The Da Vinci Code: A Fun Bunch of Hooey
Ms. Schultz, Ph.D., is a history professor at the University of St. Francis in Illinois, and writes a syndicated column on historical films.
Leave it to Tom Hanks to put The Da Vinci Code into perspective.
Interviewed for London's Evening Standard, the star of the upcoming blockbuster insists the furor over the film is misplaced. "It's a damn good story and a lot of fun," he asserted, adding that no one should take the film too seriously. It's loaded, he said, "with all sorts of hooey."
He's right, of course. Ultimately the novel--and the film--are enjoyable pieces of escapist fiction. Why then, the uproar--outraged denials from Catholic leaders, testy rebukes from academics, and calls for boycotts from Vatican officials?
Because author Dan Brown has insisted, in interviews and in the novel itself, that his fictional thriller isn't so fictional. The uber-bestseller opens with a page of purported FACTS (the bold capitals are his) asserting that all descriptions of artwork, secret documents, and shadowy organizations like the Priory of Sion are wholly "accurate."
Um, no. They're not.
An army of scholars--both religious and secular--have exposed countless errors in Brown's supposed "facts." Here's a handy distillation of their arguments, designed to help viewers separate the hooey from the truth in The Da Vinci Code.
Q. The Da Vinci Code's main premise is that Jesus actually
married Mary Magdalene. True?
A. This notion has floated around for centuries in the shadowy realm of legend and myth. But as historians like Bart Erhman point out, the historical evidence against it is overwhelming. For one thing, not one of the early sources on the historical Jesus--not even the Gnostic gospels Dan Brown cites--ever mention a wife.
But the sources do mention other members of Jesus's family surrounding him, and they mention the spouses of Jesus's followers. So if Jesus had been married, it's logical to assume that at least one mention of her would have survived. But none exist.
Q. But The Da Vinci Code says Jewish custom at the time
would "virtually forbid" Jewish men to remain single.
A. That's an exaggeration. Being single may have been unusual, but it wasn't forbidden. Some of Jesus's followers stayed single. And the Essene community (most famous as the producers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) were Jewish contemporaries of Jesus who eschewed marriage.
Q. What about all those secret scrolls which Brown claims reveal
a close relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene?
A. Brown vastly overstates this, and the documents he cites are far more ambiguous than he lets on. Here's an example. A passage in the Gospel of Philip, a Gnostic Gospel, refers to Mary as the "companion" of Jesus. In The Da Vinci Code, this passage is cited as powerful evidence of Mary's marriage to Jesus, because, as one character sagely notes, in Aramaic, "companion" actually meant "spouse."
There's just one problem. The Gospel of Philip wasn't written in Aramaic, but in Coptic. And in Coptic, "companion" meant "friend."
The movie dances around this mistake by making the line deliberately fuzzy. Companion meant spouse "in those days," we're told.
Oh, yeah? In what language, pray tell?
Q. In the film, Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) says the 4th century
Council of Nicea (under Constantine) created the New Testament by
suppressing gospels that emphasized Jesus's humanity. Also, that
they "voted" to "make Jesus divine." True?
A. Off the mark, again. The four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were established as authoritative fairly early in church history. And as Bart Ehrman notes, by 180 A.D. (150 years before Nicea) at least twenty-two of the eventual twenty-seven books in the New Testament had already been fixed as canonical. As for Jesus's divinity, most of his followers had been proclaiming that since the first century A.D.
Other gospels did exist, and those which didn't make the cut contain
intriguing ideas which are worth studying. But contrary to what
The Da Vinci Code claims, many of those gospels tend to overemphasize
Jesus's divine power. And some are just plain odd. Take the Infancy
Gospel of Thomas, for instance, in which five-year-old Jesus uses
his superhuman powers to kill his playmates when they annoy him.
Kind of glad they left that one out.
Q. Isn't a woman painted next to Jesus in Da Vinci's The
A. Virtually all art historians scoff at this claim, arguing that the figure is instead John, Jesus' favorite disciple. Artists typically painted him closest to Jesus, and made him young, beardless, and beautiful--quite "feminine" to modern eyes.
Q. What about the Priory of Sion, which The Da Vinci Code
says has guarded the secret of Mary Magdalene and Jesus since
A. CBS's 60 Minutes recently aired a piece thoroughly debunking this claim. Turns out the Priory of Sion was a hoax, created in 1956 by a delusional (and anti-Semitic) Frenchman named Pierre Plantard. Plantard declared that the Priory had been founded in the Middle Ages, and that luminaries like Leonardo Da Vinci and Isaac Newton had served as former Grand Masters, claims that Brown turned into "facts."
