How do you know if what you're reading is true or not? This isn't an easy question to answer. However, by examining things carefully and asking the right questions, you can greatly reduce the chances of being fooled. One way to find out how sturdy something is made, is to try and tear it apart. Even things that seem indestructible at first, can often be broken down if you find the weak spot. Theories are no exception. The Da Vinci Code (DVC) is useful for honing these skills, because despite being presented as well-documented history, nearly everything in the book is misleading. Both The DVC, and it's predecessor Holy Blood, Holy Grail (HBHG), are cleverly disguised attempts to manipulate the reader while presenting virtually no evidence. This isn't a cause for concern until you realize that almost everyone who reads these books, ends up either totally confused, or worse, convinced they're a reliable source of information. The above quotes by Orson Wells and Mr. Hitler make an interesting combination. In the movie, Citizen Kane, the powerful newspaper magnate played by Mr. Wells was boasting of his power to control public opinion: "They will believe what I tell them to believe." Then, as if to demonstrate his point in real life, Orson put scores of people into a panic with a convincing radio broadcast of a Martian invasion. When news of the event was trumpeted around the world, a gleeful Hitler reacted by making fun of the gullible American public. We proved he was right. The "big lie" does have a certain force of credibility. Wells was telling us to be careful about who, and what we believe. But unfortunately, Blaise Pascal may also have been right when he said: "Everyone likes to be deceived." In his book, 1984, George Orwell warned of a time when we would be inundated with propaganda, non-stop, from the moment we woke up, to the time we went to sleep. Something not too far from that is already a reality in some parts of the globe. Back in the early 80's, there was a televised debate between some college students from the U.S. and Soviet Union. When one of the Americans made reference to the Soviet’s invasion of Afghanistan, the visitors' eyes grew wide with amazement and they nearly fell on the floor laughing. Apparently they knew little or nothing of the war in Afghanistan and thought we were the ones being lied to. At any rate, the purpose of propaganda is to manipulate what people believe. The subject is conditioned to accept inconsistencies, contradictions, empty rhetoric, and appeals to authority; all things featured prominently in The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood. The individual is also dis- couraged from questioning things. This is ironic when you consider that both books claim to be questioning things themselves, yet if someone dares question them, he or she must be part of a conspiracy. Now that is clever. It's no secret we're being lied to; we've come to expect it. Our political system almost demands it. The winner of an election is often the candidate who manages to offend the fewest number of people. So what we hear from many politicians is superficial rhetoric that's carefully designed to manipulate the voter and sling mud at the opponent. We take these things for granted, though, just like the advertising we're bombarded with each day. But don't kid yourself, we are influenced by it. Corporations don't spend billions every year on ads because they don't work. But what does this have to do with best-selling books? It’s important to understand that The Da Vinci Code is not really a work of fiction in the usual sense. When was the last time you heard a novelist claim in an interview that ninety-nine percent of his book was true?1 My guess is that Dan Brown is the first one in recorded history. His book resembles a literary genre that used to be popular in science. In Dialogue Concerning Two Chief Systems, Galileo tried to convince the world the heliocentric theory was true by having fictional characters debate the issue. Likewise, Mr. Brown has said the only thing fictional in The Da Vinci Code are the characters; all the claims they make are true!1 But think for a moment, isn't that exactly what the producer of a television commercial wants you to believe? A TV ad consists of make-believe people, saying make-believe things, to convince you to buy what they’re selling. The Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, consists of make-believe people, saying make-believe things, to convince you to buy what they're selling. There's not much difference between the two. Commercials are indeed fiction, but they're also an attempt to alter our beliefs and opinions about the real world. The idea is to convince us their product is fantastic. With the Mormons, their family-oriented T.V. ads are selling a philosophy and a way of life. But everything is open and above board. Our guard is up because we know what they're up to and the likelihood that there is bias in the presentation. However, with The Da Vinci Code, the reader's guard is down, because of course, "It's only a novel." That may be the most powerful piece of deception in this whole affair. So
what is Dan Brown "selling" in his book; what is his agenda (apart from
being successful)? According to the author, one of his primary goals
was the promotion of "goddess worship".3 In so doing, he
also deals with the question of who was responsible for the demise of
paganism in the first place. His answer? The "Gods of war and
destruction"4, more commonly known as: The Father, Son &
Holy Ghost. To make room for the return of the Goddess, it seems
something else had to go. That appears to be the rationale for
demonizing Christianity. However, that isn't the problem here. All
motivations aside, what matters are the methods being used to
accomplish these goals. The ends don't justify the means.
