The Da Vinci Code: Fact, Fiction, and ReligiousFriction

Released in March 2003, DanBrown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’ quicklymade the ‘New York Times’ bestsellerlist. A year later, it wasdeclared a bestseller in 100countries, while ‘Doubleday’, thepublisher call it ‘The all time,bestselling adult novel’.

The author claims to have giventhe world a fictional, fact-basedconspiracy theory, alleging‘scientific evidence that the New Testamentis false testimony’. (Page 341).

But as a good read combined withbad history is not something wecan stake our lives on. ChristiansI have discussed the book with,

were confused. One said, as did so many others:

‘I don’t know where to turn now. I read ‘The Da Vinci Code’. It was aninteresting book until I got to the part where this Brown istalking about how Christianity began and how it’s all false andthat Christianity is basically a lie stolen from Pagan religions.And what of this Holy Grail and Secret Societies and the Churchchanging facts and removing parts of the Bible? How true is itall? Also, so much of it makes sense. There are things that I hadread of before and ignored. But I’ve got to know now! Is the lastthirty years I’ve been a Christian all a lie? Did it all happenthe way this bloke says? Was Jesus just a man and was he marriedto Mary Magdalene? I everything I was raised to believe just madeup for the sake of money? Now I’m beginning to doubt if there isa Heaven, of God, and a Jesus!’

Not what I expected to hear, but in re-reading the book, I foundthat it has a storyline that makes it difficult to know where thetruth begins and ends. Although it is written as a novel, thisconspirational murder mystery claims to be based on well-researched historical facts – facts that contradict historicalChristianity.

The book begins with the murder of Jacques Saunière, curator ofthe Louvre Museum in Paris. As he is dying, Jacques hears hismurderer say: ‘When you are gone, I will be the only one whoknows the truth!’

‘The Truth!’ In an instant the curator grasped the true horror ofthe situation. ‘If I die,’ he whispered, mumbled in pain, ‘thetruth will be lost forever’. (Page 4).

With the bullet lodged in his stomach, the Curator was gripped bya fear far greater than the thought of his own death. ‘I mustpass on the secret’. He thought of the generations who had comebefore, of the mission they had each been entrusted to keep. ‘Anunbroken chain of knowledge,’ he muttered – and suddenly herealized that despite all the fail-safes, he was the onlyremaining link, the sole guardian of one of the most powerfulsecrets ever kept. Shivering, he dragged himself on. ‘I must finda way…’

While in Paris on business, a Harvard Professor, Robert Langdon,receives an urgent call. The curator of the Louvre Art Museum hasbeen found murdered. The police are baffled by an encoded messageleft by the dead man and the writing daubed with his blood.

Langdon follows the rail that leads him to clues left among theworks of Leonardo Da Vinci. He is joined by Cryptologist SophieNevue, Saunière’s granddaughter. Together they discover that thedead curator was part of a Secret Society – The Priory of Sion –whose members included Isaac Newton; Victor Hugo; and Leonardo DaVinci.

Beyond the scene, Opus Dei, a Catholic lay organization is alsoplotting to prevent the discovery of another ancient secret: TheHoly Grail, also hidden in the Priory of Sion for centuries. Ifdiscovered, I would shake the foundations of the Church and thefaith it has proclaimed for a millennia.

Dan Brown’s plot draws strength from public knowledge of the pastand present Church scandals, and so many critics have recommendedit as a good provocative read.

But many Christians and especially the Roman Catholic Church areshaken by the book’s alleged exposé of the historic church andit’s Bible. Since followers of the Christ stake their lives onthe Biblical record, The Da Vinci Code touched a nerve when itsexperts declared the Church had two thousand years experience inpressurizing those who threatened to unveil its lies! ‘Since thedays of Constantine the Church successfully hid the truth aboutMary Magdalene and Jesus. We should not be surprised now, onceagain, they have found a way to keep the world in the dark’.(Page 407).

