6.18.2006

The Last of Brown's ridiculous historical fallacies to be treated

Fiction

Brown writes that Richard Wagner’s opera Parsifal “was a tribute to Mary Magdalene and the bloodline of Jesus Christ, told through the story of a young knight on a quest for truth” (390).

Fact

The young knight in the opera is indeed on a quest for the Holy Grail – the traditional Grail! Not the redefined one portrayed in this novel.

Fiction

Brown claims that the Priory of Sion attached female sexual symbolism to the medieval cathedrals to represent goddess worship, an idea that would have enraged the original architects. According to Brown, the “cathedral’s long hollow nave” is “a secret tribute to a woman’s womb…complete with receding labial ridges and a nice little cinquefoil clitoris above the doorway” (326).

Fact

Neither the Priory nor the Templars had anything to do with the medieval cathedral architecture. The great churches of Europe not only predated them by centuries, but they generally have 3 doors at the main entrances…not one, plus further doors in the side transepts…the woman’s body parallel becomes hard to fathom. Also, their “long hollow nave” was structured from the public basilicas of the ancient Greco-Roman world.

Fiction

Brown writes, “the New Testament is based on fabrications” (341); “the greatest story ever told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold” (267); and “the Church has two thousand years of experience pressuring those who threaten to unveil its lies” (407). The anti-Christian bias of the author is obvious and blatant. That doesn’t mean that Christendom has been perfect over the years…medieval anti-Semitism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair, and other persecutions…as well as the evils perpetrated today by the few members of the clergy who inflict on children the horrors of pedophilia. But keeping “Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene” under wraps – the main theme of Brown’s book – is NOT one of the church’s offenses.

Other fabrications and outright lies (Brown’s in bold) and their explanation

“Noah was himself an albino” (166). Absolutely no evidence…and the “albino monk” of Opus Dei seems to have no problem whatever with his eyesight, as would be the case with true albinism.

“The early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less. Early Jews believed that the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female equal, Shekinah” (309). Nothing was, or is, as basic to Hebrews as their foundational belief in ONE God (not two or more)…the Jews did not even have a term for “goddess.” The term “Shekinah” in Hebrew refers to the glory of God present in his indwelling, not some divine consort.

The Jewish tetragrammation YHWH – the sacred name of God – in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah” (309). False! YHWH, the original name for God, reflects the Hebrew verb “to be.” But since tradition forbade verbal pronunciation of the name, rabbis in the sixteenth century pronounced the consonants from UHWH together with the vowels from the word Adonai (“Lord”) resulting in the word “Jehovah.” This later, synthesized name not only did not predate YHWH, it has absolutely nothing to do with an androgynous union.

“As a tribute to the magic of Venus, the Greeks used her eight-year cycle to organize their Olympic Games” (36). Here Brown shows himself to be an equal-opportunity exploiter in his crusade against the truth, muddling Greek history as well as Jewish and Christian. In reality, the games were dedicated to Zeus. A day-long festival in his honor interrupted the games midway through, which is why they were terminated in the Christian era until their revival in 1896 on a strictly secular basis. They also occurred every four years rather than eight, as Brown implies. As for the five linked rings of the Olympic flag in the modern games, these had nothing to do with the “Ishtar pentagram,” since new rings were supposed to be added with each new set of games. The organizers, however, stopped at five – a nice number to fill Olympic logos, reflecting the five major, inhabited continents.

“The Bible…has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book” (231). To say that the Bible has “evolved” implies a progression of constant change, as in the term evolution. This is totally misleading. The only “changes” to the Bible that have taken place across the centuries have been an ever-more-faithful rendering and translation of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, without any additions to the text. (see Hank Hanegraaff’s section for more details)

“More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion” (231). Brown’s statement implies that there was a general submission of gospels to some sort of early church panel that reduced the field to the familiar four. This was not at all the case. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were foundation documents in what later came to be called the New Testament. Eusebius, the first church historian, tells how they were the core of the canon from the start, and how their authority was determined on the basis of usage in such early Christian centers as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. He also clearly identifies some of the later spurious writings, including the Gnostic gospels, that the church rejected as soon as they surfaced. Today they are known as “New Testament apocrypha.” Brown must have had this group in mind with his “eighty,” which is an exaggerated figure in any case.

