DaVinciCode

published by Doubleday, a division of Random House, Inc., unless otherwise noted.

The Da Vinci Code, which has been a best-selling novel in the USA for months, is a work of
fiction. It says so on the reference-page at the beginning of the book: "All of the characters
and events in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead,
is purely coincidental."

Many readers, however, have paid more attention to the book's opening page, which begins
with the word "FACT," followed by a description of a secret society called the Priory of Sion,
a description of the Roman Catholic organization Opus Dei, and the following sentence:

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are
accurate."

I will prove here that that statement is false. But first, let me tell you a little more about the
book's plot. It begins as a murder mystery, becomes a quest for the Holy Grail, and ends as
a conspiracy theory. In the opening chapters, Jacques Sauniere, curator of the Louvre art
museum in Paris, is shot to death in the museum by an albino monk, but before dying, he
arranges various symbolic clues about why he was killed. He also leaves behind a message
to "find Robert Langdon" – the book's main character, whose academic specialty is religious
symbolism.

Dr. Langton arrives and deduces the meaning of many of the clues, assisted by Sophie
Neveu, a police code-breaker who is Jacques Sauniere's grand-daughter. The French police
initially suspect that Dr. Langdon is the murderer, but Sophie, confident that he is innocent,
helps him escape arrest. And then they're off to find the Holy Grail. The murderer of
Jacques Sauniere is on their trail, and so are the police.

About halfway through the book, the big controversial idea is revealed: the Holy Grail is not a
literal chalice used by Jesus at the Last Supper. It's a code-term for a collection of
documents which prove that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, and gave birth to His
daughter, named Sarah, from whom is descended a family still alive today! Holy Grail
legends are symbolic narratives that are really about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene.
The code in The Da Vinci Code is the symbolism used to non-verbally communicate that
idea. All this information (along with information about the identity of the descendants of
Jesus and Mary Magdalene) has been carefully guarded for centuries by a secret society
called the Priory of Sion – until the murder of Jacques Sauniere.

And that's about all the plot-line you're going to get from this review, because now I'm
focusing on that big controversial idea.

Dan Brown did not think up this idea on his own. The same idea was offered in the book
Holy Blood, Holy Grail in 1983 by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh. In The
Da Vinci Code, the character who explains the nature of the Holy Grail is named Leigh
Teabing. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is even mentioned by name on page 253.

The book has a few other unusual features which connect the fictitious story with real-life
individuals. For instance, the fictitious Andre Vernet runs a Swiss bank in the story; in real
life he has been a French teacher at Phillips Exeter Academy, where Dan Brown went to
school. Quite a few other under-the-radar features could be listed (such as the significance
of the bold-print letters scattered throughout the book's blurb), but in the interest of brevity I
will move along.

If you suspected that I was going to tell you that the big controversial idea in The Da Vinci
Code is not true, well, you were exactly right! Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus, and
she was the first to see Him after He rose from the dead. According to Luke 8:2-3 and Mark
16:9, Jesus cast seven demons out of her. Then she, along with Joanna and Susanna and
others, supported Jesus' ministry. But the Bible does not support the idea that Jesus had a
wife; on the contrary the New Testament writers consistently speak of the church as the
Bride of Christ. Also, in John 20:16, Mary Magdalene addressed Jesus, after His
resurrection, as "Rabboni," which means "Teacher." A teacher-and-disciple relationship is
implied – a progressive scenario for the first century, by the way – not a husband-and-wife
relationship.

What about the evidence mentioned in The Da Vinci Code? A lot of that evidence is
inaccurate, contrary to Dan Brown's explicit statement at the beginning of the book.

Here is my view of 30 statements in the book.

(1) p. 21 ~ The big glass pyramid at the Louvre in Paris "at President Mitterand's explicit
demand, had been constructed of exactly 666 panes of glass."

Is that accurate? Someone should tell the people at the Louvre, because their website says
that the Louvre's Pyramid, designed by I.M. Pei, has 673 diamond-shaped panes of glass.
The number is higher if one includes panes of different shapes.

(2) p. 113 ~ Langton, referring to the Priory of Sion, states, "In fact, they are one of the oldest
surviving secret societies on earth."

An inordinate amount of research about the Priory of Sion seems to have been done by Mr.
Paul Smith, whose website goes into meticulous detail to document a case for the spurious
nature of the claims of the existence of the Priory of Sion before the mid-1900's.