Take for example the way brilliant men like Leonardo Da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton are depicted in The Da Vinci Code (and Holy Blood). To make them believable as ring-leaders of a pagan cult that indulges in bizarre sex rituals, they receive personality make-overs. They are transformed into a couple of strange characters obsessed with the occult and at war with Christianity. The DVC actually states that Langdon could see why the police inspector would link Leonardo with Satan worship!3 But is this portrayal realistic? Both men left a great deal of writing behind. Does The Da Vinci Code have any direct quotes that would support such an image? No, for the simple reason that there aren't any. So what does the author do? To sell the false image, he falsifies some quotations. On page 230 of the DVC, we find Teabing using Leonardo Da Vinci (against his will), to help with his smear campaign against The Bible:
On the contrary, from this quote we can't tell if "Leonardo's feelings about the Bible" relate to the grail, or not. Why? Because these are not Leonardo's feelings about the Bible! This quotation from his Notebook on Polemics is accurate, but it appears under a large heading that says: ON ALCHEMY4. He was heaping scorn on alchemists here. Those were men who practiced a crude form of chemistry, usually trying to turn base metals into gold. In the Middle Ages, there were so many con-artists associated with alchemy, laws had to be passed against it. Now the only excuse for a blunder of this magnitude is that Dan Brown copied the quotes from a secondary source and never bothered to go back and check them against Leonardo's notebook. If that's the case, it clears him of deception, but the credibility of his research becomes highly suspect. Some choice: deception or incompetence. Mr. Brown's testimony at his plagiarism trial would seem to favor sleight-of-hand. Under oath, he admitted owning a set of Da Vinci's notebooks5 and using them as a reference for The Da Vinci Code. However, much can also be said in favor of the second option. While still testifying under oath6, Dan dropped the bombshell that Leonardo was an alchemist7, as well as the greatest scientist who ever applied for government funding. You could hear a pin drop in the packed courtroom as Mr. Brown swore on a stack of Bibles that Da Vinci's goal was nothing less than cheating death by discovering the elixir of eternal life! The author's belief that these "nuggets of history" were not only accurate, but relevant to his case, argues against deception and in favor of the possibility that he's totally clueless. History will have to decide. There are two options here. You can believe Da Vinci when he says he hates alchemists, or you can believe Dan Brown that Leonardo was an alchemist. If you want to know about a historical figure, nothing is more important than what the person actually said. However, The DVC completely ignores the words of the artist and relies on the information of fringe authors instead. With Da Vinci Speaks, it's just the opposite. Not to take anything away from the talented artist, but strictly as a scientist, Leonardo probably isn't in the top forty all-time greats. That's heady company indeed. What sets him apart is that he was brilliant at so many different things. In that, he had no equal. He is counted among the world's elite as an inventor, an engineer, a designer, an architect, a scientist and an artist. Truly remarkable. Was he a devil-worshiping alchemist? Sorry, no. The miscarriage of justice is even greater with Sir Isaac. That will come later in an eye-opening chapter called, "The Greatest Scientist Who Ever Lived." There is a useful lesson here in spotting a con-game. It wasn't necessary to go back and check Leonardo's notebooks to know he wasn't speaking about the Bible in that passage. It was right there all the time. Read the quotation again, paying attention to the highlighted words: "Many have made a trade of delusion and false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude." It's clear Leonardo was referring to people who were getting rich from dishonest schemes (alchemists). The Da Vinci Code claim that he was talking about a book (The Bible) doesn't even make sense when you read it carefully. Books do not have "a trade" (occupation). That's what the police call "probable cause." It should serve as a red flag to check out the matter further. Ironically, the artist was expressing his distaste for people who use under-handed tactics like the ones we are now discussing, rather than The Bible. If this was an isolated example we could overlook it, but in fact, it's just the beginning. The author isn't even done playing games with Da Vinci's notebooks yet. A bit later, he repeats the same strategy with a quote from the artist's notebook on "Morals"8 (Again, how ironic). This time, not only wasn't Leonardo talking about The Bible, but the quotation itself was altered by removing sentences to make it sound like he was. This is a fraudulent attempt