The Da Vinci Code--The dangers of bogus history-

[janelle]

How should Catholics respond when they are mocked and misrepresented? The danger is that we should seem to be incapable of taking criticism or a joke against ourselves. The decision about where to draw the line is likely to be subjective, informed more by instinct than by rigid criteria. This is particularly true in the field of entertainment. Thus, the Catholic community decided not to take offence at the caricatures of Father Ted, partly because theyy were created in a spirit of affection, and partly because we could recognise ourselves in them.. Popetown is a different matter. Although we have not seen it, there are good reasons to suspect that it has been conceived in a spirit of sneering malice.

Now we have to reach a view on The Da Vinci Code, a best-selling novel about the search for the Holy Grail whose villains include an albino Opus Dei monk (sic). Protesting about an airport thriller might seem a pompous thing to do, implying that readers lack the ability to discriminate between fiction and reality. In fact, there are good reasons to worry about this book, and not just on the general grounds that the author, Dan Brown, has a well-established anti-Catholic agenda. The Da Vnci Code is built around a series of occult myths and outright fabrications that various amateur "scholars" have spent years passing off as historical fact.

Anyone who has glanced through the "Mysteries" section of a bookshop will be familiar with the genre. Best-selling titles such as The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, The Tomb of God and The Templar Revelation have presented orthodox historical and archaeological scholarship as the product of a gigantic conspiracy, invariably involving the Roman Catholic Church. The methodology employed by these authors is comically flawed, relying heavily on coincidences, rumour and urban myth. Their theories about the origins of Christianity tend, to draw on Gnosticism, goddess worhip and early heresies, which are presented as the "true" Christian faith suppressed by the Church. In practice, however, the resulting confection usually owes more to Maria Monk, and other works of anti-Catholic propaganda than to genuine esoteric scholarship.

As our feature article by Sandra Meisel reveals, The Da Vinci Code weaves together a selection of lies and half-truths about Jesus, the Bible, Mary Magdalene and the Knights Templar. Fiction it may be; but these are precisely the misrepresentations of Christianity that greedy publishers have been selling as "non-fiction" for decades. How should the Church respond? We suggest that it should follow the example of professional archaeologists, who — fed up with fatuous myths about the origins of the pyramids or Stonehenge, often emanating from the same sources — have opened up new lines of communication with the media, to ensure that these claims are quickly rebutted.

The Church should do the same. It is time for the tables to be to turned, and for Catholic scholars to subject bogus historians to the ruthless mockery they deserve.

The above article first appeared as part of the editorial in the 12th March 2004 issue of The Catholic Herald. The following article was adapted and also appeared in the same issue.

Copyright ©; The Catholic Herald 2004


Dismantling The Da Vinci Code

By Sandra Miesel

“The Grail,” Langdon said, “is symbolic of the lost goddess. When Christianity came along, the old pagan religions did not die easily. Legends of chivalric quests for the Holy Grail were in fact stories of forbidden quests to find the lost sacred feminine. Knights who claimed to be “searching for the chalice” were speaking in code as a way to protect themselves from a Church that had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned non-believers, and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine.” (The Da Vinci Code, pages 238-239)

The Holy Grail is a favorite metaphor for a desirable but difficult-to-attain goal, from the map of the human genome to Lord Stanley's Cup. While the original Grail — the cup Jesus allegedly used at the Last Supper — normally inhabits the pages of Arthurian romance, Dan Brown's recent mega best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, rips it away to the realm of esoteric history.

But his book is more than just the story of a quest for the Grail he wholly reinterprets the Grail legend. In doing so, Brown inverts the insight that a woman's body is symbolically a container and makes a container symbolically a woman s body. And that container has a name every Christian will recognize, for Brown claims that the Holy Grail was actually Mary Magdalene. She was the vessel that held the blood of Jesus Christ in her womb while bearing his children.

Over the centuries, the Grail-keepers have been guarding the true (and continuing) bloodline of Christ and the relics of the Magdalen, not a material vessel. Therefore Brown claims that the quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene, a conclusion that would surely have surprised Sir Galahad and the other Grail knights who thought they were searching for the Chalice of the Last Supper.

The Da Vinci Code opens with the grisly murder of the Louvre's curator inside the museum. The crime enmeshes hero Robert Langdon, a tweedy professor of symbolism from Harvard, and the victim's granddaughter, burgundy-haired cryptologist Sophie Nevue. Together with crippled millionaire historian Leigh Teabing, they flee Paris for London one step ahead of the police and a mad albino Opus Dei monk named Silas who will stop at nothing to prevent them from finding the Grail.

But despite the frenetic pacing, at no point is action allowed to interfere with a good lecture. Before the story comes full circle back to the Louvre, readers face a barrage of codes, puzzles, mysteries, and conspiracies.