Brown claims ancient evidence that Jesus was NOT a God-Man asdescribed by the Church. Instead the novel’s ‘experts’ describeJesus as a mere man who had a child with Mary Magdalene and gaveto her the responsibility of leading his disciples after He wasgone.

The source of these allegations is a collection of ancientGnostic Gospels found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1943. ‘The SecretBook of James’ and ‘The Gospel of Thomas’ are just two of the documentsthat reflect the ancient philosophy of Gnosticism.

From the early days of the Christian Church, Gnostics promoted adifferent view of Christ. They claimed to know of a ‘secretknowledge’ that was necessary in order to know the truth aboutGod.

Regarding this second century teaching of Gnosticism, The New BibleDictionary says:

‘From the standpoint of traditional Christianity, Gnosticthinking is quite alien. It’s mythological setting ofredemption leads to a depreciation of the historical eventsof the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s view ofman’s relationship to God leads to a denial of theimportance of the personal work of the Christ, while in aGnostic context ‘salvation’ is not understood ion terms ofdeliverance from sin, but as a form of existential self-realisation’.

Although the Gnostic Gospels are second and third centurywritings, Brown regards them as the ‘Lost Books of the Bible’that represent the true picture of Jesus and His works. As such,Secret Knowledge – Goddess Worship – and self Deification emergedas an ‘Alternative Theory’ to the historic record of the Bible.

My readers must know that early Church leaders found consensus inexamining and determining whether ancient Christian documentswere sacred. They called for some basic answers:

Was it written by an Apostle of the Church or by someone whohad direct contact with the Apostles?

Did the writings in question receive wide acceptance asbeing consistent with the teachings of the Christ and theApostles?

Did they bear the mark of spiritual power and truth?

None of the Gnostic Gospels measure up to the New Testament’sstandard of ‘Reliable Documents’. Instead of being consistentwith the earliest and most reliable eyewitness accounts, andinstead of resting on the foundations of the Jewish Scriptures,the Gnostic Gospels reflect a world view that is foreign to bothOld and New Testaments. And yet, there are so many I know of whotake ‘The Da Vinci Code’ seriously.

On the title page, Brown claims: ‘All descriptions of Artwork, Architecture,Documents, and Secret Rituals in this novel are accurate’. In addition, heoffers a lengthy list of acknowledgements, giving the impression

that all of his prestigious sources and institutions collaboratedwith him in his research. Since so much of the complex plot andtheme-development depends on Brown’s claim of legitimate researchinto real people, times and places, it is easy for the reader toassume that the backbone of this book is credible and where the‘heroes’ of the novel are ‘Seekers of Truth’ who will lead us tohigher ground – as when the Harvard Professor says:

‘I am a historian. I’m opposed to the destruction ofdocuments, and I would love to see religious scholarsholding on to more information to ponder on the exceptionallife of Jesus the Christ’. (Page 342)

There is the apparent passion for the truth expressed by anotherof the book’s ‘heroes’ – a researcher named Teabing, who says:

‘It’s a matter of historical record – and ‘Da Vinci’ wascertainly aware of the fact. The ‘Last Supper’ practicallyshouts to all viewers that Jesus and Magdalene are a pair –and the marriage of Jesus and Magdalene is part ofhistorical record! (Pages 244-245).

Taking a closer look, however, the book’s alleged factual basisdoes not stand up. In his book, ‘The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code’Richard Abanes says:

Most critics would acknowledge that Brown has the right tosay whatever he wishes to say. What is problematic, however,is the way that he, his publisher and the media have beenpresenting ‘The Da Vinci Code’ as a fact-based exposé whereinthe characters reveal TRUTHS long hidden from or at the veryleast, ignored by the general public’.

This observation isimportant because Brownhas repeatedly insistedthat his novel is based onfact. During oneinterview, he said: ‘One of

the many qualities that makes ‘The Da Vinci Code’ unique is the factual nature ofthe story. All the History, Artwork, Ancient Documents and Secret Rituals in thenovel are accurate – as are the hidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci’s mostfamous paintings’.