(This article and most others have been taken from Dr. Paul Maier's book "The Da Vinci Code: fact or fiction?") You can purchase this book at the following sites:

http://www.equip.org/store/details.asp?SKU=B775

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1414302797/103-7751817-1819867?v=glance&n=283155

6.15.2006

Dan Brown's view of Renaissance art

Fiction

Brown claims that it was Leonardo da Vinci himself who, in painting The Last Supper, surfaced the great secret for all who had eyes to see. “The Last Supper practically shouts at the viewer that Jesus and Magdalene were a pair” (244).

Fact

Admittedly, the apostle John, at Jesus’ right hand, does have a feminine look to him in DaVinci’s masterpiece, but that was the master’s habit in painting younger men, as witness his portrayals also of John the Baptist and others. Moreover, the great artist could not possibly have had Mary Magdalene in mind or there would have been fourteen figures in his painting, rather than Jesus and the Twelve. If the figure to Jesus’ right is Mary Magdalene, where’s the missing John?

Fiction

Leonardo’s Mona Lisa (“La Gioconda”) is an androgynous self-portrait with a “secret smile” that derives from her name, which is supposedly an anagram of two Egyptian fertility deities Amon and Isis (121).

Fact

This painting is an actual portrait of a real personality, Madonna Lisa, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo.

6.07.2006

Dan Brown's view of sexuality

Fiction

In Brown’s view of life, he determines that there should be, in place of God or beside him, a consort goddess worthy of equal or even superior worship. Radical feminists love this idea and too quickly are urging a reappraisal of Sophia, the supreme goddess of second-century Gnosticism (as defined by Merriam-Webster: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis/knowledge[1]).

Fact

Here we find no lofty idealism to support the female side of divinity, but rather a lusty advocacy of free sexual indulgence as part of a worship unrestrained by Judeo-Christian principles.

Fiction

According to Brown, the church “demonized sex,” whereas those favoring the sacred feminine regard it as a quasi-sacrament. As witness to this, Brown depicts a lurid ritual he painted directly out of the film Eyes Wide Shut. The scene shows a circle of costumed men and women devotees offering up a weird chant in a nocturnal, candlelit cellar as they surround a copulating couple in the center. The ultimate message to the reader is this: it may look bad, but it’s really okay because this is hieros gamos, a “holy marriage” rite associated with the sacred feminine. The endless references in this book to Aphrodite or Venus – for whom Brown finds impossible symbolism everywhere from planetary movements to Walt Disney productions to reinforce his theme.

Fact

Far from “demonizing sex,” Christianity regards sexuality as one of God’s greatest gifts – albeit a gift that should be used responsibly. In this scary era of venereal disease, HIV, herpes, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD), this view is hardly outdated. The libertinism suggested in The DaVinci Code would only exacerbate the dangers brought about by the Sexual Revolution. Nor has any mainstream religious system ever placed women on a higher plane than Christianity. The target for Brown’s feminist crusade should instead have been those current major religions that have not yet experienced the blessings of women’s liberation.

(These notes have been taken from Dr. Paul Maier's "The DaVinci Code: fact or fiction")

[1]Merriam-Webster, I. 1996, c1993. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Merriam-Webster: Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.

6.02.2006

The Knights Templar

Fiction

In Brown’s rewrite of history, the Templars were supposedly suppressed by Pope Clement V because they were blackmailing him with the secret of the Holy Grail (which has been anything from the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper to the Shroud of Turin). Borrowing from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Brown divides the term Sangreal (Medieval French for Holy Grail) into Sang (blood) and Real (royal). That royal blood, in Brown’s story, is the bloodline stemming from Jesus and Mary Magdalene through the Merovingian dynasty. Mary herself was the actual Holy Grail, “the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ” (249). The Templars knew that this formidable secret, if revealed, could undermine both papacy and church, so they used their knowledge for political gain. Rather than submit to blackmail, Pope Clement V devised his “ingeniously planned sting operation” (159), arrested all the Templars, and burned them as heretics.

Fact

The fact was that King Philip IV (“the Fair”) of France who, desperate for the Templars’ wealth, forced the pope to suppress their order, whereupon the French king – not the pope – arrested them and burned some, including Grand Master Jacques de Molay, at the stake in 1314. So, now with the Templars gone, who would guard the secret? The Priory of Sion…of course we know enough about that society already.