With his twice-stated principle, Everybody loves a conspiracy, Brown is reminiscent of the famous author who crafted her product by studying the features of ten earlier best-sellers. It would be too easy to criticize him for characters thin as plastic wrap, undistinguished prose, and improbable action. But Brown isn't so much writing badly as writing in a particular way best calculated to attract a female audience. (Women, after all, buy most of the nation's books.) He has married a thriller plot to a romance-novel technique. Notice how each character is an extreme type and effortlessly brilliant, smarmy, sinister, or psychotic as needed, moving against luxurious but curiously flat backdrops. Avoiding gore and bedroom gymnastics, he shows only one brief kiss and a sexual ritual performed by a married couple. The risqué allusions are fleeting although the text lingers over some bloody Opus Dei mortifications. In short, Brown has fabricated a novel perfect for a ladies book club.

Brown's lack of seriousness shows in the games he plays with his character names Robert Langdon, bright fame long don (distinguished and virile); Sophie Nevue, wisdom New Eve; the irascible taurine detective Bezu Fache, zebu anger. The servant who leads the police to them is Legaludec, legal duce. The murdered curator takes his surname, Saunière, from a real Catholic priest whose occult antics sparked interest in the Grail secret. As an inside joke, Brown even writes in his real-life editor (Faukman is Kaufman).

While his extensive use of fictional formulas may be the secret to Brown's stardom, his anti-Christian message can't have hurt him in publishing circles: The Da Vinci Code debuted atop the New York Times best-seller list. By manipulating his audience through the conventions of romance-writing, Brown invites readers to identify with his smart, glamorous characters who've seen through the impostures of the clerics who hide the truth about Jesus and his wife. Blasphemy is delivered in a soft voice with a knowing chuckle: [E]very faith in the world is based on fabrication.

But even Brown has his limits. To dodge charges of outright bigotry, he includes a climactic twist in the story that absolves the Church of assassination. And although he presents Christianity as a false root and branch, he's willing to tolerate it for its charitable works.

(Of course, Catholic Christianity will become even more tolerable once the new liberal pope elected in Brown's previous Langdon novel, Angels & Demons, abandons outmoded teachings. Third-century laws cannot be applied to the modern followers of Christ, says one of the book s progressive cardinals.)

[janelle]

Where Is He Getting All of This?

Brown actually cites his principal sources within the text of his novel. One is a specimen of academic feminist scholarship: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. The others are popular esoteric histories: The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince; Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln; The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine and The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, both by Margaret Starbird. (Starbird, a self-identified Catholic, has her books published by Matthew Fox's outfit, Bear & Co.) Another influence, at least at second remove, is The Woman s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker.

The use of such unreliable sources belies Brown s pretensions to intellectuality. But the act has apparently fooled at least some of his readers, the New York Daily News book reviewer trumpeted, "His research is impeccable".

But despite Brown's scholarly airs, a writer who thinks the Merovingians founded Paris and forgets that the popes once lived in Avignon is hardly a model researcher. And for him to state that the Church burned five million women as witches shows a willful and malicious — ignorance of the historical record. The latest figures for deaths during the European witch craze are between 30,000 to 50,000 victims. Not all were executed by the Church, not all were women, and not all were burned. Brown’s claim that educated women, priestesses, and midwives were singled out by witch-hunters is not only false, it betrays his goddess-friendly sources.

A Multitude of Errors

So error-laden is The Da Vinci Code that the educated reader actually applauds those rare occasions where Brown stumbles (despite himself) into the truth. A few examples of his impeccable research: He claims that the motions of the planet Venus trace a pentacle (the so-called Ishtar pentagram) symbolizing the goddess. But it isn't a perfect figure and has nothing to do with the length of the Olympiad. The ancient Olympic games were celebrated in honor of Zeus Olympias, not Aphrodite, and occurred every four years.

Brown's contention that the five linked rings of the modern Olympic Games are a secret tribute to the goddess is also wrong; each set of games was supposed to add a ring to the design but the organizers stopped at five. And his efforts to read goddess propaganda into art, literature, and even Disney cartoons are simply ridiculous.

No datum is too dubious for inclusion, and reality falls quickly by the wayside. For instance, the Opus Dei bishop encourages his albino assassin by telling him that Noah was also an albino (a notion drawn from the non-canonical 1 Enoch 106:2). Yet albinism somehow fails to interfere with the man's eyesight as it physiologically would.

But a far more important example is Brown's treatment of Gothic architecture as a style full of goddess-worshipping symbols and coded messages to confound the uninitiated. Building on Barbara Walker's claim that like a pagan temple, the Gothic cathedral represented the body of the Goddess, The Templar Revelation asserts: Sexual symbolism is found in the great Gothic cathedrals which were masterminded by the Knights Templar...both of which represent intimate female anatomy: the arch, which draws the worshipper into the body of Mother Church, evokes the vulva. In The Da Vinci Code, these sentiments are transformed into a character's description of a cathedral's long hollow nave as a secret tribute to a woman's womb...complete with receding labial ridges and a nice little cinquefoil clitoris above the doorway.