For proof of all this, Plantard (and The Da Vinci Code) point us to Les Dossiers Secrets, documents supposedly centuries old. But as 60 Minutes noted, analysis of the documents reveal them instead to date from the 1960s. And in fact, a friend of Plantard's admitted years ago to forging them, in order to create, he said, "a good hoax." With Brown's help, he succeeded.
Q. Where can I get more information?
A. Dan Burstein's Secrets of the Code, and Bart Ehrman's Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code are both good. Read them, then take Tom Hanks's advice. Enjoy the film as fiction, and don't buy into the hooey.
But now that I've seen the film, I do have a final pressing question for Mr. Hanks.
Dude, what's with the mullet?
comments powered by Disqus
John R. Maass - 6/4/2006
I concur, the dialogue is absolutely awful.
John Chapman - 5/31/2006
You missed the point. Where do you think the material for the Greek Bible came from? From the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek. There were many substantial differences with the newer texts written in Hebrew. The textual variants are endless before and after the time you mention.
Kevin R. C. Gutzman - 5/31/2006
Suppose I'm Greek Orthodox and I read the Greek Bible that has been used at Constantinople for 1.5 millennia. What do "translations" have to do with that? Why do people want to believe in erroneous "translations" by "bishops" whose goal is to mislead? What do you think the Orthodox Church is, the Supreme Court? It isn't in the game of intentional mistranslation.
Peter Kovachev - 5/29/2006
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who thought the book poorly written. Flat characters, saccharine cliches, with the subtlety of a foo-foo in a bathysphere. A friend loaned me the book a while back, I read a few chapters and dropped it out of boredom and too much cringing. I actually thought it was one of those pathetic vanity publications by someone with too much money, an over-developed ego and insufficient writing skills.
It was only later that I noticed, with astonishment, the book's popularity. That they decided to make a movie out of it with real budgets and real actors is simply miraculous.
John Chapman - 5/29/2006
Sure The Da Vinci Code is escapist fiction and it is fun. It is also perfect for societies that don’t read anymore, who have never read Italo Calvino and could care less. But why is it touching the nerve of so many and producing all these fundamentalist backlashes? What are they so afraid of? There is a slight hint of this fear in the subtext of Schultz’s article.
"But the sources do mention other members of Jesus's family surrounding him, and they mention the spouses of Jesus's followers. So if Jesus had been married, it's logical to assume that at least one mention of her would have survived. But none exist."
Ass-u-me? Yes and no. Just because no records exist doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t married. And Jesus having been been married wouldn’t necessarily threaten the foundations of Christianity. Why is it logical to assume Jesus’ marriage would be mentioned?
Ms. Schultz also brings up the name of a fairly respected biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman, who does explain it in other books (did she read them?) that generally manage to avoid offending the faithful (Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why , The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew ). In the first book mentioned here, Ehrman argues (I’m putting it simply) that the Bible has been transcribed/translated/copied at least hundreds of times by countless scribes who were influenced by the Bishops or those they served under in times they lived in and by their own personal prejudices or views or grievances.
People are asked to believe that somehow, down through the ages, each word in the scriptures miraculously ended up in our bibles as the actual words of God or Jesus. Verbatim. This certainly requires a leap of faith. The same type of leap we took when we used to listen to children’s fairy tales. To have something akin to intellectual inquisitiveness in our personal faith is considered questionable no-no by some churches.
Schultze gives several examples where Dan Brown may be wrong about word translations, the suppression of the Gospels, etc. etc. Schultze is saying he IS wrong with absolute certainty - he may be, (with the exception of the Priory of Sion fairy-tale), but Schultze makes no case for the rest of it here. Mr. Ehrman, who is a devout Christian, who has studied the problem in his fluent Greek and Hebrew and other languages, does makes a serious case of the possibilities of misquotes, purposely or accidentally. It is common knowledge that for a scholar to take on this work he or she would have to be fluent in Coptic, Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, French and German to get the feel of a particular scribes point of view, the way he used words etc. The unknown scribes who copied the scriptures may have made mistakes. If we have no original copies of the scriptures, how can we know for sure.
Lorraine Paul - 5/29/2006
Any book which opens up debate on the divinity and politicisation of Jesus is worthy of being read. However, this book is not the one!
It isn't even a good read so I will not be going to see the film.