanciful novel depicting Jesus in some other way than the Biblical way. Freedom of speech, baby. Get over it.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
PLEASE NOTIFY ME OF COMMENTS
July 9th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I loved the book and found it very believable and it made perfect sense to me too. Peter, i completely agree with you, we don’t know anything about Jesus or Mary’s life, we only rely on Bible which is written by men, inspired by God.
Anyways, throughout the book i really admired the Brown’s style and his thoughts. I believed it and was even a little disappointed when i read on the first page or somewhere on title page that the whole thing is only a fiction, and is not based on any true story.
So i really don’t understand why this comments about accuracy of the novel?
Darren, maybe you should stop looking for something that wasn’t meant to be there. That is just a great fiction!
July 10th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Thank you Peter and galia for your comments! The purpose of this type of forum is to encourage the open exchange of ideas, so no one is suggesting that anyone’s freedom of speech be limited in any way.
I personally have no confusion regarding whether Dan Brown’s work is fiction or not; I’m quite aware that it is fiction. I don’t find it a “threat” to my faith.
However, many people are/were confused regarding the nature of his work, even if you and I are not, in part because he himself has made statements that many parts of the book are fact, and even provides a list of books by authors like Michael Baigent which are *not* intended to be fiction and upon which his book’s fictional narrative is largely based (as Peter has pointed out). So it’s not surprising that during “on the street” interviews conducted for the filming of the BBC/Discover Channel documentary “The Real Da Vinci Code” many people considered the book to contain many important “truths”. Like it or not, many people uncritically accept many things they read in pseudo-historical books like this, and the historical inaccuracies (not mere differences of opinion, demonstrable false information) found here could color a reader’s impression of the Jesus of the Bible and thereby limit their opportunity to explore Him as the life changing Savior many have come to know.
In response to some of the specific questions raised:
“How do you know how many gospels were written?” I’ve researched it; if you do the same, you won’t find the eighty other gospels that Dan Brown’s novel mentions.
“How do you know what the first Christians thought about Mary Magdalene?” The same way that we know how anyone thought about anything in the past: Research. We possess many ancient writings from the early church, and merely have to read them to discover what their opinions were on any particular topic.
“Nothing is truly known about Mary or for that matter Jesus.” From this statement we can assume that you are dismissing the New Testament as mere myth. We should not do so out of hand, and instead perhaps ask, ‘Are there reasons to take this material seriously?’ (Besides, even if someone were to totally discount the Bible as a historical source, which I think is unwarranted, we can still know some things about Jesus from sources outside the Bible.)
“The surviving gospels in the New testament were written after Jesus’s death by men who didn’t personally know him.” How do you know this? Were you there? (Sorry, couldn’t resist; referencing back to your comment “How do you know … Were you there.”!) But seriously, as I explain in my free ebook ( http://www.whyfaith.com/nt ) there are good reasons to believe that the New Testament books, the gospels in particular, were composed by eyewitnesses or those who consulted directly with eyewitnesses. This is not merely accepting this idea on faith; I give reasons to justify such a belief. I think they’re persuasive. You may not; and you’re free to that opinion. But unless a person is able to give better reasons to justify their position, it won’t be persuasive to me.
“Who can say how accurate any of it is?” I’d say we can make educated decisions based on the available evidence; ‘inference to the best explanation’.
From galia: “we don’t know anything about Jesus or Mary’s life, we only rely on Bible which is written by men, inspired by God.” I may be misunderstanding you, but I admit that I don’t really ‘get’ this comment. If we rely on the Bible, which you say is inspired by God, how can we not know anything about Jesus or Mary’s life? It seems to me we can rely on the Bible as being accurate, or say that we know nothing about Jesus, but we can’t do both at the same time, because one implies the other … If the Bible is indeed God’s word, even if it was physically written down by men, then we know truths about Jesus, namely what we find in it. However, if it is not accurate, we should not rely on it at all. Do you agree?
Two decent books on these topics are Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for the Real Jesus”. Strobel is a Yale Law School graduate who was the legal editor for the Chicago Tribune … here he interviews top scholars for their reasons for believing. Also, my ebook mentioned above covers many topics relevant to the New Testament, although not the DVC specifically.