(3) p. 121 ~ Langdon says, "not only does the face of Mona Lisa look androgynous, but her
name is an anagram of the divine union of male and female. And that, my friends, is … the
reason for Mona Lisa's knowing smile."

Is that accurate? The name "Mona" does has the same letters as the Egyptian deity Amon,
and I'll graciously take Brown's word for it that "Lisa" is equivalent to "L'Isa," a symbol for the
Egyptian goddess Isis. That's not persuasive evidence, though, since the letters in "Mona
Lisa" can also be rearranged to spell "A man's oil" and "No salami." The name "Mona Lisa"
is most likely the name of the woman thought to be the painting's subject: Mona Lisa
Gherardini, third wife of a silk merchant.

Granting that she has no jewelry and no ostentatious cosmetics, I don't seem how anyone
could come to the conclusion that the person in the painting appears androgynous
(especially since she's wearing a head-covering and, it seems, has shaved her eyebrows).

(4) p. 125 ~ "During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an
astounding five million women."

That's pretty astounding, all right. Dr. Brian A. Pavlac of King's College states that a more
accurate figure is in the neighborhood of 50,000 – 200,000, and that most victims were
hanged rather than burned, and they weren't all women.

(5) p. 138 ~ in a description of the painting "Madonna of the Rocks" by Leonardo Da Vinci,
Brown states, "Oddly, though, rather than the usual Jesus-blessing-John scenario, it was
baby John who was blessing Jesus . . . and Jesus was submitting to his authority!"

Is that accurate? Use the link at the right to visit "Lodestar's Lair" and view the "Madonna of
the Rocks" in London. In that painting, the baby who receives the blessing bears a cross of
thin reeds – a symbol identifying him as John the Baptist. Read the description of the picture
carefully – it states that the reed-cross was added by a later artist. The article also notes the
dull contract-related reasons why there are two versions of this picture (in contrast to
Brown's claim that the people who hired Leonardo "reacted with horror" to the first one).

(6) p. 139 ~ Continuing the description of "Madonna of the Rocks," Brown states that in the
Louvre's picture, Mary "was holding one hand high above the head of infant John and making
a decidedly threatening gesture."

Her hand is over the infant Jesus. Use the link and take a good look at Mary. Does the
position of her hand seem particularly menacing?

(7) p. 139 ~ Brown states that the "most obvious and frightening image" consists of the angel
Uriel "making a cutting gesture with his hand – as if slicing the neck of the invisible head
gripped by Mary's claw-like hand."

I don't think Leonardo would appreciate having his rendition of Mary's hand described as
"claw-like." The angel is simply pointing Jesus toward John the Baptist, so as to foreshadow
the time when Jesus would go to John to be baptized. Motifs like this (in which a future
event is "pre-figured") are not particularly rare in Renaissance art.

(8) p. 139 ~ Brown states that Leonardo painted a second version of the picture "in which
everyone was arranged in a more orthodox manner."

Compare the pictures. About the only difference is the introduction of John's reed-cross, and
the position of the angel's hand, and the removal of the angel's robe, so as to show wings.
The arrangement is basically the same.

(9) p. 206 ~ "After all, previous Priory Grand Masters had also been distinguished public
figures with artistic souls. Proof of that fact had been uncovered years ago in Paris'
Bibliotheque Nationale in papers that became known as Les Dossiers Secrets."

In an interview with ABC News, Dan Brown was asked: "Is there any documented proof
outside the secret documents discovered in France in 1966 that a society known as the
Priory of Sion exists or had existed at some point during history?" Brown's response: "Even
the Dossiers Secrets are not proof the order existed (although they do offer an intriguing
glimpse at possible lines of investigation)." How can both statements be true?

(10) p. 208 ~ The Dossiers Secrets "incontrovertibly confirmed" that "Priory Grand Masters
included Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and, more recently,
Jean Cocteau, the famous Parisian artist."

Dan Brown has assured us that all descriptions of documents in this book are accurate.
Can that statement withstand the online material about Pierre Plantard and the Priory of
Sion? It seems that Pierre Plantard claimed that he was descended from Dagobert II. That
seems to be echoed in The Da Vinci Code on p. 260, where the main character says, "Only
two direct lines of Merovingians remain. Their family names are Plantard and Saint-Clair."
To me, this raises the question of whether or not Pierre Plantard oversaw the creation of the
Dossiers Secrets as part of an eccentric ambition (how serious, who knows?) to claim the
right to be king of France, using the documents to back up his claim to the throne.

(11) p. 231 ~ Teabing states that the Bible "has evolved through countless translations,
additions, and revisions."