This is what makes thebook so misleading. Itclaims to be an accurateportrayal of history butis a clever mix of fact and fiction. Are we then to accept it asHistorical Fiction and leave it at that? Oh no! HistoricalFiction is a genre of literature in which imaginary characterslive within the realistic boundaries of known facts.

In her work: ‘Using Historical Fiction in the History Classroom’, (Yale-New HavenTeachers’ Institute), Sarah K. Herz writes:

‘The author of Historical Fiction must blend historicalfacts with imagination and creative style to master his/herart and must be a master of the past so as to portrayaccurately his/her ideas, attitudes, tendencies and themes,and weave his/her story – accurate in all its details – intothe thematic material. Historians and Novelists often differin their points of view about the historical novel and itspurpose but however, both agree that the writer ofhistorical fiction must NOT distort past reality and mustNOT manipulate historical facts to make the novel moreinteresting or exciting’.

By this definition, ‘The Da Vinci Code’ would need to develop its plotwith historical integrity. If challenged on his facts, the authorcannot rightfully say, ‘It’s only a novel.’ This only places hisreaders in a schizophrenic world of fact and fiction. What thewriter has done is write an ‘alternate history’ without givinghis readers the ability to see where his facts begin or end.Literary scholars may spot the difference, but how many otherreaders will?

The Last Supper is a late 15th-century muralpainting by Leonardo da Vinci in the refectory

of the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie,

Let’s see how this crooked history of the book plays out withelements that are alleged to be factual. There are claims about‘The Holy Grail’, ‘The Priory of Sion’, and ‘The KnightsTemplar’. Are they historically true? The book claims that thelegendary Holy Grail is a person – Mary Magdalene – who carriesthe bloodline of Jesus by having His child. The book also treats

as fact, the existence of asecret society called thePriory of Sion which, forcenturies, had kept thesecret of Jesus’relationship with MaryMagdalene, who, accordingto this bestselling novel,represents the ‘FeminineAspect’ of God (The DevineFeminine); loved by Jesusbut denied by the Churchfor hundreds of years. TheKnights Templar are also

included as protectors of the secret, but were all wiped out bythe Church.

Shall we now submit these ‘Facts’ to a reality check? The HolyGrail is a medieval legend about ‘The Cup of The Last Supper’.The first appearance of the term was in 1170, in ‘Percival’ – aromantic writing about the legend of King Arthur and The Kingdomof Camelot. Brown altered the legend and used it to advancefictional claims about Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

The Priory of Sion DOES have its basis in fact but not in thesense that Brown has perceived orportrayed it. The Priory title has

been used three different times. At first it was a Monastic Orderfounded in Jerusalem in 1100, and absorbed by the Jesuits in1617.

The second and third Priories of Sion were under Pierre Plantard[1920-2000] – an anti-Semite Frenchman who was jailed in 1953 for

Representation of a praying Knights Templar

fraud. Plantard formed a group he called the Priory of Sion tohelp those in need of low-cost housing. In the 1960s and 70s hecreated a series of forged documents to prove the existence of abloodline descending from Jesus and Mary Magdalene through theknights of France and himself and then claimed to be the rightfulheir to the Throne of France. He and his associates calledthemselves the Priory of Sion and sent forged copies of thesedocuments to libraries all over France as well as to the NationalLibrary. In 1993 however, Plantard admitted under oath to aFrench judge that he had fabricated the documents. The judge gavehim a sever warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank.Readers will find all this in detail if they log on towww.priory-of-sion.com.

The Knights Templar are also based in History but not as Brownportrays them. They were founded in 1118 as a military religiousorder but they did not become wealthy by discovering the story ofThe Holy Grail as alleged in the novel. There is no evidence thatthey were annihilated for having knowledge of it either.