These remarks cannot be brushed aside as opinions of the villain; Langdon, the book's hero, refers to his own lectures about goddess-symbolism at Chartres.

These bizarre interpretations betray no acquaintance with the actual development or construction of Gothic architecture, and correcting the countless errors becomes a tiresome exercise: The Templars had nothing to do with the cathedrals of their time, which were commissioned by bishops and their canons throughout Europe. They were unlettered men with no arcane knowledge of sacred geometry passed down from the pyramid builders. They did not wield tools themselves on their own projects, nor did they found masons guilds to build for others. Not all their churches were round, nor was roundness a defiant insult to the Church. Rather than being a tribute to the divine feminine, their round churches honored the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Actually looking at Gothic churches and their predecessors deflates the idea of female symbolism. Large medieval churches typically had three front doors on the west plus triple entrances to their transepts on the north and south. (What part of a woman's anatomy does a transept represent? Or the kink in Chartres's main aisle?) Romanesque churches including ones that predate the founding of the Templars have similar bands of decoration arching over their entrances. Both Gothic and Romanesque churches have the long, rectangular nave inherited from Late Antique basilicas, ultimately derived from Roman public buildings. Neither Brown nor his sources consider what symbolism medieval churchmen such as Suger of St.-Denis or William Durandus read in church design. It certainly wasn't goddess-worship.

[janelle]

False Claims

If the above seems like a pile driver applied to a gnat, the blows are necessary to demonstrate the utter falseness of Brown's material. His willful distortions of documented history are more than matched by his outlandish claims about controversial subjects. But to a postmodernist, one construct of reality is as good as any other.

Brown's approach seems to consist of grabbing large chunks of his stated sources and tossing them together in a salad of a story. From Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Brown lifts the concept of the Grail as a metaphor for a sacred lineage by arbitrarily breaking a medieval French term, Sangraal (Holy Grail), into sang (blood) and raal (royal). This holy blood, according to Brown, descended from Jesus and his wife, Mary Magdalene, to the Merovingian dynasty in Dark Ages France, surviving its fall to persist in several modern French families, including that of Pierre Plantard, a leader of the mysterious Priory of Sion. The Priory — an actual organization officially registered with the French government in 1956 makes extraordinary claims of antiquity as the real power behind the Knights Templar. It most likely originated after World War II and was first brought to public notice in 1962. With the exception of filmmaker Jean Cocteau, its illustrious list of Grand Masters which include Leonardo da Vinci, Issac Newton, and Victor Hugo is not credible, although it's presented as true by Brown.

Brown doesn't accept a political motivation for the Priory's activities. Instead he picks up The Templar Revelation’s view of the organization as a cult of secret goddess-worshippers who have preserved ancient Gnostic wisdom and records of Christ’s true mission, which would completely overturn Christianity if released. Significantly, Brown omits the rest of the book’s thesis that makes Christ and Mary Magdalene unmarried sex partners performing the erotic mysteries of Isis. Perhaps even a gullible mass-market audience has its limits.

From both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation, Brown takes a negative view of the Bible and a grossly distorted image of Jesus. He's neither the Messiah nor a humble carpenter but a wealthy, trained religious teacher bent on regaining the throne of David. His credentials are amplified by his relationship with the rich Magdalen who carries the royal blood of Benjamin: "Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false," laments one of Brown's characters.

Yet it's Brown's Christology that's false and blindingly so. He requires the present New Testament to be a post-Constantinian fabrication that displaced true accounts now represented only by surviving Gnostic texts. He claims that Christ wasn't considered divine until the Council of Nicea voted him so in 325 at the behest of the emperor. Then Constantine, a lifelong sun worshipper, ordered all older scriptural texts destroyed, which is why no complete set of Gospels predates the fourth century. Christians somehow failed to notice the sudden and drastic change in their doctrine.

But by Brown's specious reasoning, the Old Testament can't be authentic either because complete Hebrew Scriptures are no more than a thousand years old. And yet the texts were transmitted so accurately that they do match well with the Dead Sea Scrolls from a thousand years earlier. Analysis of textual families, comparison with fragments and quotations, plus historical correlations securely date the orthodox Gospels to the first century and indicate that they're earlier than the Gnostic forgeries. (The Epistles of St. Paul are, of course, even earlier than the Gospels.)