In the past century, the Bible has indeed been translated into many languages. But the
average American's Bible has probably been translated directly from Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek texts.

(12) p. 231 ~ Teabing states, "His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the
land."

In a very general sense that is true, inasmuch as thousands of people talked about Jesus
during His ministry. But as far as written records of His life are concerned, there are not very
many extant first-century works about Jesus.

(13) p. 231 ~ Teabing states, "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New
Testament."

It would be one thing if someone stated that 80 documents claiming to record the deeds and
sayings of Jesus were written by some writers, somewhere, sometime. But the claim that
the church considered 80 gospel-accounts for inclusion in the New Testament is not just
unsubstantiated; it is blatantly false. In the late 100's, long before the canon of the entire
New Testament was officially pronounced, Christian bishop Irenaeus asserted that the
number of authentic Gospels is four.

(14) p. 231 ~ Teabing states, "The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan
Roman emperor Constantine the Great."

Such a claim is fictitious. Constantine did instruct Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, to produce
50 Bibles for use in his new capital, Constantinople. But there is no evidence that
Constantine took an active role in the selection of books or of manuscripts.

(15) p. 232 ~ Teabing states that Constantine "was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his
deathbed, too weak to protest."

For information about Constantine, we must depend on the ancient church historian and
bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, who was not always neutral in his description of events. But
it seems fairly well-grounded to say that Constantine was sympathetic toward the Christian
church from 312 onward, and was baptized (or, more precisely, sprinkled) willingly, after
promoting one form of Christianity or another for many years.

(16) p. 232 ~ Teabing states, "The pre-Christian God Mithras – called the Son of God and the
Light of the World – was born on Dec. 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then
resurrected in three days."

Teabing, or rather, Brown, has apparently taken the books The Christ Conspiracy and Suns
of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S at face value.

(17) p. 232-233 ~ "Originally," Langdon states, "Christians honored the Jewish Sabbath of
Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan's veneration of the sun."

Did Constantine shift Christians' day of worship? Adherents of groups which profess to keep
the Sabbath (such as Seventh-Day Adventists) make this claim; however Christians were
meeting to break bread on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7.

(18) p. 233 ~ Teabing states, "Jesus' establishment as the 'Son of God' was officially
proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."

The major theological dispute at the Council of Nicea, in 325, was more like, "How divine is
Jesus?" rather than if Jesus is divine. Most bishops affirmed that Jesus was eternal and
uncreated; however the Egyptian clergyman Arius insisted that Jesus was the first created
thing. Neither side viewed Jesus as merely "a mortal prophet." The term "Son of God" was
ubiquitously used, as anyone can see by reading the New Testament (Matthew 11:27, Mark
14:61-62, John 3:16, and so on).

(19) p. 233 ~ Teabing states that the decision at Nicea was "A relatively close vote."

Is 300-to-3 your definition of "relatively close"?

(20) p. 233 ~ Teabing states, "Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of Church
and state."

Dan Brown spent a lot of time doing research for his book; yet he has apparently not grasped
that the words "Christ" and "Messiah" mean the same thing ("Anointed One").

(21) p. 234 ~ Teabing states "The word heretic derives from that moment in history" (in the
time of Constantine, in the early fourth century).

It's pretty amazing, then, that New Testament authors, in the first century, were able to refer
to "heresies" (Second Peter 2:1) and "a man that is a heretic" (Titus 3:10), and that the
second-century bishop Irenaeus was able to write a thick book entitled "Against Heresies."

(22) p. 234 ~ Teabing states that "Some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to
eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950's hidden in a
cave near Qumran in the Judean desert."

None of the Dead Sea Scrolls are Christian documents at all, let alone Christian gospel-
accounts. They are Judaic writings – many are copies of books of the Old Testament;
others are commentaries; others are writings which appealed to a particular sect of Judaism
in about 130 B.C. – A.D. 68. A theory has been proposed that a tiny scrap is a portion of the
Gospel of Mark, but the evidence for that claim is extremely tenuous. Also, the Dead Sea
Scrolls were found in more than one location, beginning in the 1940's.

I suspect that Dan Brown was influenced by the 1991 book Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, by
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh (yes, two of the same authors who wrote Holy Blood,
Holy Grail). The Dead Sea Scrolls have been available to study for years now, and it is clear
that the main reasons for the long delay of their publication were scholarly ambition and the
sheer difficulty of re-assembling and evaluating the Cave 4 fragments.