Brown bolsters the significance of the Priory of Sion by claiminga little-known connection to Leonardo Da Vinci and Isaac Newton,but he bases these assertations on Plantard’s documents calledLes Dossiers secrets d’Henri Labineau. Brown uses these as legitimatedocuments. In the light of all this, other factual claims inBrown’s book also need to be carefully looked at.

One of Brown’s claims is that Da Vinci left clues to his beliefs,hidden in his art. Brown’s main characters are Robert Langdon,Sophie Neveau and Leigh Teabing – all experts at deciphering codeand interpreting symbols. This is one of the most compellingaspects of the novel. It points out, and accurately too, thatLeonardo was known to have used ‘Reverse Text’ which could beread with a mirror, for some of his ‘Progressive theories on art,astronomy, geology, archaeology and hydrology’. (Page 300).

But these are scientific, not religious, and Da Vinci was amongthe Renaissance scientists who had to be careful not to raisesuspicion that their theories were challenging established Church

doctrines on Creation. Brown used this to hint that Da Vinci leftclues about secret religious beliefs and portrayed Da Vinci as aGoddess-Worshipper, who left reverse messages in his art todeclare that his views on Jesus were not in line with theteachings of the Church. Can we believe this claim? Art critics,who have no interest in defending the Church, have rejected theidea. They have said that Brown’s ‘hidden clues’ to Leonard’ssecret faith exist solely in Brown’s imagination and are beingused to make a conspiracy theory plausible.

And what of Opus Dei? Early in the book, a ‘tortured soul’ by thename of Silas, is introduced as a faithful assassin, doing the‘work of the Lord’. Silas turns out to be a member of Opus Dei,complete with a spiked belt for self-mortification and awillingness to murder all enemies of the Sacred Society. Brownbegins his book by stating:

‘The Vatican Prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devoutCatholic Sect that has been the topic of recent controversydue to the reports of Brainwashing; Coercion; and adangerous practice known as Corporal Mortification.

‘Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 MillionNational Headquarters at 243, Lexington Avenue in New YorkCity’

Here again the book alleges to have uncovered ‘secrets’ about theChurch. The truth is that the real Opus Dei is a Roman CatholicLay Organization that emphasizes piety and good works. Its’founder, Josemaria Escriva, was born in Babastros, Spain in 1902and created Opus Dei – (Work of God) – to empower lay peopleinstead of focusing on spirituality of the clergy. Thecharacteristics of Opus Dei are self-denial and sacrificial goodworks within the context of the Roman Catholic Church, but it isportrayed by Brown as existing solely to protect the documents ofthe Priory of Sion, pertaining to the secret relationship betweenJesus and Mary Magdalene.

Brown also states that:

‘Powerful men in the early Christian Church ‘conned’ theworld by propagating lies that devalued the female andtilted the scales in the favour of the masculine –

‘Constantine and his male successors converted the worldfrom matriarchal paganism to Patriarchal Christianity bywaging a campaign of propaganda that demonized the SacredFeminine.’ (Page 124).

In addition he refers to the Catholic Inquisition and to itsvictims:

‘They included all Female scholars, Priestesses, Gypsies,Mystics, Nature Lovers, Herb Gatherers, and any womansuspiciously attached to the Natural World. Midwives werealso killed for their heretical practices of using medicalknowledge to ease the pain of childbirth.’ (Page 125).

It is public knowledge that followers of the Christ have notalways treated women with the love and respect that Jesus Himselfshowed to women who followed Him, Yet, the truth is that thepersecuted groups listed by Brown, were not specifically targetedbecause of their gender. The Inquisition targeted both men ANDwomen – priests, nuns, artists, transients, and political enemiesamong others. To the extent that Brown is right about theChurch’s historically recorded devaluation of women, it iscorrect to say that followers of Jesus missed the spirit of theirown scriptures and the words of their leaders.