to convince readers that Leonardo was an occultist who regarded Christianity and The Bible with contempt. The DVC presents other evidence that supposedly shows Da Vinci's fondness for heresy. According to Mr. Brown, the painting, Madonna of the Rocks, reflects Leonardo's "dark side" by having Jesus Christ submitting to John the Baptist's superior authority9. The artist accomplished this by having the infant John blessing the baby Jesus, instead of vice-versa. A myriad of questionable details are then deduced, including the presence of an "invisible head" in the painting. If all of this is true, it would be a bit unusual, since the work was commisioned by a convent. However, it's good to proceed slowly when dealing with a heretic, even when his name doesn't end in a vowel. It seems Mr. Brown was given some bad advice here by two members of the prestigious Fringe-Authors Guild. It turns out that actually is Christ blessing John the Baptist in Leonardo's painting, not the other way around. He should have known this however, since the infant being blessed clearly looks older and bigger, and John was the older of the two. The author's confusion over which child was which came from consulting The Templar Revelation. The writers of that book also claimed Jesus loved pagan sex rituals and his disciples murdered John the Baptist so he could steal John's ministry. Add the assertion that Leonardo "hated the Holy family" and you have a couple of very strange authors that Dan Brown admired so much, he put them in his movie (Lynn Picknett looks like Morticia Addams older sister). Another piece of "evidence" regarding Leonardo's heretical beliefs is the ancient Pagan origin of the name Mona Lisa. We're told Da Vinci's obsession with the occult is obvious from the title he gave his famous painting. Mona Lisa was supposedly derived from a complex combination of anagrams dealing with the Egyptian gods, Amon, and Isis. Again a myriad of strange details are deduced, and again we find the author has painted himself in a corner, since Leonardo never gave names to any of his paintings10. Yet according to The New York Daily News, the research for The DVC was "impeccable"! Perhaps they're right. We're not sure since we couldn't find evidence of any. But Mr. Brown stands by his work. On Good Morning America, he told 15 million people: In fairness to the author, he may have made that statement before discovering that Holy Blood was based on the claims and forgeries of a mentally unstable con-man with a prison record for fraud. The gentleman's name was Pierre Plantard, but he preferred being called "Your Majesty". Why? Because Pierre was convinced he was The King of France. As a new believer, Mr. Brown may have side-stepped this issue since it would tend to undermine his faith. That, or else he completely missed it while researching his book. That's unlikely, though, because despite keeping crazy Pierre safely under wraps, The Da Vinci Code (p. 442) does state that Sophie's parents changed the family name from Plantard to Neveu for protection. According to Dan Brown, the Plantards are "the direct descendants of Jesus Christ & Mary Magdalene", not to mention the dynasty of Merovingian Kings! This silly pipe-dream was concocted by Pierre Plantard himself. He even forged documents that suppossedly proved he was the rightful King of France. Unfortunately, Pierre's wife wasn't convinced and wouldn't let him quit his day-job. If you think these are loose accusations, even Judge Smith in The DVC plagiarism trial ruled that everything relating to Plantard and The Priory of Sion was "an elaborate hoax"! The things we looked at in this section are merely the tip of the iceberg. The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood are well-springs of misinformation. The authors are like dirty cops who plant evidence because they "know" the suspect is guilty, but can't prove it. It's not surprising, though, that many people feel they've had a history lesson after reading these books. Isaac Newton and Da Vinci were quite real, not to mention The Bible and Leonardo's notebooks. Who would suspect key elements were altered or fabricated? And all this is being done by writers who insist it's The Bible that has been tampered with! Just in passing, would you like three good reasons to check out the Bible for yourself? Sir Isaac Newton, Bob Dylan and Jesus. The greatest scientist, songwriter, and teacher in human history; Bible readers all. - It’s Only Fiction! -