(23) p. 234 ~ Teabing states that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that "the modern Bible was
compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda – to promote the divinity of
the man Jesus Christ …."

When quoting from the Old Testament, early Christians tended to use the Septuagint, a
Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Jews in the intertestamental period.
Needless to say, the translators of the Septuagint did not have an agenda to promote Jesus'
divinity.

(24) p. 243 ~ The three major characters in the book concur that in Leonardo da Vinci's
picture The Last Supper, the person seated by Jesus' right hand is Mary Magdalene.

Using the links to the right, you can view close-up pictures of the face of John the son of
Zebedee. You can plainly see that Saint Peter is whispering into the ear of this individual.
This represents the events described in the Gospel of John 13:21-24. This is St. John, part
of Jesus' "inner circle" of disciples (composed of Peter, James, and John).

(25) p. 236 ~ Teabing says, "Oddly, Da Vinci appears to have forgotten to paint the Cup of
Christ." This is strange, because on the same page Brown mentions that in The Last
Supper, "everyone at the table had a glass of wine, including Christ."

A wine-glass is plainly in view on the table in front of Christ. This may seem odd to people
who are used to thinking of the Holy Grail as a chalice, but the New Testament uses the
everyday word for "cup" when describing the cup Christ used at the Last Supper; there is no
Bible-based reason to expect it to be a chalice.

(26) p. 245 ~ "Glaring in the center of the painting was the unquestionable outline of an
enormous, flawlessly formed letter M."

I've stared and squinted at The Last Supper online, and I still don't see this "flawlessly formed
letter M."

(27) p. 245 ~ Teabing refers to the Nag Hammadi documents and the Dead Sea scrolls as
"The earliest Christian records."

Is that accurate? The Nag Hammadi documents are primarily Gnostic, and the Dead Sea
Scrolls are Judaic, not Christian.

(28) p. 246 ~ Teabing quotes from the Nag Hammadi text "The Gospel of Philip" which says,
"And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the
disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth." Teabing then says, "As any Aramaic
scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse."

The "Gospel of Philip" was composed in about A.D. 200, and its author was influenced by the
early Valentinian heresy (no relation to Saint Valentine!). Also, the text of the Gospel of Philip
which exists today is a Coptic translation, not the text of the Gospel of Philip in its original
language (Greek). Aramaic is not in the picture.

(29) p. 247 ~ Teabing quotes from the Gnostic composition called "The Gospel of Mary
Magdalene." Specifically, he quotes from chapter nine of the book. He then states, "At this
point in the gospels, Jesus suspects He will soon be captured and crucified."

Is that accurate? Those who access the text and look will see that at the end of chapter 4,
Christ leaves, and at the beginning of chapter 5, the disciples are wondering how to go to the
Gentiles (non-Jews) and preach the gospel. This establishes a setting after the crucifixion of
Christ (and after the Great Commission), not prior to it, for the material that follows. Also, in
the text, Mary Magdalene explicitly claims to have gotten her teachings from a vision of
Christ, not from training during His earthly ministry.

(30) p. 248 ~ Teabing describes the "hand wielding a dagger" in The Last Supper: "If you
count the arms, you'll see that this hand belongs to . . . no one at all. It's disembodied.
Anonymous."

The hand, which is positioned at an unusual angle, belongs to Saint Peter. You can view
Leonardo's sketch of a similarly-positioned arm by clicking the red link to the right.

(31) p. 258 ~ Langdon states that a medieval knight "ordered the Knights Templar to recover
the Sangreal documents from beneath Solomon's Temple."

That would be a neat trick, considering that Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C.

(32) p. 309 ~ "The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH – the sacred name of God – in fact
derived from Jehovah …."

Brown has it backwards. YHWH is the older word (from the time when Hebrew was written
without vowels). "Jehovah" is a Latinized word.

In closing: if the contents of The Da Vinci Code are examples of Dan Brown's idea of
accurate statements, I sure wouldn't want to see what his inaccurate statements are like.
The book is not all bad, as an imaginative work of fiction (except for the pointless swearing,
the depiction of handicapped people as the villains, a description of a sex rite, and the
somewhat thin character development). Still, the statements on page 1 are egregiously

deceptive. There seems to be no reason for page 1 to exist except to mislead readers.

On page 267, Teabing asks what would happen if people found out that the greatest story
ever told (a reference to the Biblical story of Christ) "is, in fact, the greatest story every sold."
I think these 30 points demonstrate who's using misinformation to sell a story.