For two thousand years the Bible had urged the renouncing of thefertility cults and Goddess-Worship of pagan religions, but ithad also urged its flock to reject the patriarchal culture thattreats women as servile, as sexual objects, or as property.Jesus’ treatment of women and the Apostle Paul’s teaching [inEphesians 5:25] that men should love their wives as Jesus lovedthe Church has brought about a change, and the Church raised thestatus of women from ‘legal property’ to what Saint Peter [in 1Peter 3:7] said of their relationship to be ‘co-heirs in Christ’.

According to Brown, Jesus wanted Mary Magdalene to restore to theChurch the concept of the Sacred Feminine. As such, Brown hadRobert Langdon, the Harvard symbologist to use the book toexplain:

‘The Holy Grail represents the Sacred Feminine, and theGoddess which, of course has now been lost, virtuallyeliminated from the Church. The power of the Female and herability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed athreat to the predominantly male Church and so the SacredFeminine was demonized and called unclean’. (Page 218).

By this rationale and with second century Gnostic documents,Brown built his case that Jesus took Mary Magdalene as His wifeand also planned to make her founder of His Church. (Page 254).

But the New Testament portrayal of Mary Magdalene is in sharpcontrast to Brown’s vile story of her. According to the Gospel ofSaint Mark, Jesus delivered her from seven demons – [Mark 19:9].Grateful to be freed, she became His follower, and with manyothers, provided financial support to Jesus and His disciples –[Luke 8:1-3]. She was also the first to see Jesus after HisResurrection – [John 20:1-18].

The New Testament gives us a picture of Jesus and Mary Magdalenethat is honourable and beyond reproach. Their relationship isconsistent with that of a woman who, along with the others,followed the Man who could heal shattered legs; urn water intowine; heal lepers; walk on water and raise the dead. There was nohint of any romantic involvement. Also the New Testament givesindirect evidence that Jesus never got married.

In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul asks: ‘Do we have no right to takealong with us a believing wife as also do the other apostles, thebrothers of the Lord, and Cephas?’ Wouldn’t Paul have includedJesus’ name if He were also married?

But no evidence seemed to convince Brown who has one of his maincharacters claim: ‘Almost everything our fathers taught us about the Christis false!’ (Page 235).

In the context of a novel, such a statement could reflect‘Freedom of Speech’ and rotten speech at that!

Darrell L. Bock, Ph.D., Research Professor of New TestamentStudies at Dallas Theological Seminary, says in his book ‘Breakingthe Da Vinci Code’:

‘Most scholars have long believed that Jesus was single. –No earthly Christian text we possess, either Biblical orextra-Biblical, indicates the presence of a wife during Hisministry, His crucifixion, or after His resurrection.Whenever texts mention Jesus’ family, they refer to Hismother, brothers, sisters, but never to a wife. What ismore, there is no hint that He was widowed’.

Bock then gives three arguments against Brown’s claim that Jesusand Mary Magdalene were married:

1. Mary Magdalene was never tied to any male when she was namedby her parents – [Matthew 27:55-56] – [Mark 15:40-41] –[Luke 8:2] – [John19:25].

2. A Minister’s right to marry was cited without reference toJesus – [1 Corinthians 9:4-6].

3. Jesus showed no special concern for Mary Magdalene even asHe was hung on the Cross – [John 19:25-27].

I have kept meeting with the argument that even though the Biblegives us compelling reason to conclude that Jesus and Magdalenenever married, why should such claims be trusted over the claimsof the Gnostic Gospels and The Da Vinci Code? May I remind that thetrustworthiness of any document depends on its ability to standup under time-tested criteria?

In the ancient Greek world Aristotle cast a spreading shadow ofscholarly and scientific insight that touches us even today. Long

before the invention of the Printing Press, Aristotle used well-reasoned criteria for recognizing the trustworthiness of anancient document, and listed three guidelines:

1. Was the Person an eyewitness to the event he recorded?2. How many copies of the record do we have, and how close are

they to the event they describe?3. Are there other sources outside of the document that

corroborated the document’s claims?