To embrace an opinion such as "It's only a novel," one must first make the assumption that people can't be influenced by fiction. But there are countless examples that demonstrate we're influenced by it a great deal. The Nazi philosophy of superior - inferior races and "only the strong survive" didn't just come from Darwin. The concept of the Aryan superman was influenced by a 19th century novel called The Coming Race. The Nazi's preoccupation with the "Vril force" in that book, led to the formation of the "Vril Society" by Hitler's pal, occultist Karl Haushofer. The Fuhrer was obsessed with many of the same things as Dan Brown (The Freemasons, The Holy Grail, etc). The final chapter of this book is about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That too began as a novel, in 1864, then morphed into "true history." That too was based on a huge conspiracy theory; the Jews secret plot to rule the world (No doubt Woody Allen and Seinfeld are behind it all). Hitler quoted The Protocols in Mein Kampf and it became a rationale for The Holocaust and the pogroms in Russia. Without exaggeration, the book has been instrumental in the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews and it's still a best seller in many countries, despite being complete nonsense. Holy Blood, Holy Grail was the forerunner of the dozens of "Holy Grail" books that flood the market. That was supposedly non-fiction, yet in it the authors make the incredible claim that Jesus was the reigning King in Judea when he was crucified. Why? Because their grail-theory would collapse without it. Where did these “history scholars” get such an idea? From a 1946 novel called, King Jesus, by mythographer Robert Graves. And let's not forget the charming way the modern world has been duped into thinking the Bible teaches the earth is flat. One book responsible was written by Washington Irving, author of Rip Van Winkle. In The Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), he depicted Columbus' nay-sayers as Bible-quoting, flat-earth, nit-wits, when a situation like that never existed. The Divine Comedy, by Dante, was written two hundred years before Columbus and makes it quite clear that a spherical earth was common knowledge at the time. Like Dan Brown, Irving injected his own misguided perceptions into the historical record. The result? Grade-school teachers have indoctrinated kids for generations that Columbus' detractors predicted he'd sail off the edge of a flat earth. Such is the style of many Bible-critics: Speak first, think later (maybe). Mixing fact and fiction can indeed produce dramatic effects in the real world. If you'd prefer a more recent example of the power of fiction, consider what happened on December 8th, 1980. One man with a gun robbed the whole world when he killed John Lennon in cold blood outside his home. When police came to arrest the gunman, he was sitting there waiting patiently, and the first words from his mouth were: "I shot John Lennon to promote the reading of J.D. Salinger's, Catcher In The Rye". And guess what? He wasn't kidding. This is no reflection on the novel. It's merely proof that fiction can have a great influence. Even more recently, in 1996, the country sat transfixed after a teen-age "vampire cult" killed the parents of one of it's members. One of their rituals involved slashing their arms and drinking each others blood. Where in the world would they get such an idea? Certainly not from a work of non-fiction. It came from Bram Stoker and the hundreds of authors who've carried on the vampire tradition. When cult leader, Rod Ferrell, decided on murdering the couple, the group was on it's way to New Orleans. Why? To visit the gifted novelist Anne Rice, author of Interview With the Vampire. To put The Da Vinci Code in perspective, consider that a novel is really no different from a screen-play. Yet who would suggest that movies don't influence people? In the 2001 census in Great Britain, 700,000 people listed their religion as "Jedi". Their belief system is taken from the Star Wars film series. Another good example of the impact a fictional story can have is "Birth of a Nation", the silent film epic by D.W. Griffiths. That movie single-handedly caused the resurgence of The Ku Klux Klan. It's message contained an especially virulent strain of racism. The heroic Klan doing battle with the sub-human black race and successfully preserving a bright, white future. It's safe to say that at least some of the lynchings that occurred over the next two decades were influenced by Mr. Griffith's film. Try imagining The Da Vinci Code, but with the Reverend Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement as it's target. According to this novel, the charismatic leader's "I have a dream" speech, was really a nightmare. The fight for civil rights was a conspiracy instigated by the Communists just like J. Edgar Hoover said. Dr. King wasn't a hero who laid down his life for those he loved, he was a "commie-stooge" and The FBI's attempt to blackmail him into committing suicide was justified... Sounds pretty vile, doesn't it? Fiction or not, the author would rightfully be branded a racist and so would anyone who defended him by insisting it's only a novel. In an age that supposedly holds racial and religious tolerance to be sacred, how is it that so many people need convincing that to make negative generalizations about a large group of people based on their religion is reckless? That is the definition of prejudice. To top it off, the accusations made in The Da Vinci Code involve all kinds of tricks. When