The Da Vinci Code Part II: Dan Brown’s Myth Portrayed as Fact

As I stated in Part I, one of the key causes for concern regarding The Da Vinci Code is the author’s inability (or
unwillingness) to decipher fact from fiction. This entry will be dedicated to unmasking the most obvious fallacies
in the book and movie.

The biggest problem with The Da Vinci Code is not that it is a fictitious story about Jesus with wild and
sensational conclusions, but that Dan Brown prefaces his book with a direct acknowledgement that all of its
contents are indubitably true: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel
are accurate.” Brown also attested to NBC’s Today Show host Matt Lauer that all of his historical information
was “absolutely” accurate.

But is he telling the truth?

Before Brown claims the authenticity of his novel’s historical details, he informs the reader of two obscure
organizations that form the foundation of his novel; without them, his theory falls utterly apart. For those who
have not read the novel, I will give a short synopsis so that you can understand the necessity of these groups for
Brown’s story.

SYNOPSIS:
Dan Brown basically argues that the historical Jesus is not the Jesus of Christianity. Despite the later teaching of
the church that Jesus was both mortal and divine, Brown postulates that he was merely a pious Jew who
acknowledged the reality of the sacred feminine as being the source of all life and, what is more, his first
followers were of the same mindset. When Constantine the Roman Emperor realized the benefits of making
Christianity a male-centered religion, he changed the religion entirely. Accordingly, Jesus—a man—was declared
divine, and Constantine claimed to carry out his authority on earth. Rome would be united under this
chauvinistic, power-lusting religion, enforced by the Roman legions. Brown provides the reader with this so-
called historical background and then posits his real thesis: not only was Jesus a mere mortal, but he was also
married to Mary Magdalene. She was pregnant with Jesus’ child at the time of his crucifixion and she escaped to
France, where she bore a daughter named Sarah. This secret child was the ancient ancestor of the French
Merovingian Dynasty - a secret kept secret within the Dynasty itself for ages.

Brown’s fabricated history has one of the French descendants establishing the Knights Templar and ordering them
to find secret documents that validated the true history and lineage of Jesus. While in Jerusalem, the Knights
supposedly found these documents under the remains of Herod’s Temple and used them as blackmail for
centuries against the Vatican. Though the Knights Templar were persecuted in the fourteenth century by the
Church and disappeared from history, the Priory of Sion lives on and only its Grand Masters know the location of
the ancient documents. For centuries the Catholic Church has been trying to find and destroy them but this
moment in history it is especially crucial because the Priory is approaching the appointed time in which it is
destined to tell the world the truth about Jesus and Mary. In light of this horrific event, a Catholic organization
called Opus Dei has been assigned with the task of finding the four present Grand Masters of the Priory,
ascertaining the location of the secret documents from them, and then killing them. All four of the Grand Masters
are found and killed, but one of them leaves behind clues to his granddaughter, Sophie Neveu, and a Harvard
Symbologist named Robert Langdon. The bulk of the novel’s plot revolves around these two protagonists as they
seek to unlock Sophie’s grandfather’s clues and decipher what Dan Brown calls the “Da Vinci Code.” Their
“grail quest” is continually thwarted by the French Police who are trying to understand the recent murders, as well
as by the Catholic monk appointed by Opus Dei to steal the documents and kill anyone who gets in his way.
Meanwhile, Sophie and Robert race through France, England, and eventually Scotland attempting to locate the
documents and to understand the real secrets of the Priory.

THE FACTS:
Did Brown’s two secret societies actually exist? Remember Brown says that they are real and that his
descriptions of them are “absolutely” accurate.
OPUS DEI:
Opus Dei (“The Work of God”) is a real parachurch organization acknowledged by the Vatican; however,
Brown’s admission of its existence is about the only true thing he says concerning it. According to Brown, this
devout Catholic society is an order of monks that brainwashes and coerces its members. He also says that they
have received attention form the media for recent acts of violence and other suspicious activities.

Apparently, Brown has stepped on some big toes and the Catholic Church, upset by such charges, has responded
in full force. Opus Dei’s website contains a lengthy article answering Brown’s charges by professing that: (a) it is
not a monastic group, but a lay organization (less than two percent are priests), (b) that its members are
persuaded, not brainwashed, to seek a life of personal holiness, (c) that though a few members have taken acts of
penance very seriously, their self-discipline is nothing as extreme as that portrayed by Dan Brown’s albino monk
assassin, and, (d) there is no proof whatsoever that Pope John Paul II took bribe money from Opus Dei in
exchange for giving it the official status of a personal prelature.