To this day historians follow these guidelines and they remainthe foundation of the science of Textual Criticism.

The Gnostic Gospels reflect Gnostic doctrines and there is norecord of witnesses. Also, they were written some 200 years afterthe life of Christ!

It was, I should say, an ‘anything goes’ effort! And this is justwhat ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is: - another ‘anything goes exercise’ thathas put millions in the author’s pocket!

Let’s take Brown’s view on Constantine:

‘Constantine was a life-long Pagan who was baptized on hisdeath-bed, too weak to protest – Rome’s official religionwas Sun-Worship, the Cult of Sol Invictus of the InvincibleSun, and Constantine was its Head Priest.’ (Page 232).

This is a deliberate historical distortion. Constantine, theFourth Century Emperor, confessed to a life-changing experiencethat caused him to reverse a long-standing prosecution policyagainst Christians. By his Edict of Milan in AD 313, he extendedto Christianity the toleration granted to other religions of theday.

It was a fact that Roman Emperors were regarded as PontifexMaximus – Commander and Chief of Priests of the Faith. Christianswere regarded as enemies because of their creed that Jesus,rather than Caesar, was King of Kings. But Constantine steadily

changed this. He convened The Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to helpChurch Leaders develop a consensus about the doctrines of Jesus.

At the Council, an agedPresbyter named Ariusdenied the full deity ofChrist and causedcontroversy among otherChurch Leaders, but theCouncil’s conclusion,based on the sayings ofthe prophets of the OldTestament was that Jesuswas ‘God of Very God’ andthis was co-operated by

Constantine.

Incidentally, the Old Testament recorded how Isaiah anticipatedthe coming of ‘a mighty God’ while later, John recorded how Peter

addressed Jesus as ‘The Christ, theSon of the Living God’ and Paulcalled Him a Deity in Human Form.

Why didn’t Brown associate Constantine with the Council of Nicaeawhich the Emperor convened? Instead, we have his own ideas:

‘Jesus’ establishment as ‘The Son of God’ was officiallyproposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea. Until thatmoment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as aMortal Prophet – a great and powerful man, but nonetheless aman – a Mortal’. (Page 233).

‘The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the PaganEmperor Constantine’. (Page231).

‘Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost fourcenturies after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents alreadyexisted chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite thehistory books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke.

The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea

From this sprang the most profound moment in Christianhistory – Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible,which omitted those Gospels that spoke of the Christ’shuman traits and embellished those gospels that made Himgodlike. Also, the earlier Gnostic Gospels were outlawed,gathered up and burned.’ (Page 234)

But it was another distortion of history. What Constantineordered burnt were Arian papers found to be heretical of theCouncil of Nicaea. What is more, the official books of the Biblewere only ratified decades after Constantine at the Synod ofCarthage in AD 397 – 72 years after Constantine’s Death.

As matter of fact, the Council never addressed the canon ofScripture (and thus could not have changed it). Of course, theyreally didn’t have a “Bible” yet, anyway. Their Scriptures were acollection of books, and which books were accepted varied fromchurch to church, though only over a few books, none of themGnostic (like the Gospel of Thomas or the Pistis Sophia). We can tellwhat books were used as Scripture by the early churches. We haveletters and books dating all the way back to A.D. 96, just 60years after Jesus died and over two centuries before the Councilof Nicaea. Those letters quote certain books as Scripture. Thereare lists of the books constituting Scripture dating back toaround A.D. 160 (the Muratorian Fragment, for example, but thereare several before Nicaea). What you find from these sources isthat the Bible has always been basically what it is today.

Brown’s pen undid him time and time again. On Page 309, there isanother shocking statement:

‘Admittedly, the concept of sex as a pathway to God was mind-boggling at first. Langdon’s Jewsih students always lookedflabbergasted when he told them that the early Jewish traditioninvolved ritualistic sex, and in the Temples, no less.

