# Why is the "DaVinci Code" being taken so seriously as an attack on the Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 19, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933 "2005-02-19T20:49:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2005, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/21 "2005-02-20T21:00:02Z")
> [@The Asbestos Mango](#): > > … > > … > I think the same applies to books like _The DaVinci Code_. People read the book believing that the premise of the book has some kind of factual or historical basis, when, in fact, it is pure fiction, probably based on a legend cooked up by the Merovingian rulers to justify their divine right to rule. What, like the stories of divine right of rule dream up by English kings? They both sound better then, “I have a sword and I am not afraid to use it. Now, I know what you are thinking, did he fire one shot from that cross-bow or two. Well it doesn’t matter because I have as many shots at you with my sword as I need. Now bow your knees, punk.” p.s. Do you feel lucky, punk? Huh? Do you, Mango? note: I had planned to post some really funny lines I had in my head combining Ellens meet up with the SNL Character Mango, but put Dirty Harry in the place of Ellen, but I couldn’t find a transcript of that skit at [http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01i.phtml](http://snltranscripts.jt.org/01/01i.phtml) but believe me, it would have been funny. Really. Stop looking at me like that, it really would have been. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/22 "2005-02-21T00:50:26Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > The reason for concern is that many news stories about TDVC quote some unknowing readers who do take it seriously enough to doubt the Christian faith, believing that Brown is telling the truth about the New Testament canon process, the origins of the doctrines of the Trinity & the Deity of Christ, etc. While the Holy Blood theory has been around since the early 1980s, it spawned one article in C’nity Today and a fundy book Guardians of the Grail, suggesting that the AntiChrist would use the idea to solidify his claim to power. TDVC took the idea out of the fringe & catapulted it to the best seller list. Same reason the Jesus Seminar is taken seriously as an attack on the Bible, even though they are rehashing ideas that have been around since the 1800s at least. There’s nothing “fringe” about the Jesus Seminar. It represents pretty much mainstream scholarship. Their conclusions might have been shocking on a popular level but they are pretty much accepted as a matter of course within critical Biblical scholarship. The JS does not really belong in the same conversation with the Merovingian theory. Biblical scholarship, like science, tends to be plagued by populist shadow industry of pseudo-scholarship and whack-a-doodle theories (_Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jesus Lived in India, The Passover Plot_, etc.) but the Jesus Seminar is not in that category (and is also much more difficult to refute). ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/23 "2005-02-21T00:58:20Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There’s nothing “fringe” about the Jesus Seminar. It represents pretty much mainstream scholarship. Their conclusions might have been shocking on a popular level but they are pretty much accepted as a matter of course within critical Biblical scholarship. The JS does not really belong in the same conversation with the Merovingian theory. > > Biblical scholarship, like science, tends to be plagued by populist shadow industry of pseudo-scholarship and whack-a-doodle theories (_Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jesus Lived in India, The Passover Plot_, etc.) but the Jesus Seminar is not in that category (and is also much more difficult to refute). Out of curiosity what exactly are these “Jesus Seminars?” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/24 "2005-02-21T01:19:14Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Out of curiosity what exactly are these “Jesus Seminars?” There is only [one of them.](http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html) It’s an organization of Biblical scholars (about 200 of them, I think) whose stated mission is to determine what can be known _for certain_ about historical Jesus. They made headlines in the 80’s by concluding that Jesus probably said less a quarter of what is attributed to him in the gospels. They employed a voting system which uses color coded beads to denote the level of certainty in the authenticity of each given saying. there is a graded system of certainty. Red is the most certain, pink is “probably said it,” etc. They have also done similar work on the deeds of Jesus )with a similarly low number of “red” votes. As you might expect, the JS has come under considerable fire from traditionalists but their credentials and methodology is not as assailable as something like the Merovingian theory. For one thing, the JS does not try to argue FOR any particular theories, it only makes critiques on the reliability and authenticity of the NT, for another thing the members are the real deal in terms of credentials and background. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/25 "2005-02-21T01:36:34Z")