THE PRIORY OF SION:

Brown not only claims that this society exists, but that in 1975 Paris’ Bibliotheque Nationale discovered
documents known as the Les Dossiers Secrets, which included names of the Grand Masters of the Priory
(including famous Christian men such as Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo and of course, Leonardo Da
Vinci). Unfortunately for Brown, though these documents were found, they were almost immediately recognized
as fakes—documents wrought by the Plantard’s group that were planted in the library, only to be “discovered” by
one of Plantard’s very own men. The authorities quickly traced the false documents to Plantard’s society. The
man who forged them himself came forward, and while on trial, Plantard admitted to making the whole thing up.
Plantard apparently made a mistake by adding one of the French President’s close friends on his list of Grand
Masters. When the French police searched his home, they found other documents that Plantard had constructed
which “proved” him to be the rightful King of France.

So much for the society that Brown claims is real and alone contains the true knowledge of Jesus Christ.

LEONARDO DA VINCI:
Brown claims that Da Vinci was a Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, and that he left clues to Jesus’ real identity
in some of his paintings: the Mona Lisa, The Madonna on the Rocks, and The Last Supper.

Though Brown attests that all descriptions of artwork in his novel are accurate, he would be hard-pressed to find a
single art historian that would agree with them. In fact, art historians around the world are angered with his
gratuitous and fallacious interpretations of some of the world’s finest art.

The Mona Lisa, which Brown argues that Da Vinci named so because the words Mona and Lisa are anagrams for
Egyptian divinities Amon and Isis (Isis is considered a grand reflection of the sacred feminine), was actually
never called this during Da Vinci’s lifetime. The proper name of the painting is La Joconde or La Gioconda.
This is because she is assumed to be the wife of Francesco del Giocondo. Her name was Lisa, and she was
referred as "M'onna" (as in Madonna, Lady). So this became Monna Lisa, and then Mona Lisa over time. If
Leonardo was a sacred feminist, we couldn’t know it from this painting.

Brown also errs with the second painting by misnaming it—what Brown calls The Madonna on the Rocks is
actually called The Virgin on the Rocks. Brown changed the word so that it would complement his next clue.
Brown also said that it was a group of nuns that commissioned the painting, but, in fact, the Contrafraternity of
the Immaculate Conception is an all-male group. Also, in the book, the character Sophie tears this painting off
the wall and uses it as a shield to fend off police bullets. Sophie must be of incredible strength considering that
the painting is over 5 feet tall (a height only slightly shorter than herself).

The final painting Brown butchers is the most controversial, Da Vinci’s The Last Supper. Brown claims that Da
Vinci believed the Priory’s account of the real Jesus and his marriage to Mary Magdalene; hence, he painted the
disciple to the left of Jesus with womanly features. An examination of the painting does seem to bear this out.
Though it was historically assumed that this disciple was John (the youngest disciple - maybe 13 years old - and it
was the custom to paint pubescent youths without facial hair in a more effeminate manner), Brown argues that Da
Vinci secretly painted Mary in his place. He also argues that the letter “M” can be observed from the outline of
the disciples sitting positions, which is yet another clue that Da Vinci worshipped the sacred feminine—thus
represented by Mary Magdalene.

ARCHITECTURE:
Brown’s inaccurate descriptions of buildings and their personal histories are numerous. I have decided to list a
few below:

1. He describes Westminster Abbey has having “spires” but in fact it dons towers instead, one cannot see
Parliament from St. James’s Park, and the College Garden is a private, not public, place.
2. The Inverted Pyramid of the Louvre contains 673, not 666, panes of glass.
3. The location of the Zurich Bank to which his main characters travel is located at the opposite end of the
city (they cross a bridge that does not connect to that location).
4. The Temple Church’s round pattern is not an allusion to paganism’s “sacred feminine,” but follows the
design of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
5. The Knights Templar had nothing to do with the cathedrals of their time. These were commissioned by
bishops throughout Europe and were constructed by simple workers who had no knowledge of “sacred
geometry” passed down from pyramid builders.

I have revealed only a few of Brown’s countless inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. The important thing that
must remembered is not that the novel is fiction, but the author using the license of fiction to render falsehood
true. Scholars agree, however, that historical fiction, though it may fabricate the minor details and characters,
should strive to mirror larger historical realities as much as possible. A novel whose plot and historical
background are both fabricated is not historical fiction; it is fantasy or mythology.

Of course, the more dangerous details that Brown fabricates are not those discussed here concerning secret
societies but those that concern the history of the Church, one of the founding pillars of Western civilization as we
know it. As we will see in the next entry, it turns out that Brown, in trying to ‘demythologize the Church,” writes
himself one of the most popular mythologies of this decade.