# Debunking the Da Vinci Code? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 8, 2006, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879 "2006-05-08T13:30:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/21 "2006-05-08T15:59:36Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > “I began as a skeptic. As I started researching The Da Vinci Code, I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer.” (Dan Brown, Interview in National Geographic docum., Unlocking Da Vinci’s Code: The Full Story) > Can you honestly blame people for wanting to debunk what Dan Brown says? I think that’s an entirely reasonable response on their part… and I think it is grossly unfair to accuse them of being insecure, or to suggest that they are unable to handle any questioning of their belief. Considering that I did not read that article, I cannot speak to it. Okay (treading lightly here) may I ask what is so bad about Jesus being married and having children? Does that negate all the good he did, that he loved a woman and had a family? Please help me understand. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/22 "2006-05-08T16:07:31Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Are you honestly suggesting that none of these authors are concerned about setting the record straight? That they are motivated solely by business concerns? If so, how did you come to that conclusion? I was talking about the _publishers_, not the authors. There are undoubtedly many books in print that require debunking for the credulous. However, very few of them ever see the bookstores for the simple reason that publishers don’t see a market for them. That’s reality. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/23 "2006-05-08T16:40:34Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > Okay (treading lightly here) may I ask what is so bad about Jesus being married and having children? Does that negate all the good he did, that he loved a woman and had a family? Please help me understand. There’s a thread over in GD(?) about this very subject. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/24 "2006-05-08T16:42:16Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > There’s a thread over in GD(?) about this very subject. Link, please? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/25 "2006-05-08T16:53:54Z")
In **GD** : [If Jesus had Kids, enlighten me about why this is heresy?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=370548) ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/26 "2006-05-08T17:00:34Z")
Thanks. Again, I’m sorry if I upset anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/27 "2006-05-08T17:23:20Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Reminds me of a couple of years back when that novel **Heavenly Bones** was quite popular. Do you mean _The Lovely Bones_ by Alice Sebold? > [@](#): > > I was repeatedly amazed to hear people comment on how that novel reassured them concerning the afterlife. I mean, besides my objections to the manner of afterlife presented in the novel, it was - after all - a novel! > > Yeah - to me it smacks of insecurity on behalf of the institutions, and recognition of the gullibility of large portions of their membership. Or did I miss the disclaimers coming out of the White House after President (Harrison) Ford kicked hijacker ass in Air Force One? Heck - if you believe it to be true, than it must be true, right? > > Of course, since so many people are perfectly willing to base their faith on the best selling work of fiction ever… 😉 Don’t say stuff like that in Memphis, dude. People’ll lynch you if the figure out what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/28 "2006-05-08T17:33:50Z")
You know, I’d kind of like to read a “debunking” book for Neal Stephenson’s _Baroque Cycle_. Stephenson readily admits that he’s invented, altered, and discarded a great deal of history for his books, but there’s a lot of stuff in there that’s historically accurate, too. It would be interesting to know which bits are real and which bits are made up without having to read a dozen or so different history books covering different aspects of the era. Brown’s claims of autheticity aside, I can see some real value in reading one of these _Da Vinci_ code debunking books ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/29 "2006-05-08T17:53:27Z")
One of my book clubs read the Da Vinci Code (everything you’re thinking about this book club is absolutely true. In fact, you probably haven’t gone far enough - it’s worse.) And the discussion was astounding in a scary way. The number of people who had the “what if it’s true?” “I think it’s true that…,” “the … part really made me think.” Sadly, I know that they’re not the only people who read the book who couldn’t separate the fact (there really is a museum that is called the Musee du Louvre) from the speculation from the flat out fiction. (Part of the problem is that Brown is an annoyingly sloppy writer. In one of the two books, there’s a conversation which is written in a way that it indirectly suggests (especially to a non-careful reader) that the idea of Communion was stolen from the Aztecs. Whatever the origin of Communion was, divine or human, it is most certainly not Meso-American.) Of course, those people aren’t likely to buy the “Debunking” book. Still, I can very well imagine someone getting tired of saying “No, that’s supposed to be John” and just wanting to hand over a book instead. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/30 "2006-05-08T18:05:23Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > You get out much? You’re implying that I’m horribly naive to think that some of these authors _might_ be motivated by a desire to (ahem) _fight ignorance_, rather than being driven by the almighty dollar. In case you haven’t noticed, I did **NOT** claim that people are **never** motivated by financial means. However, this does not mean that every single author who attempts to debunk Dan Brown’s claims fits that mold. If people are going to claim that “Whether people believe or don’t believe is really beside the point,” then I think it’s only fair to ask how they arrived at that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/31 "2006-05-08T18:19:04Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > I haven’t seen the debunking book you are referring to, but Opus Dei has worked up an outrage over its depiction in The DaVinci Code. There is an article in a recent Time magazine that tries to show the perspective of that group. > > I don’t know what the truth about Opus Dei is, but TDC certainly depicted Opus Dei in a certain way that, IMHO, is intended to be seen as a factual depiction by the reader. Otherwise he would have created a fictional name for the group. Certainly some of it is true, but the claim by Opus Dei is that TDC, by focusing on anomalies, gives a false impression of what the group is all about. Opus Dei approached me when I was in college and I did attend a couple of their meetings. They were basically prayer and conversation sessions. I felt some pressure to join and it could be intense, but no one mentioned self-flagellation. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/32 "2006-05-08T18:25:14Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > I felt some pressure to join and it could be intense, but no one mentioned self-flagellation. Maybe the self-flagellation is a feature that’s only available to members. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/33 "2006-05-08T19:05:49Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > .He, and the source material he was drawing from, seem to believe in this Priory of Sion stuff, which likely was invented out of whole cloth within the last 120 years or so. Or perhaps much more recently than that. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory\_of\_sion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_sion) ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/34 "2006-05-08T19:40:18Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Actually, most skeptics do acknowledge the existence of Christ, Replace “Christ” with “Jesus” and I’d agree with you. Otherwise, no. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/35 "2006-05-08T19:56:28Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > But I don’t think Brown held out the novel as anything but a work of fiction, whatever real artworks and theories he may have included. OTOH, Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, authors of _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy\_Blood\_Holy\_Grail](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail) – presented their findings as historical facts. Which makes their suit against Brown for plaigiarism doubly ludicrous. You cannot copyright a set of historical facts. If John Smith writes the definitive history of Scotland, and I rely on it as source material for my historical novel about William Wallace, I don’t owe Mr. Smith a dime. ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/36 "2006-05-08T21:22:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You know, I’d kind of like to read a “debunking” book for Neal Stephenson’s _Baroque Cycle_. Stephenson readily admits that he’s invented, altered, and discarded a great deal of history for his books, but there’s a lot of stuff in there that’s historically accurate, too. It would be interesting to know which bits are real and which bits are made up without having to read a dozen or so different history books covering different aspects of the era. Brown’s claims of autheticity aside, I can see some real value in reading one of these _Da Vinci_ code debunking books I just this weekend finished this series. I was in the book store waiting to buy the third volume, and saw a biography of Robert Hooke by Lisa Jardine (sp?) on the discount table. I bought that too, and low and behold, in the afterward, Stephenson says that this book came out too late for his research, but is a good case of what is thought to really have happened during that time. Okay, hijack over. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/37 "2006-05-08T22:17:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You know, I’d kind of like to read a “debunking” book for Neal Stephenson’s _Baroque Cycle_. Stephenson readily admits that he’s invented, altered, and discarded a great deal of history for his books, but there’s a lot of stuff in there that’s historically accurate, too. It would be interesting to know which bits are real and which bits are made up without having to read a dozen or so different history books covering different aspects of the era. Brown’s claims of autheticity aside, I can see some real value in reading one of these _Da Vinci_ code debunking books Stephenson set up a wiki for him and others to annotate the trilogy, but it never took off (he didn’t want to put any real work into it) and it seems to have vanished. The [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle_(novel)) page on the Baroque Cycle has a few tidbits, plus a list of historical characters. Spotting the deliberate anachronisms on almost every page is the real fun, though. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879/38 "2006-05-08T22:43:30Z")
**Ivylass** , it’s not just the whole “Jesus and Mary were married and had children” thing. That interests a lot of people, and _some_ Christians are bothered by the idea for certain reasons, but not all are. But there are a lot of other historical assertions Brown makes that are just plain false, and easily demonstrated to be so. He makes claims about what happened at the Nicene Council (we have the records for that), what Constantine did, how the Bible was compiled, what the Gnostics believed (he cherrypicks that and completely distorts it, and even mixes up the Dead Sea Scrolls with gnostic beliefs), what ‘da Vinci’ did with his paintings (ow, his last name was not da Vinci, he just didn’t have one, you’re supposed to say Leonardo), and on and on. It just makes some people’s heads explode that he can make such silly assertions and that so many people are buying it. He’s taken advantage of the fact that many people use historical fiction as an easy way to learn about history (good authors try to get their background facts straight), that hardly anyone knows anything about early Christian history these days anyway, and that people like to know ‘secret oppressed truths.’ The way he put all the ‘information’ into a historian’s mouth reinforces the impression of true history, and the way he constantly says things like “all serious students know that…(insert bibblebabble).” You may have known enough to consider the whole thing to be fiction, but you can hardly be ignorant that many, many people have been convinced that he’s telling the truth about a lot of things. He even gets the science wrong; _phi_ is not connected with bees the way he claims, and Venus does not trace a ‘perfect’ pentagram in the sky. Those bits drove my husband nuts. So I think it’s perfectly fair that some people are out there trying to fight ignorance with their debunking books. It’s just like debunking little grey alien/crystal healing/alien pyramid architects/crop circle claims, as far as I’m concerned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debunking-the-da-vinci-code/355879.md?page=1)