Primitive Church documents and the testimony of the ante-Nicean Fathers confirm that Christians have always believed Jesus to be Lord, God, and Savior — even when that faith meant death. The earliest partial canon of Scripture dates from the late second century and already rejected Gnostic writings. For Brown, it isn't enough to credit Constantine with the divinization of Jesus. The emperor's old adherence to the cult of the Invincible Sun also meant repackaging sun worship as the new faith. Brown drags out old (and long-discredited) charges by virulent anti-Catholics like Alexander Hislop who accused the Church of perpetuating Babylonian mysteries, as well as 19th-century rationalists who regarded Christ as just another dying savior-god.

Unsurprisingly, Brown misses no opportunity to criticize Christianity and its pitiable adherents. (The church in question is always the Catholic Church, though his villain does sneer once at Anglicans for their grimness, of all things.) He routinely and anachronistically refers to the Church as the Vatican, even when popes weren't in residence there. He systematically portrays it throughout history as deceitful, power-crazed, crafty, and murderous: The Church may no longer employ crusades to slaughter, but their influence is no less persuasive. No less insidious.

[janelle]

Goddess Worship and the Magdalen

Worst of all, in Brown s eyes, is the fact that the pleasure-hating, sex-hating, woman-hating Church suppressed goddess worship and eliminated the divine feminine. He claims that goddess worship universally dominated pre-Christian paganism with the hieros gamos (sacred marriage) as its central rite. His enthusiasm for fertility rites is enthusiasm for sexuality, not procreation. What else would one expect of a Cathar sympathizer?

Astonishingly, Brown claims that Jews in Solomon's Temple adored Yahweh and his feminine counterpart, the Shekinah, via the services of sacred prostitutes possibly a twisted version of the Temple 's corruption after Solomon (1 Kings 14:24 and 2 Kings 23:4-15). Moreover, he says that the tetragrammaton YHWH derives from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.

But as any first-year Scripture student could tell you, Jehovah is actually a 16th-century rendering of Yahweh using the vowels of Adonai ( Lord ). In fact, goddesses did not dominate the pre-Christian world , not in the religions of Rome, her barbarian subjects, Egypt, or even Semitic lands where the hieros gamos was an ancient practice. Nor did the Hellenized cult of Isis appear to have included sex in its secret rites.

Contrary to yet another of Brown's claims, Tarot cards do not teach goddess doctrine. They were invented for innocent gaming purposes in the 15th century and didn't acquire occult associations until the late 18th. Playing-card suites carry no Grail symbolism. The notion of diamonds symbolizing pentacles is a deliberate misrepresentation by British occultist A. E. Waite. And the number five so crucial to Brown's puzzles has some connections with the protective goddess but myriad others besides, including human life, the five senses, and the Five Wounds of Christ.

Brown's treatment of Mary Magdalene is sheer delusion. In The Da Vinci Code, she is no penitent whore but Christ 's royal consort and the intended head of His Church, supplanted by Peter and defamed by churchmen. She fled west with her offspring to Provence, where medieval Cathars would keep the original teachings of Jesus alive. The Priory of Sion still guards her relics and records, excavated by the Templars from the subterranean Holy of Holies. It also protects her descendants including Brown's heroine.

Although many people still picture the Magdalen as a sinful woman who anointed Jesus and equate her with Mary of Bethany, that conflation is actually the later work of Pope St. Gregory the Great. The East has always kept them separate and said that the Magdalen, "apostle to the apostles", died in Ephesus. The legend of her voyage to Provence is no earlier than the ninth century, and her relics weren't reported there until the 13th. Catholic critics, including the Bollandists, have been debunking the legend and distinguishing the three ladies since the 17th century.

Brown uses two Gnostic documents, the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, to prove that the Magdalen was Christ 's "companion", meaning sexual partner. The apostles were jealous that Jesus used to kiss her on the mouth and favored her over them. He cites exactly the same passages quoted in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation and even picks up the latter's reference to The Last Temptation of Christ. What these books neglect to mention is the infamous final verse of the Gospel of Thomas. When Peter sneers that "women are not worthy of Life," Jesus responds, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male.... For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven." That's certainly an odd way to honor one's spouse or exalt the status of women.

The Knights Templar

Brown likewise misrepresents the history of the Knights Templar. The oldest of the military-religious orders, the Knights were founded in 1118 to protect pilgrims in the Holy Land. Their rule, attributed to St. Bernard of Clairvaux, was approved in 1128 and generous donors granted them numerous properties in Europe for support. Rendered redundant after the last Crusader stronghold fell in 1291, the Templars pride and wealth earned — they were also bankers — earned them keen hostility.