‘Early Jews believed that the ‘Holy of Holies’ in Solomon’sTemple, housed not only God but also his powerful femaleequal, SHEKINA the Jewish Tetragrammaton XHWH, the sacred

name of God – derived from ‘Jehovah’ and androgynousphysical union between the Masculine JAH and the prehistoricname for ‘Eve’ – HAVAH.’

Brown was trying to make out that God was very pleased with theancient Pagan Fertility Cults. If you were to go online towww.davincihoax.com you will find how guilty of duplicity Brownis.

Let me now quote researchers Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel:

‘The name Jehovah didn’t even exist until the 13th centuryat the earliest and wasn’t common until the 16th century.Also, it is an English word that was created by artificiallycombining the consonants of YHWH and the vowels of ‘Adonai’which means Lord.

‘Brown uses his own assumptions to make unjustified claimsabout Hebrew word-meanings and origins. Also, the reader isasked to accept what is said by Robert Langdon, a fictitiouscharacter who tries to tie up the worship of Israel to theancient fertility cults characteristics of Israel’sneighbours’.

Let’s drive all this into Brown’s head with a pickaxe. The peopleof the ‘Promised Land’ were surrounded by Pagans who worshippedmany gods and goddesses, offered their children as sacrifices andengaged in ritual sex and other forms of moral depravity. Browntransferred all this across the borders into Israel, claimingthat the original form of Judaism was Polytheistic with Goddess-Worship and Ritual Sex – and he places these practices within the‘Holy of Holies’ – a direct violation of the Mosaic Law. We alsohave Brown’s ‘expert Grail Hunter’, Sophie Neveau to tell us:

‘History is always written by the winners. When two culturesclash, the loser is obliterated and the winner writes thehistory books – books that glorify their own cause anddisparage the conquered for, as Napolean once said: ‘What isHistory but an agreed-upon fable?’ (Page 256).

Can Brown explain to us how Constantine could have collected andaltered the combined evidence of history that preceded him? Andhow di the followers of Jesus become the winners? They werehated, persecuted people, poor and powerless – the outcasts ofsociety who were willing to suffer in the Roman arena, and clingto life despite Roman power.

At least the first apostles of Jesus knew the difference betweenfact and fable. In 2 Peter 1:16, it was said:

‘We do not follow cunningly devised fables when we madeknown to you the power and the coming of our Lord JesusChrist, but were eyewitness to His majesty.’

The word ‘Fable’ is from ‘Mythos’, from which we get ‘Myth’. Thisis what ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is – a cunningly devised myth; a fablethat reminds us of C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters that was acollection of fictional letters from a Senior Demon calledScrewtape to a novice demon named Wormwood who was Screwtape’snephew.

Wormwood is given advice on how to use lies and deception to keephis victims from seeing the truth. In this book – and you shouldread it – we have Screwtape saying:

‘In the last generation we prompted the construction of sucha ‘historical Jesus’ on liberal and humanitarian lines.

‘We are now putting forward a new Historical Jesus onMarxian catastrophic and revolutionary lines. The advantagesof these constructions, which we intend to change everythirty years or so, are manifold. In the first place, theyall tend to direct Man’s devotion to something that does notexist, for each Historical Jesus is unhistorical. Thedocuments say what they say and cannot be added to. Each newHistorical Jesus therefore, has to be got out of theScriptures by suppression at one point and exaggeration atanother’.

In the New Testament, Timothy warns of the deceiving spirits andthe doctrines of demons. Like Screwtape, Dan Brown has made hisown Historical Jesus and for one purpose only: To create abestseller. He has distorted fact; referenced writings of well-known enemies of the Church; made unproven claims of genealogicaldocuments that have never been found.

It’s a sad thing, actually, because the truth about Jesus is moreamazing than any fiction any of us could ever write – a far morebelievable!