The Da Vinci Pin Number: Controversy as the best form of publicity.
By Miguel Guanipa (05/23/06)
I was somewhat intrigued by how "The Da Vinci Code" retained its popularity in spite of what renowned biblical scholars have said about the book; but I wasn't completely surprised. In an age when rampant biblical illiteracy and an endemic hostility towards organized religion are the norm, it is no wonder such a literary work would attract so many loyal enthusiasts.
A survey of British readers showed that for some the book had “undermined their faith in the Roman Catholic Church and badly damaged its credibility”, although the book’s descriptions of church history and artwork have been denounced by many scholars as being grossly inaccurate. Others have called its contents an “amalgam of truth and fiction, fact and hoax, sacred and profane”; the problem is that many who read it seem to lack the appropriate tools to discern which is which.
My personal interest was kindled by the uproar the author has caused because of his refusal to budge to allegations that he relied on shoddy research and questionable historical sources. I was also intrigued by what appeared to be an uncritical acceptance of the book’s alleged factual claims by a large number of readers. By no small measure this is encouraged by the book’s title page where Dan Brown assures the unsuspecting reader that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate”.
Thus I felt compelled to at least research the background work that went into forging the book’s rather provocative plot.
As I embarked on this quest I was thrust into an intricate yarn of murder, intrigue, deceit, betrayal, and yes, even sex; a journey chockfull of Visigoths, Opus Dei henchmen, ancient figures from Noah to Da Vinci himself, more contemporary luminaries like C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkien and outlandish claims of the purported whereabouts of the Ark of the Covenant, the Devil’s Treasure, King Solomon’s Treasure and the Holy Grail. At one point I found myself wondering if Dan Brown could possibly hold the clue to where Saddam Hussein hid Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, or perhaps had finally solved the perennial riddle of the chicken and the egg.
According to the book and the movie based on it, Da Vinci’s last supper holds the key to the mystery of the Holy Grail, the vessel from which Jesus is said to have drank that night. There are also reports about an obscure religious order called The Priory of Sion (which I understand is also a code name for the International Brotherhood of Hungarian Plumbers) entrusted with keeping a dark secret under wraps, that could very well shatter the foundations of the church. Brown reveals that this dark secret is none other that that of Jesus’ fling with Mary Magdalene. Evidently the Bible’s conspicuous silence regarding Jesus’ marital status was blooming with potential for a writer with such a lively imagination.
In Da Vinci’s the Last Supper, Brown claims that the M shape that is formed in the background with some of the figures in the painting evokes an intended outline which points to the word Matrimony, one of Leonardo’s codes to reveal the relationship which allegedly existed between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, who is also supposed to be the beardless apostle in the painting that sits at his right side. The church has for centuries worked tirelessly to suppress this fact. In a few words, Da Vinci was the subject of a vast renaissance style right wing conspiracy, and Brown is intent in exposing this cabal between the Church and those who have conspired for centuries to keep it under the control of a patriarchal power structure.
I understand there’s another book on the works which talks about the symbolic significance of the holy napkin which Jesus used in the last supper, and how you can see an unmistakable F shape forming from the silhouette of Judas’ left armpit which was purposely sketched by Leonardo to conjure up the words “facile a credere” which is Italian for “Gullible”.
Of course the less glamorous reality is that this clandestine society called the Priory of Sion is nothing more than the fanciful tale by a man named Abbe Sauniere; a young priest in a small village of south France who was accused of selling mail-order prayer services for the dead, and imagined himself the King of France. Before his death in 1917, Sauniere was thought to have discovered parchments while renovating his church which detailed a list of an ancient extinct line of French Kings, the direct descendants of a woman named Sarah, the offspring of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Even though reputable Historians and Archaeologists have already confronted Mr. Brown to back up the accuracy of these claims, he has eschewed academic integrity and refused to recant, which has thus far proven to be a good gamble on his part considering the book has over 40 million copies in print.
Not since the legend of Rip Van Winkle and Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance” has a work of fiction achieved such worldly acclaim and deceived so many by covering itself with the mantle of truth. One could argue that the overarching purpose of this velvet glove slap to the Church, second only to making a handsome profit (which Mr. Brown has already accomplished) is to discredit any claims of Christ’s divinity via dubious historical references and grossly negligent scholarship.
To add insult to injury, although this book has been on the market since 2003, it is the Vatican that has invariably been portrayed in the media as the one initiating unfounded attacks against its legitimacy. Their pre-emptive attack to the book’s movie release has been described as a “vendetta”; “another Vatican broadside against Hollywood”; “one among many of the Vatican’s latest salvos against the book’s damaging allegations”. Pope Benedict XVI was the object of the media’s scorn for merely urging Catholics to boycott the film, and fans of Tom Hanks were encouraged to buy stock on the hair relaxer industry. Such responses have no doubt generated more publicity than the movie is apparently worth given the lukewarm reception it received at the annual Cannes film festival opening.
The optimists hope that both the book and the movie will cause people to go back to the New Testament and re-examine the real story of Jesus, charging that perhaps Dan Brown has unwittingly stumbled upon the law of unintended consequences. Indeed they have raised some interest in subjects like the Divinity of Christ and the scriptures, but it’s not settled that this interest is grounded on a critically disposed attitude that most people are prone to exercise.
According to a George Barna poll, 53% of Americans adults who read the book last year claimed it was helpful in their “personal spiritual growth and understanding”. Given its grotesque theological propositions these results are eerily reflective of an appalling spiritual dearth in this country and yield a poignantly accurate portrayal of what the Bible means when it compares people to sheep who are easily led.
Unfortunately, for the scripturally illiterate who is not interested in digging deeper the book will serve as a much needed cliff notes on the New Testament, with a few tantalizing hints about Jesus’ alleged secret affair with Mary Magdalene; a story the author concocted by using copious literary license, and no doubt prompted by a furtive hostility towards the Christian faith.
Those who harbor a latent animosity towards religion will certainly welcome this work much in the same way “The Passover Plot” and “The last temptation of Christ” were heralded in years past as works which forced the church and its tendency towards secrecy onto more openness; Those who have witnessed their share of preposterous allegations and ill-founded rumors challenging the concept of Christ’s divinity are likely to remain firm in their faith, and will hopefully be encouraged to further educate themselves. Those who have already turned their backs on their faith for various reasons will probably find Dan Brown’s opus a deep well of riches to further embellish their already skewed philosophical presuppositions. In other words, they will remain entrenched in their folly.
Which only validates the fact that a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