Brown maliciously ascribes the suppression of the Templars to "Machiavellian" Pope Clement V, whom they were blackmailing with the Grail secret. His ingeniously planned sting operation had his soldiers suddenly arrest all Templars. Charged with Satanism, sodomy, and blasphemy, they were tortured into confessing and burned as heretics, their ashes tossed unceremoniously into the Tiber. But in reality, the initiative for crushing the Templars came from King Philip the Fair of France, whose royal officials did the arresting in 1307. About 120 Templars were burned by local Inquisitorial courts in France for not confessing or retracting a confession, as happened with Grand Master Jacques de Molay. Few Templars suffered death elsewhere although their order was abolished in 1312. Clement, a weak, sickly Frenchman manipulated by his king, burned no one in Rome inasmuch as he was the first pope to reign from Avignon (so much for the ashes in the Tiber).

Moreover, the mysterious stone idol that the Templars were accused of worshiping is associated with fertility in only one of more than a hundred confessions. Sodomy was the scandalous and possibly true, charge against the order, not ritual fornication. The Templars have been darlings of occultism since their myth as masters of secret wisdom and fabulous treasure began to coalesce in the late 18th century. Freemasons and even Nazis have hailed them as brothers. Now it's the turn of neo-Gnostics.

Twisting da Vinci

Brown's revisionist interpretations of Leonardo da Vinci are as distorted as the rest of his information. He claims to have first run across these views while he was studying art history in Seville, but they correspond point for point to material in The Templar Revelation. A writer who sees a pointed finger as a throat-cutting gesture, who says the Madonna of the Rocks was painted for nuns instead of a lay confraternity of men, who claims that da Vinci received "hundreds of lucrative Vatican commissions" (actually, it was just one and it was never executed) is simply unreliable.

Brown's analysis of da Vinci's work is just as ridiculous. He presents the Mona Lisa as an androgynous self-portrait when it's widely known to portray a real woman, Madonna Lisa, wife of Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo. The name is certainly not as Brown claims a mocking anagram of two Egyptian fertility deities Amon and L'Isa (Italian for Isis). How did he miss the theory, propounded by the authors of The Templar Revelation, that the Shroud of Turin is a photographed self-portrait of da Vinci?

Much of Brown s argument centers around da Vinci's Last Supper, a painting the author considers a coded message that reveals the truth about Jesus and the Grail. Brown points to the lack of a central chalice on the table as proof that the Grail isn't a material vessel. But da Vinci's painting specifically dramatizes the moment when Jesus warns, " One of you will betray me ". (John 13:21). There is no Institution Narrative in St. John's Gospel. The Eucharist is not shown there. And the person sitting next to Jesus is not Mary Magdalene (as Brown claims) but St. John, portrayed as the usual effeminate da Vinci youth, comparable to his St. John the Baptist. Jesus is in the exact center of the painting, with two pyramidal groups of three apostles on each side. Although da Vinci was a spiritually troubled homosexual, Brown's contention that he coded his paintings with anti-Christian messages simply can't be sustained.

Brown's Mess

In the end, Dan Brown has penned a poorly written, atrociously researched mess. So, why bother with such a close reading of a worthless novel? The answer is simple: The Da Vinci Code takes esoterica mainstream. It may well do for Gnosticism what The Mists of Avalon did for paganism — gain it popular acceptance. After all, how many lay readers will see the blazing inaccuracies put forward as buried truths?

What s more, in making phony claims of scholarship, Brown's book infects readers with a virulent hostility toward Catholicism. Dozens of occult history books, conveniently cross-linked by Amazon.com, are following in its wake. And booksellers shelves now bulge with falsehoods few would be buying without The Da Vinci Code connection. While Brown's assault on the Catholic Church may be a backhanded compliment, it's one we would have happily done without.

Sandra Miesel is a veteran Catholic journalist.

© 2003 Morley Publishing Group, Inc., the publisher of Crisis Magazine.


Reprinted with permission from CRISIS Magazine whose website is www.crisismagazine.com


Autobiographical Information - Sandra Miesel

I grew up to get master's degrees in biochemistry and in medieval history. I've written, edited, and analyzed fiction but have written hundreds of articles for the Catholic press over the past twenty years. Carl Olson and I have written a rebuttal of Dan Brown's DA VINCI CODE, THE DA VINCI HOAX which was published by Ignatius Press last summer.

[flute]

I can't even force myself to wade through all of that. I kinda got caught up in the belief (did I read that right??) that Christ had children. What the ? How much further could that be from the truth?

As far as Catholic Haters, they will always be. You can't be around for 2004 + years w/out getting some enemies. I've talked to some myself. (unfortunately I'm related to some too...)
What I can't stand is how people speak only hatred (of any one group) and back it up merely saying it's factual. Well, when the "fact" only say negatively, all I have to say to you is, the "facts" aren't facts, but one sided biased opinions (in this case of Catholic haters).
Those who repeat it are just as bad. It speaks volumes of their (lack of) character.

