Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine

I enjoyed the Da Vinci code. But the amateur Bible historian in me didn't buy into the so-called historical truths proffered by Dan Brown. I was certain that Dan Brown got a lot wrong, particular his assertions on how the books for the Bible were chosen. On other assertions derived from the Gnostic Gospels such as the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, I doubted he got it right. But I was not familiar with the source material from which he claimed to have gotten those facts. The historical assertions in the Da Vinci code have proven to be sensitive for many Christians. Bart Ehrman's approach is straightforward, concise, and in-offensive. He applies his impartial and experienced eye to an analysis that unravels the mess Dan Brown made of history. Proceeding with academic rigor, Ehrman presents each of Dan Brown's assertions and aligns the historical record and documents to make sense of it all. Erhman's analysis and conclusions never step beyond what can be supported by objective research. Bart Ehrman is never boring and always informative. I recommend this book, particularly if you plan on seeing the movie. Many people are bound to accept what they see on the big screen as fact. It might be nice to have the facts right.

Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" really was an engrossing read. But much of its power for me and for many readers lay in how compellingly it steered us toward belief in yet another "vast conspiracy." We live, after all, in an era defined for many by a dangerous blurring between imagined great conspiracies and equally colossal but bona fide deception and cover-ups by the institutions of power. Because of its immense success, Brown's book has spawned a parasitical industry of silly, imitative pseudo-history and shallowly reactive analysis. Bart Ehrman's "Truth and Fiction..." is neither of these. When you read first-rate Science Fiction you probably find yourself thinking, "could it be?" - the distant future becomes tangible. If you read first-class Historical Fiction you've probably felt more of an, "I knew it!" - the dim past becomes peopled and coherent. I experienced a powerful combination of both reactions when I read "The Da Vinci Code". Maybe you did too. It was not just a ripping, good yarn; it tied together millennia-old histories that were as unknown to me as the 30th or 40th centuries are unknowable. Ah. But the future really is fiction! It doesn't exist and is therefore subject to speculation, while the past was once someone's reality and is subject to the scrutiny of its actual artifacts. We tend to associate becoming too engrossed in futures with the tinfoil-helmet crowd, but we acknowledge the study of the past to be a legitimate field of professional study. Or do we? Bart Ehrman is clearly one of those professionals - an historian of the Biblical and Early Christian eras. Dan Brown is a yarn-spinner. In this book Ehrman reminds us to remember that there is a difference. Could it be? Is "The Da Vinci Code" is mostly imagined, made-up, invented. I knew it... so did you. In this thorough but very readable and not overly pedantic book, Bart Ehrman methodically takes apart the invented histories of DVC and assembles the more likely realities for us. He does not do so in a hostile or antagonistic way; in fact he repeatedly mentions how much he enjoyed reading DVC. But he is systematic in dismantling the fundamental pseudo-history at the core of Brown's book. By dissecting out the fabrications, Ehrman helps us to see what's left: believable personalities and credible institutional motives for sure. But any good Sci-Fi writer will do the same. Brown has merely avoided the tinfoil-hat association by claiming something presumed more real for his base - the past. Ehrman's book is also an excellent commentary upon how history is actually done. He reminds us how honest historians, especially those of the barely-documented, distant past, can only approach the "more likely" at best. But approach it they do. He does a fine job of showing how such history is accomplished when done well; of how he and his colleagues have spent lifetimes building careful layer upon careful layer of the likely. But he demonstrates why "likely" has to be enough, and

If you are one of the millions who enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, you may want to reconsider Dan Brown's narrative in the light of its historical claims, after you read Bart Ehrman's Truth and Fiction In The Da Vinci Code. Ehrman is a well-known critical historian, who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is an authority on the early Church and the life of Jesus. He is also the author of Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptures. Although he admits he enjoyed reading Dan Brown's work of fiction and has even recommended it to many of his friends, he takes issue with some of the historical claims Brown makes about Jesus, Mary, and the Gospels that readers were expected to accept as factual and not fictional. Ehrman points out: "Dan Brown states as a fact that all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." As the author is an expert on historic Christian documents, it is here where his arguments are focused. Throughout the book, Ehrman insists that one of the cardinal ingredients to weigh, when arriving at any historical conclusion, is the sources of information forming the foundation of the conclusion. Misreading or misinterpreting these sources is as dangerous as if they were omitted. According to the author, if Brown had only done a little more research, he would have been able to more accurately portray the historical account, without even compromising the story. Immediately in the introduction to the book, Ehrman sets the tone of his arguments by pointing out ten factual errors in Brown's book. These are more fully fleshed out and assessed in the book. The author points out that contrary to what was mentioned in Brown's book, Jesus' life was not recorded by thousands of followers across the land; it is not true there were eighty Gospels considered for the New Testament; it is false to state that Jesus was considered divine until the Council of Nicea; Constantine did not commission a "new Bible" that omitted references to Jesus' human traits; the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 and not in the 1950s, and furthermore, they were not among "the earliest Christian records." In fact, they are Jewish, and contain nothing Christian in them. The Nag Hammadi documents do not narrate the Grail story, nor do they underline Jesus' human traits. On the contrary, they do just the reverse. It is leading astray when we assert that Jewish decorum forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried, and in fact most of the individuals behind the Dead Sea Scrolls were male unmarried celibates. There is nothing to tell us about the lineage of Mary Magdalene, and there is no evidence that she belonged to the House of Benjamin. Moreover, what evidence exists that she was pregnant at the crucifixion, as Brown suggests in his book. As for the Q document being hid by the Vatican, where is the proof, and how do we know it is a book allegedly written by Jesus? In

As with his other histories of the time periods that were crucial for the development of the New Testament, Bart Ehrman gives us a balanced and persuasive analysis of the historical facts. Some might question why such a book is needed. After all, the Da Vinci Code was meant to be fiction. Are we just beating up on a fiction author who takes "poetic license" with history? Few people were particularly concerned that some of the charcters in "Braveheart" actually lived years apart. In the case of the Da Vinci Code, though, it is necessary. The popularity of the Da Vinci Code or The Passion of Christ (ironically, another Mel Gibson project), make these works more than mere pieces of fiction. Such a calm consideration of actual history should be required reading for anyone who will base their religious opinions upon the fictional works. While we're at it, someone also please send copies of all Dr. Ehrman's work to Mr. Gibson.