Dan Brown wrote on the first page of his fictional novel that
all of the descriptions of art, architecture, documents and secret
rituals in his book were true.
But according to historians, both academic and religious, Brown
lied.
Brown is the author of the “The Da Vinci Code,” a
novel that in its first week of sales in April 2003 hit the New
York Times bestseller list and never left. It has been there now
for 61 straight weeks and is currently No. 1 on the list.
The book has appealed to wide audiences and has a notable
college following, and is showing no signs of slowing in its
popularity, with more than 7.5 million copies in print and a major
motion picture deal.
The book is a thriller, a murder mystery that discusses a
timeless conspiracy ““ a conspiracy that has many readers up
in arms.
There is a fine line between fact and fiction, and for many
readers, it is difficult ““ if not impossible ““ to find
the delineation between the two.
“He says it is fact; inside the book he says it is
true,” said Scott Bartchy, a professor of Christian origins
and the history of religion at UCLA. “When a person says that
everything that is written is based on fact, what else could the
purpose be?”
In an interview on the book’s Web site, Brown said the
art, architecture and secret rituals did indeed exist, but that the
real elements were “interpreted and debated” by the
characters, implying that ideas presented are not necessarily
concrete.
The book opens with the murder of the museum curator at the
Louvre, and the murder scene apparently incriminates an American
professor of symbology, Robert Langdon.
But the murder scene is instead an encoded message that sends
Langdon and the curator’s granddaughter, Sophie Neveu, on a
hunt to find the real murderer and to uncover a greater
controversy, the truth behind the Holy Grail.
Though the book is written as a fictional novel, it has sparked
a controversy primarily among readers with Christian and Roman
Catholic backgrounds because it claims much of the background
historical information is factual.
Erwin Lutzer, the senior pastor of The Moody Church in Chicago,
recently wrote a book titled “The Da Vinci Deception”
as a direct response to Brown’s novel.
“I wrote the book because “˜The Da Vinci Code’
is fiction, but at the same time, it purports to be based in
historical sources,” Lutzer said.
“I wrote the book to show that the foundation of
Christianity is strong, because my greatest concern is for people
who read “˜The Da Vinci Code’ without the other side of
the story, the solid documentation,” he said.
Lutzer said “The Da Vinci Code” seemed like a direct
attack on some of Christianity’s basic doctrines, namely the
divinity of Jesus Christ and the validity of the Bible.
As the novel progresses, Brown’s purported truth about the
Holy Grail is revealed.
The Grail, it seems, is not actually a cup, but rather a person,
the supposed mother of Jesus’ child.
Brown said this idea was not entirely of his invention, and that
rumors of the conspiracy had been in existence for years in
publications.
And while many scholars say there is no basis for these
statements, the fictional novel is still raising doubts in
people’s minds.
“Even Christians strong in their faith who know that
“˜The Da Vinci Code’ isn’t true sometimes come
away with the question, “˜Could at least some of this be
true?'” Lutzer said. “It sows doubts in the minds
of those who are committed believers.”
The reason for the controversy is that the information is
written with an authoritative voice suggesting it is entirely
factual.
“Dan Brown has framed the story in such a way that it
appears to be giving a scholarly perspective,” said George
Hinman, an associate pastor of discipleship at Bel Air Presbyterian
Church. “Any good deception has an element of
truth.”
Brown said he spent about a year conducting research for
“The Da Vinci Code” before writing the novel, including
conducting interviews with art historians and visiting the
Louvre.
He said apparent contradictions with history should be carefully
examined as it is just as plausible that the history books
themselves are inaccurate.
One controversial topic is Brown’s treatment of Opus Dei,
a sector of the Catholic Church that focuses on helping Catholics
put their faith into practice in their daily lives.
Brown portrays the group as almost cultish, highlighting
corporal mortification, a practice of harming one’s own body
through fasting or scourging. Adherents of Opus Dei may practice
such disciplines, but it is very rarely to the extent
described.
The Rev. John Waiss, a follower of Opus Dei, does not believe
there is much cause for concern.
“Opus Dei is definitely being portrayed in a false light,
but does it worry me? No,” Waiss said. “In fact, people
have looked up Opus Dei because they want to know what it is really
like and they found that it is different than it is
portrayed.”
Brown said though the novel has come under scrutiny, it is
beneficial as a catalyst for discussions on faith, religion and
history.