Mt 19:19 ....love your neighbor as yourself
John 13:34 A new command I give you: LOve one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (which tells me that those who hate Catholics aren't disciples of Christ)

John 15:17 This is my command: love each other

Well I could go on & on but you get the idea. :rolleyes:

[schsa]

It's a book. A work of fiction. If you take everything that is written as fact you will have a head full of misinformation. I read the book and I think that the premise is very interesting but I would never take it seriously. Fiction writers are like people who present statistic. You can manipulate any information to make it fit your story.

Anyone who reads this and takes it seriously needs to get a life.

[Ravenamore]

There are so many holes in the sources for <b>The Da Vinci Code</b>, it's a joke.

I used to own one of the books Brown used as a source, Barbara Walker's <b>The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets</b>. To summarize Walker's book briefly: Christianity is not unique, it's cobbled together from various other religions, most of the early saints were really Christianized forms of a single goddess, and the rest were just made up by the Catholic Church.

Walker believes that everyone before patriarchy worshipped a goddess, and that no matter what she was called, everyone knew it was the same one goddess. When men decided they wanted all the power, they made up religions that subjugated women and denigrated the goddess.

Christianity is rage filled, nature hating, repressive, and aimed at bringing women down from their rightful power. The Virgin Mary is a watered down version of the goddess without sexuality, which proves that Christianity hates sex.

Anything referring to Christianity or dealing with it in some way is shown to be really stolen from goddess worshippers. Anything referring to pagans or goddess worship is shown as good, woman-centered, sex friendly, and basically contrasted with Christianity in a way to make anyone who's a Christian is a repressed misogynist. All Christian ceremonies are stolen from earlier goddess-worship ceremonies, and stripped of their woman-affirming nature.

Are you getting the picture?

I had this book when I was a practicing Wiccan. I used to believe what it said. When I did some independant (i.e. not written by neo-pagans, Wiccans, or other people who had a stake in this hypothesis) study, specifically in the area of anthropology, I learned something interesting. There has been precisely <b>no</b> evidence of a golden age of matriarchy. There have been matriarchical societies, yes, but never was there a time when everyone worshipped a Goddess. In later times, when polytheism was the norm, there was never anything that stated there was one Goddess (or one God, for that matter). There were just a bunch of gods, plural.

When the Egyptian pharaoh Ahkenaten declared that there was only one god, the Aten, and banished the worship of all the other gods, the people were in shock. When his reign ended, the people went right back to polytheism. The idea of one god or goddess was anathema.

That's why Judaism, and later, Christianity and Islam were so radical. There was one deity, period, to worship. It blew people's minds.

Shortly after I was baptized, I tossed Walker's book in the trash. It doesn't hold up under any scrutiny, it was obviously created by someone majorly biased against Christianity, and facts were either misconstrued, exaggerated, lied about, or conspicuously missing. That seems to be the case with its literary child, <b>The Da Vinci Code</b>

Ravenamore

[janelle]

ITA but some people will read it as fact and not fiction. This is a history lesson for them.

My FIL read so many weird books when he was living that at the end of his life he had some really weird thoughts. Like women where a different race than men. If one gets caught up in such books it can do harm. He had no religion cause he combined them all together. I guess that is ok except Christ told us He is the way and to follow Him.

So many distortions out there with religion. If no one speaks up then truth will be watered down to nothing.

From her article-----

Brown's Mess

In the end, Dan Brown has penned a poorly written, atrociously researched mess. So, why bother with such a close reading of a worthless novel? The answer is simple: The Da Vinci Code takes esoterica mainstream. It may well do for Gnosticism what The Mists of Avalon did for paganism — gain it popular acceptance. After all, how many lay readers will see the blazing inaccuracies put forward as buried truths?

Whats more, in making phony claims of scholarship, Brown's book infects readers with a virulent hostility toward Catholicism. Dozens of occult history books, conveniently cross-linked by Amazon.com, are following in its wake. And booksellers shelves now bulge with falsehoods few would be buying without The Da Vinci Code connection. While Brown's assault on the Catholic Church may be a backhanded compliment, it's one we would have happily done without.

[Willow]

I bought this book but haven't read it yet. There is a show that has been shown a lot lately on the Discovery Channel. It said that although the book is listed as fiction there are many things in the book that have been proven to be true. I haven't read the book so I can't really comment on it.

[janelle]

Can you find where on the Discovery channel it has the program? We only get the basic cable so don't see the Discovery channel. Thanks.

[Willow]

Can you find where on the Discovery channel it has the program? We only get the basic cable so don't see the Discovery channel. Thanks.


It was just a show on the Discovery Channel. I think it was called cracking the Da Vinci Code or something like that. I will see if I can find the name of it.

[Willow]

There is also a show that premeired this past Sunday on the National Geographic channel called Unlocking Da Vinci's Code. I think the show that I had seen was called Beyond the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was on the Discovery Channel but maybe it was on the National Geographic channel because when I did a search for Beyond the Da Vinci Code this was one of the sites that came up........