One of the professors here at school (and the one I’ve had the majority of my religion classes with) is a member of the Jesus Seminar (though I didn’t realize he was such a recent addition to the college faculty.) I’ve seen nothing to make me think that there is anything inherently flawed in his methodology. Actually, I’ve quite enjoyed taking his classes. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/26 "2005-02-21T02:33:42Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s nothing “fringe” about the Jesus Seminar. **Friar Ted** may or may not consider the Jesus Seminar to be fringe, but I did not take that meaning from his statement. Rather, it appeared that he noted the responses among some reactionary groups to the JS and compared them to some of the reactions of uninformed people regarding The Da Vinci Code. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/27 "2005-02-21T02:51:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > **Friar Ted** may or may not consider the Jesus Seminar to be fringe, but I did not take that meaning from his statement. Rather, it appeared that he noted the responses among some reactionary groups to the JS and compared them to some of the reactions of uninformed people regarding The Da Vinci Code. Point taken. **Friar** , if I misunderstood your intention, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/28 "2005-02-21T08:39:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Well, when he says the art is historical fact, it’s not unreasonable to presume he means Leonardo really painted a chick at The Last Supper. Well, I was trying to use spoiler boxes, but since you let the cat out of the bag: Actually I DO think it’s unreasonable to _assume_ that it’s anything other than conjecture, or even fancy. I don’t believe Brown claims in the book that Da Vinci _said_ it was a woman. Brown said the _art_ is historical fact. He didn’t say _the things that the fictional characters in the book say about the art_ is historical fact. > [@](#): > > And if the secret societies are real - he says it’s historical fact, which I think is debatable, What’s debatable? Whether secret societies existed? Did he make up fictional secret societies and claim that they were real? Which ones? I’m asking sincerely, because I hadn’t heard that. > [@](#): > > but the phrasing leads you to think there’s an actual conspiracy out there. Thus, all of that lends some credence to the book. Not the plot, but the idea that Brown has discovered some historical truths that the RCC has been suppressing. Been awhile since I read the book, but Doesn’t the “conspiracy” involve one of the main characters in a direct way? And isn’t the evidence of the conspiracy hidden in an actual place that’s referred to in the book? I don’t understand how anyone would believe that the character is a real person who has knowledge of and visits the actual place where evidence that would probably destroy the Catholic Church is hidden. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/29 "2005-02-21T09:35:24Z")
UK television recently showed an excellent treatment of the book, presented by Baldrick from Blackadder. Its main conclusions were that Da Vinci liked his boys to look like girls, and that the Priory of Scion (which Dan Brown thinks is a real organisation) was a hoax by three French guys who faked some documents: one **surrealist** , one academic who liked a joke, and one nutjob who wanted to show he had a Merovingian bloodline. It made a very good case that the Holy Grail literally had more to do with Monty Python than with Dan Brown’s book. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/30 "2005-02-21T09:49:57Z")
Thanks. So Brown basically got hoodwinked on the Priory of Scion thing, I take it. He didn’t make it up, but he wrongly believes it’s real. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/31 "2005-02-21T10:00:32Z")
**SentientMeat** …that show also had a part about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. There is evidence that the Church DID play down the fact that Jesus had a female disciple who was given equal standing with the men. There is evidence that several leaders of the early churches were female, and that at the beginning of the church there truly was no differentiation between male and female in the set-up of the church. Obviously, at some point that changed, and 2000 years later the Catholic church refuses to have women priests and the Anglicans has women priests, but refuses to make them bishops. Any evidence that THESE beliefs (rather than the rubbish about Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a sexual relationship and a child) are true could indeed pose a real threat to the church as it currently is. Can you see the pope making a statement: “Oops, sorry, Jesus actually had no problem with women in positions of leadership, we’ve been wrong about that since the beginning”? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/32 "2005-02-21T10:23:53Z")
Yes - I believe he based much of his work on the 1982 book [Holy Blood, Holy Grail](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385338597/104-1535383-9896750?v=glance), whose authors were led a merry dance by Pierre Plantard’s fake documents and cloak-and-dagger phone calls. [Here](http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/) is a summary of the entire sorry sham, as admitted explicitly by surrealist actor Philippe de Chérisey - one of those responsible for the hoax. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/33 "2005-02-21T10:29:06Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > **SentientMeat** …that show also had a part about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Yes - one of the things I found rather disappointing with the show was that at no point did they simply say that the Gospels _themselves_ are essentially works of fiction, and that Mary Magdalene almost certainly did not even _exist_. If there was a historical Jesus, _ie._ the guy who thought up some of the parables and teachings in the Gospels, pretty much **nothing** about his actual life (save, perhaps, for his execution - and he _certainly_ would not have been buried or his body handed over to _anyone_ in that case) can really be said to be true. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/34 "2005-02-21T10:51:26Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Thanks. So Brown basically got hoodwinked on the Priory of Scion thing, I take it. He didn’t make it up, but he wrongly believes it’s real. My guess is - he doesn’t care and why should he? He’s a fiction writer who’s learned to tap into the X-Files paranoia market and has deliberately hit on a nerve. He might not be a great writer but he’s a good thriller writer. Good luck to him. ---