his book first hit #1, Dan Brown was everywhere claiming it was more reliable than Old Faithful, and in every interview, one of the first questions asked was, "How much of The Da Vinci Code is true"? But why was that? If it's "only a novel", why was that question even coming up? Do they ask Stephen King that? How about John Grisham? The reason the question kept coming up is that The DVC is an obvious attempt to influence the reader about important events in the real world. The plot may be fiction, but it's not the plot interviewers were asking about. They wanted to know if Mr. Brown stood by his version of history and according to him, that was not fiction. The fact that it's presented in the body of a novel is irrelevant. Gone With The Wind is historical fiction, but in The Da Vinci Code, the entire plot takes place in the present. It merely serves as a pretext for the male authority figures to brainwash Sophie with "theories" that are about as well-documented as the moon being made of Swiss cheese. When Mr. Brown was asked what changes he'd make if he wrote non-fiction on the same subjects, he didn't hesitate: "I wouldn't change a thing," he replied. People
who don't study history have little chance of understanding the
influences that shaped it, whether works of fiction or not. This was
the essence of Santayana's famous quote, "Those who refuse to learn
from history are doomed to repeat it". If the previous examples aren't
enough, try reading: 100 Books That Shaped World History, by Raftery. Of the one hundred titles selected, almost half are novels such as Utopia, The Divine Comedy, and Uncle Tom's Cabin. Although "Uncle Tom"
contained some negative stereotypes, overall it was a powerful force in
the fight against slavery. When President Lincoln met the author,
Harriett Beecher Stowe, he exclaimed: "So this is the woman who started
this war" (the Civil War). There is no record of anyone correcting him
by saying: "Her book is only fiction, Mr. President". - The Fringe-Authors Guild -
The term "fringe author" has been around almost as long as they have. It's used by recognized authorities in a particular field, such as Archaeology, to describe way-out amateurs who infringe (pun intended) on their territory. The topics that command the interest of a fringe author are often questionable, just like the far-fetched theories they concoct. Many also show an appalling lack of common sense when it comes to the collection and interpretation of evidence. Typical subjects of inquiry include: Alien visitations, alien abductions (with or without anal probes), alien infiltration of society and government, Atlantis, the Illuminati, vast religious conspiracies, vast political conspiracies (usually involving world domination), the Abominable Snowman, historical anomalies, the Knights Templar, the "face" on Mars, crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle, "paranormal research", UFO's, the Freemasons, Paris Hilton, the fake moon-landing, the Kennedy assassination, and of course, The Alternative Histories of Christ. In the past, fringe authors were recognized as such. But now, with a hundred million copies of The Da Vinci Code promoting their visions, their stock has risen and they've invaded the mainstream. Millions of people are welcoming them with open arms. It's not unusual these days to see a member of the guild on The History Channel as an authoritative source. Thanks to The DVC, highly speculative opinions with no evidence to support them are all the rage. Let's look at a couple of quick examples. Consider this pearl from The Hiram Key. Here the "historians" tell us exactly what Jesus Christ looked like:
Every
time fringe authors add 2+2 they seem to get a different answer. But,
as if by magic, it always turns out to be exactly the number they were
looking for. Members of the guild have a conspiracy-theory mentality, a
talent for connecting things that aren't connected, and a strong
tendency to find meaning where none exists. These same symptoms are
also common in cult-members, not to mention people with psychiatric
problems, like psychosis and paranoia. - The Fringe Author's Secret Weapon: Symbology - Another interesting claim comes from The Templar Revelation. Leonardo Da Vinci is also portrayed as a very weird character in this book. It's probably where Mr. Brown picked up the idea. So what is their evidence for this belief? The authors insist that in Da Vinci's Virgin of the Rocks, the many "rocks" in the painting represent men's testicles. The modern slang, "get your rocks off", is even offered as proof. Currently, Las Vegas has the odds of this being the true meaning Leonardo intended at 1,957,000 to 1, so this is a money-making opportunity. As might be expected, no reputable art historian has ever been seen within 10 furlongs of this opinion. The only thing it proves is that the authors are extremely peculiar, not Leonardo. Notice here the common tactic of ignoring negative evidence (reams of personal writings that indicate Leonardo was very down to