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=72768&browseCategoryId=cat1160004&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=

[Ravenamore]

Women are a different race than men? OK, don't think I've ever heard that one before.

The problem is, a lot of people form their opinions on things they've read. This is just one more thing to make Catholics look like sexually repressed, knowledge-smothering, women-hating, crusaders--contrasted with sex positive feminist goddess worshipping pagans, I guess.

Ravenamore

[cleaningla]

There is also a show that premeired this past Sunday on the National Geographic channel called Unlocking Da Vinci's Code. I think the show that I had seen was called Beyond the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was on the Discovery Channel but maybe it was on the National Geographic channel because when I did a search for Beyond the Da Vinci Code this was one of the sites that came up........

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=72768&browseCategoryId=cat1160004&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=

I hope I can find something like this, we're getting sattelite installed on Friday. :)

I saw a show a while back with Peter Jennings that was pretty good.

[Willow]

I hope I can find something like this, we're getting sattelite installed on Friday. :)

I saw a show a while back with Peter Jennings that was pretty good.


The show I saw has been aired quite frequently so I'm sure you will be able to catch it at some point. :)

[janelle]

While some take the pages of the Scriptures as literal truths, their contradictions make most feel that their meaning lies somewhere beyond the words themselves. But with The Da Vinci Code, author Dan Brown made the case that "the greatest story ever told" is more accurately the greatest story ever sold--one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history.

From Beyond the Da Vinci Code.
================================================== ========
Yeah, if The Di Vince Code were true it would have to be the best kept secret of all time. Just imagine all those hundreds of thousands of people who were and are in on it. It boggles the mind to believe that so many could keep a secret for thousands of years much less for a few years. GEESH That is what the unbelievable part is. LOL :rolleyes:

[Willow]

http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
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 (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpretted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?
If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader.

IS THIS BOOK ANTI-CHRISTIAN?
No. This book is not anti-anything. It's a novel. I wrote this story in an effort to explore certain aspects of Christian history that interest me. The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact and consider The Da Vinci Code an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate. Even so, a small but vocal group of individuals has proclaimed the story dangerous, heretical, and anti-Christian. While I regret having offended those individuals, I should mention that priests, nuns, and clergy contact me all the time to thank me for writing the novel. Many church officials are celebrating The Da Vinci Code because it has sparked renewed interest in important topics of faith and Christian history. 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.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF CLERICAL SCHOLARS ATTEMPTING TO "DISPROVE" THE DA VINCI CODE?
The dialogue is wonderful. These authors and I obviously disagree, but the debate that is being generated is a positive powerful force. The more vigorously we debate these topics, the better our understanding of our own spirituality. Controversy and dialogue are healthy for religion as a whole. Religion has only one true enemy--apathy--and passionate debate is a superb antidote.

PARTS OF THE DA VINCI CODE DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUP OPUS DEI. HOW DOES OPUS DEI FEEL ABOUT YOUR NOVEL?
I worked very hard to create a fair and balanced depiction of Opus Dei. Even so, there may be those who are offended by the portrayal. While Opus Dei is a very positive force in the lives of many people, for others, affiliation with Opus Dei has been a profoundly negative experience. Their portrayal in the novel is based on more than a dozen books written about Opus Dei as well as on my own personal interviews with current and former members.

SOME OF THE HISTORY IN THIS NOVEL CONTRADICTS WHAT I LEARNED IN SCHOOL. WHAT SHOULD I BELIEVE?
Since the beginning of recorded time, history has been written by the "winners" (those societies and belief systems that conquered and survived). Despite an obvious bias in this accounting method, we still measure the "historical accuracy" of a given concept by examining how well it concurs with our existing historical record. Many historians now believe (as do I) that in gauging the historical accuracy of a given concept, we should first ask ourselves a far deeper question: How historically accurate is history itself?

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.

THE TOPIC OF THIS NOVEL MIGHT BE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL. DO YOU FEAR REPERCUSSIONS?
I can't imagine why. The ideas in this novel have been around for centuries; they are not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time these ideas have been written about within the context of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new. My hope for The Da Vinci Code was, in addition to entertaining people, that it might serve as an open door for readers to begin their own explorations and rekindle their interest in topics of faith.