**Author:** ![Asteroide](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@Asteroide](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asteroide)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/35 "2005-02-21T11:02:17Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Yes - I believe he based much of his work on the 1982 book [Holy Blood, Holy Grail](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385338597/104-1535383-9896750?v=glance), whose authors were led a merry dance by Pierre Plantard’s fake documents and cloak-and-dagger phone calls. > > [Here](http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/) is a summary of the entire sorry sham, as admitted explicitly by surrealist actor Philippe de Chérisey - one of those responsible for the hoax. Giving the benefit of the doubt to Dan Brown, he may simply have been following the “Don’t believe everything you hear / define your own reality / fight the power / have fun” credo of various Surrealists, occultists etc. If so, this would definitely be an attack on the Church, who tend to present themselves as sole arbiters of Truth and Wisdom. On the other hand DB may be more along the lines of a passive vector for the manipulations of those who originally came up with these mind-bending mishmashes of fact and fantasy. Of course the “unintended consequences” may be to create a new set of True Believers instead of encouraging creative examination of the Nature of Truth and Revelation etc. In any case, the defensive reactions can be explained by the sheer magnitude of DBs readership, despite the obvious weakness of the book. ---
**Author:** ![Antonius\_Block](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Antonius\_Block](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antonius_Block)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/36 "2005-02-21T11:26:37Z")
> [@irishgirl](#): > > Obviously, at some point that changed, and 2000 years later the Catholic church refuses to have women priests and the Anglicans has women priests, but refuses to make them bishops. Whereas the **Church of England** itself may not yet allow women bishops, the [worldwide Anglican Communion](http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg3.htm) as a whole has had several female bishops. The Anglican Church of New Zealand and the Episcopal Church in the US consecrated their first female bishops (Penny Jamieson and [Barbara Harris](http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v42/n25/harris.html) respectively) in 1989, and the Anglican Churches in Canada and Polynesia have since joined them. The **Scottish Episcopal Church** and the **Anglican Church in Ireland** have both recently [voted](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2983920.stm) to allow women to become bishops, but none have yet been elected. IMHO it’s only a matter of time before the CofE follows suit. Women have only been _priests_ in the CofE since 1994 (compared to the first female Anglican priests in Hong Kong in 1971, then the US, Canada, and NZ in the mid-late 70’s), so it’s not surprising that the CofE lags behind in gender equality for bishops. I’d be willing to bet that it’ll come within the next decade or so, as the dinosaurs die off. ---
**Author:** ![Meurglys](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/258eb7/32.png) [@Meurglys](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meurglys)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/37 "2005-02-21T12:31:26Z")
Just curious to know whether he makes any claim concerning the truth behind his other book featuring ‘symbologist’ Robert Langdon, _Angels and Demons_? IIRC, it features much the same sort of pseudo-religious research and also stealth hypersonic passenger jets operated as a black project by CERN!! ---
**Author:** ![Antonius\_Block](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Antonius\_Block](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antonius_Block)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/38 "2005-02-21T12:45:03Z")
> [@Meurglys](#): > > Just curious to know whether he makes any claim concerning the truth behind his other book featuring ‘symbologist’ Robert Langdon, _Angels and Demons_? > > IIRC, it features much the same sort of pseudo-religious research and also stealth hypersonic passenger jets operated as a black project by CERN!! From [danbrown.com](http://danbrown.com/secrets/bizarre_facts/angels_demons.html), the author’s own website, we have this gem, currently listed under **“Bizarre True Facts from ANGELS & DEMONS”** : > [@](#): > > NEW YORK TO TOKYO IN AN HOUR > The United States now has an aircraft that can travel at Mach 15 (over 10,000 mph.) The X-33 space plane cruises at an altitude of almost 100 miles high, on the edge of space. Although the X-33 is no longer classified, specifications of the X-34 (pictured to the left) remain secret. Aerospace specialists predict civilian passengers will be riding in planes like this by 2006. In fact, NASA [scrapped the X-33 and X-34 programs](http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/x33_cancel_010301.html) in March 2001, but somebody clearly forgot to tell Dan Brown. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/39 "2005-02-21T17:02:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > For some reason the thing that seems to bug them the most is any suggestion that Jesus might have gotten his freak on with Mary Magdalene. > > … > > Even so, it seems to be intolerable to some to even consider the possibility that Jesus was sexually active. I think there is an very important point here. If Jesus achieves orgasm, what does he cry instead of “Yes! Oh, God!”? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933/40 "2005-02-21T17:44:01Z")
“Oh me, oh my!” Obviously… 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-davinci-code-being-taken-so-seriously-as-an-attack-on-the-bible/290933.md?page=3)