earth), then appealing to symbols which only the fringe author knows the true meaning of. It allows them to tell you what everything means, and best of all, it does away with the need for evidence. This is done with a vengeance in The Da Vinci Code where Langdon is a "symbologist", a specialty that doesn't exist. Mr. Brown's habit of relying on symbols allows him to present whatever crazy idea he wants without having to justify it. In perhaps its most extreme form, fringe author Barbara Theiring uses a type of symbology called, the "pesher technique", to interpret the "true" meaning of The New Testament. It's supposedly written in code, but don't worry because she has deciphered it. She's the only person in the universe who knows what The Bible really says! Watch for the use of symbols when reading a fringe author and it'll go a long way toward recognizing the art of deception. Even The Da Vinci Code movie shows how uncertain it is to rely on symbols. When symbologist Langdon (Tom Hanks) presented a slide-show of familiar icons to a huge lecture audience, they confidently identified every one he put on the screen... incorrectly! But there was no need to fear, of course, because Langdon knew the "true meaning" of each one. Taking a fringe author's word for something is risky. It should be obvious that this method of instruction could be used to make a case for any crazy notion under the sun. Perhaps the most famous scam-artist to exploit symbols was Sigmund Freud, who flew on the scene in the 1890's with a book called, On Dreams. Passing off the interpretation of dreams as a "science" has to be one of the most outrageous pranks in history. Its perfection rests on the fact that no one can ever falsify your claims. How could someone prove a particular dream interpretation was wrong? Along with his "scientific theory" that everything stems from a desire to have sex with your mother, Freud was one of the most innovative fringe-authors of all time. Dreams are the ultimate in symbolism and not very reliable for purposes of forming opinions (unless you're a prophet).
One questionable piece of evidence she turned up was Botticelli's 15th century painting, Madonna of the Pomegranate. In that work, the baby Jesus is holding a partially opened pomegranate, which Margaret insists is "an ancient symbol of sexual fertility because of it's red seeds". She also attach's great importance to finding pomegranates mentioned in the Song of Solomon (Ch 4:13). While it's true that the Song of Songs has erotic elements, they are generally regarded as a spiritual allegory. But even if we let this pass, there's something more. Pomegranates may be mentioned in this Bible passage, but it also refers to many other things: "pleasant fruits, henna, spikenard, saffron, calamus, cinnamon, aloe, trees of frankincense, myrrh and all chief spices." When we examine the verses before it, which have the same theme, we find: "shorn sheep, a flock of goats, a mountain of leopards, a scarlet strand, the tower of David, an armory, mighty mens' shields, a thousand bucklers, Mount Hermon, fawns, gazelles, lillies, hills, shadows, lions dens, wine, milk, perfume, a honeycomb, a neckless, a tongue, lips, Lebanon, and the smell of someone's garment".
Had Margaret noticed back in 1983 that Holy Blood presented no evidence either, she wouldn't have had her nervous breakdown. That's the most perplexing thing about this situation. The evidence that supposedly supports these claims is so incredibly worthless, why is anyone influenced by it? Even Judge Smith in The DVC plagiarism trial echoed this sentiment, saying:
It would be an oversight here not to mention Pierre Plantard among the fringe authors. He's the architect and inspiration of this entire movement. Pierre was responsible for fabricating The Prieure Documents, also known as, the Dossiers Secrets, which supposedly legitimized his claim to the French throne. Once they are introduced in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, they are referred to in name, or in substance, over a thousand times; they show up on virtually every page. The authors openly acknowleged their book was the result of Plantard's work. They were not as astute as Dan Brown, who realized this kook was a credibility killer, and left him out of the picture. One bizarre claim of Pierre's was that he possessed hundreds of millions in gold that came from the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Since he died broke, you'd think the Holy Blood authors would've been suspicious about this, but apparently not. We'll take a closer look at Plantard later. -Summary- This section gives a brief overview of Dan Brown's influences for The DVC. These books are supposed to be non-fiction and the work of historians, but that's simply not true. Some of the authors are borderline delusional. Margaret Starbird is referred to as a "scholar" on the back cover of her book, yet the reference for her claim that Jesus' marriage needed to be kept secret is: Graves, Robt., King Jesus, 1946, pg. 293.