[Willow]

HAS ANYONE IN ORGANIZED RELIGION COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR NOVEL?
Yes, many people in organized religion have come out in support of this novel, and, of course, many have come out in opposition as well. The opposition generally comes from the strictest Christian thinkers who feel the idea of a "married Jesus" serves to undermine His divinity. While I don't agree with this interpretation, this is immaterial because the dialogue itself is a deeply empowering and positive force for everyone involved. Suddenly, enormous numbers of people are passionately debating important philosophical topics, and regardless of the personal conclusions that each of us draws, the debate can only help to strengthen our understanding of our own faith. Much of the positive response I get from within organized religion comes from nuns (who write to thank me for pointing out that they have sacrificed their entire lives to the Church and are still considered "unfit" to serve behind the altar). I have also heard from hundreds of enthusiastic priests. While many of them disagree with some of the ideas in the novel, they are thrilled that their parishioners are eager to discuss religion. Father John Sewell of St. John's Episcopal Church in Memphis stated it particularly eloquently in the press recently, saying: "This [novel] is not a threat. This is an opportunity. We are called to creatively engage the culture and this is what I want to do. I think Dan Brown has done me a favor. He's letting me talk about things that matter."

ARE YOU SURPRISED BY THE BOOK'S SUCCESS?
Stunned. I worked very hard on this novel, and I certainly expected people would enjoy it, but I never imagined so many people would be enjoying it this much. I wrote this book essentially as a group of fictional characters exploring ideas that I found personally intriguing. These same themes obviously resonate with a great many people.

THIS NOVEL IS VERY EMPOWERING TO WOMEN. CAN YOU COMMENT?
Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future.

THE COVER OF YOUR BOOK MENTIONS "THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY OF THE PAST 2000 YEARS." WHAT IS THIS CONSPIRACY?
Revealing that secret would rob readers of all the fun, but I will say that it relates to one of the most famous histories of all time…a legend familiar to all of us. Rumors of this conspiracy have been whispered for centuries in countless languages, including the languages of art, music, and literature. Some of the most dramatic evidence can be found in the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinci, which seem to overflow with mystifying symbolism, anomalies, and codes. Art historians agree that Da Vinci's paintings contain hidden levels of meaning that go well beneath the surface of the paint. Many scholars believe his work intentionally provides clues to a powerful secret…a secret that remains protected to this day by a clandestine brotherhood of which Da Vinci was a member.


WHERE DID YOU GET THE IDEA FOR THE DA VINCI CODE?
This particular story kept knocking on my door until I answered. I first learned of the mysteries hidden in Da Vinci's paintings while I was studying art history at the University of Seville in Spain. Years later, while researching Angels & Demons and the Vatican Secret Archives, I encountered the Da Vinci enigma yet again. I arranged a trip to the Louvre Museum where I was fortunate enough to view the originals of some of Da Vinci's most famous works as well as discuss them with an art historian who helped me better understand the mystery behind their surprising anomalies. From then on, I was captivated. I spent a year doing research before writing The Da Vinci Code.

HOW DID YOU GET ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION FOR THIS BOOK?
Most of the information is not as "inside" as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience."

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A FASCINATION WITH SECRET SOCIETIES? CAN YOU COMMENT?
My interest in secret societies is the product of many experiences, some I can discuss, others I cannot. Certainly my research of organizations like NSA, the Vatican, NRO, and Opus Dei continues to fuel my intrigue. At a more fundamental level, though, my interest sparks from growing up in New England, surrounded by the clandestine clubs of Ivy League universities, the Masonic lodges of our Founding Fathers, and the hidden hallways of early government power. New England has a long tradition of elite private clubs, fraternities, and secrecy. On that theme, the next Robert Langdon novel (already in progress) is set deep within the oldest fraternity in history…the enigmatic brotherhood of the Masons.

WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A CONSPIRACY THEORIST?
Hardly. In fact, I'm quite the opposite--more of a skeptic. I see no truth whatsoever in stories of extraterrestrial visitors, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, or many of the other "mysteries" that permeate pop culture. However, the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss.

CAN YOU SYNOPSIZE THE PLOT FOR US?
Sure. A renowned Harvard symbologist is summoned to the Louvre Museum to examine a series of cryptic symbols relating to Da Vinci's artwork. In decrypting the code, he uncovers the key to one of the greatest mysteries of all time…and he becomes a hunted man.

[Crick]

There is also a show that premeired this past Sunday on the National Geographic channel called Unlocking Da Vinci's Code. I think the show that I had seen was called Beyond the Da Vinci Code. I thought it was on the Discovery Channel but maybe it was on the National Geographic channel because when I did a search for Beyond the Da Vinci Code this was one of the sites that came up........

http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=72768&browseCategoryId=cat1160004&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=

Actually you are right about both channels. The Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel have been airing programs discussing the Da Vinci code.

Some of the other cable channels also run specials discussing the Da Vinci code and other biblical sories. Best time to catch them is around Easter. One channel (May be A&E) usually has a marathon during Easter weekend where they present all views (pro and con) about the different aspects (stories) of the Bible. Each show is one hour starting with Adam and Eve and ending with "the Apocolypse." Very worthwhile if IMO if you can catch them and have time to watch.