Davinci Code by Dan Brown: Code of Truth or Code of Lies?

1396 Words3 Pages

The Da Vinci Code, author Dan Brown’s bestseller novel, has something for everyone: a fast-moving murder story, puzzles, riddles, anagrams, and art historical mysteries. However, there is a difficult side to what Dan Brown is creating in his novel. On the surface it offers a rip-roaring story involving intrigue, murder, secrecy and romance. But underneath this lies an exposé of a whole series of multiple conspiracy theories, including the secret identity of the Holy Grail, the true identity of Jesus, the marriage of Jesus and Marry Mathew, the secret society the Priory of Sion, and the corruption at the heart of the Catholic Church. Therefore, while Brown’s novel has enthralled many readers, it has sparked the same level of controversy with others. One of the biggest reasons for this controversy is how Brown claims that this novel is 100% accurate. It’s one thing to write a book of fiction that plays around with history, but to claim what’s written in the novel is factual is quite another. These claims Brown makes go against historical Biblical history. That said, that would mean that Biblical history is 100% truthful as well, which can’t be proven either. Biblical history was recorded by men after the fact. While it’s uncertain if everything in the novel is factious, both the Holy Grail and the Prior of Siron are not as accurate as Brown claims.

Intriguingly, then, straight after the acknowledgements, the Da Vinci Code offers a page entitled ‘Fact’. The author explains to the reader that the Priory of Sion is a real organization and that in 1975 Paris’ Bibliothèque Nationale found a collection of papers now known as ‘Les Dossiers Secrets’ which outlined the various secrets of the Priory including the names of the prev...

... middle of paper ...

...old, or rather, one character tells another (p. 257), that ‘...Christ’s lineage was in perpetual danger. The early Church feared that if the lineage were permitted to grow, the secret of Jesus and Magdalene would eventually surface and challenge the...doctrine...of a divine Messiah...’ Now it is at least plausible that, if Jesus and Mary Magdalene had consorted and conceived, the Church might wish to keep it quiet. Therefore (in Brown’s version of things), since their marriage is not known to anyone, the Church must have been successful at keeping it quiet— and therefore it must be true. Thus the very lack of proof constitutes its own proof, demonstrating just how effective the conspiracy of silence has been through the centuries. (However, one cannot help wondering how it is that Lovelich and Hardyng inadvertently revealed the secret in the fifteenth century.)

Open Document