Huh? Wasn't Graves a novelist and mythographer? Wasn't King Jesus a work of fiction? How can the fanciful speculation found in a novel be offered as validation of a purported fact? Graves also portrayed Jesus as being the son of Herod Antipater! Should we believe that, too? That's about as likely as Christ being the son of Caesar; not Julius, but Sid Caesar! It's not hard to see where Ms. Starbird got the idea of using a novel as a reference though. King Jesus was also cited in Holy Blood to support a different claim. Yet despite using the world of make-believe to validate their peculiar version of history, these writers now appear on The History Channel as if they were bona-fide historians! It's amazing how few realize these books are nonsense. They assume The DVC is based on solid research, even though the ideas came from a gaggle of fringe authors and a man convinced he was King of France. Consider the following review of the Da Vinci Code by The Chicago Tribune that appears on Dan Brown's website:
All that is accurate in the DVC are the nouns: Constantine did exist. The Council of Nicea took place, etc. Beyond that, Mr. Brown is terribly confused. At one point, committed to a number of erroneous beliefs about Nicea, the author loses track of time and has Mary Magdalene still alive 300 years after her "husband" was crucified! "Several doctorates worth of history"? Witch-doctorates, maybe. The unwary reader can be greatly misled when writers pawn off fiction as real life and it's not limited to just believing a few silly ideas. The risk is that you may start "reasoning" like the authors do **(see below). The best evidence that all this can be detrimental is Margaret Starbird herself. When exposed to the bizarre logic in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, this very nice lady had a crisis of faith and a mental breakdown. Then she retreated into her own, Alice in Wunderland, fantasy world. She didn't notice that the authors admitted writing Holy Blood as "novelists", so they "wouldn't have to stick to the facts"! Using these books as references, is it any wonder The Da Vinci Code turned out to be such a confusing mish-mash of fact and fiction? From the suicide-cults of Jonestown and Heaven's Gate, to the delusional thinking of the Third Reich, one thing should be clear: What you believe does matter! ****************** ** No sooner had the above comment been written, than the following email came in from a young woman who is proof that the irrational thinking of the fringe authors is contagious. She has deduced that Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is actually a picture of Jesus and Mary Magdalene's daughter. We responded by challenging her to produce even a fragment of evidence from pre-1982 sources for the claims she made. It's unlikely it'll do much good though. She hasn't replied and may need a deprogrammer, like Patty Hearst after being brainwashed by the Symbionese Liberation Army. A number of The DVC disciples have agreed that what follows is "crazy", but they also fail to notice that several of the woman's assertions come straight from Dan Brown & The Fringe-Authors Guild. Her theories have as much evidence to support them as theirs do; none.
Wait,
perhaps we spoke too soon. She did respond after all and it seems that
Random House has given her a three-book deal with a $25,000 advance to
expand on her new discovery. Dan Brown is said to be "thrilled about
this new development in the never-ending quest for truth"... This Random House scenario may be fictional, but it's not far-fetched. Many mainstream publishers are putting out material that's every bit as shaky as this, simply because it sells. The NAACP College Fund said it best: The mind is a terrible thing to waste. God bless the voice of reason, but it's getting fainter every day.
1http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/25/sm.21.html (After Stating that 99% of the book is true, he said "the only thing that's fictional is symbologist Robert Langdon and his activities, etc.(in other words, the characters)... all of the background is true".)
|
copyright 2006-2007
No portion of this Web site may be reproduced in any form without the expressed written consent of the authors.
