The DaVinci Code

In the past eight days I have:

Seen The DaVinci Code movie

Attended a talk by Josh McDowell at a nearby Church

Read a book called "The DaVinci Code: A Quest for Answers" by Josh McDowell

Reread "The DaVinci Code", by Dan Brown

I had planned to blog about my reaction to all of these things put together, but I feel as though the blog would be inadequate. My hope was to have some equal examination of both points of view: The theories presented in The DaVinci Code and why parts of them could be plausible, and the point of view that these theories are absolutely fictional in basis.

I understand that much more evidence than this would be needed to really come up with a historical response, but I was hoping to just come up with an intellectual one.

Unfortunately, I found McDowell's book, overall, to be extremely unhelpful.

First of all, it seemed to me that the McDowell was too interested in laughing at the characters and making subtle digs at the author. I could have done without the cheap shots.

Secondly, he tries to point out Brown's inaccuracies with a few examples of mistakes Brown made when describing architecture (the same examples he used both in his speech and in his book.) However, I was astounded to realize when I reread the novel, that Brown points out hundreds of "clues," and McDowell seems only to be able to refute a few of them. Not very convincing.

Granted, Brown claims at the beginning of his book that all descriptions of architecture and art are accurate and McDowell was able to find one mistake that I have confirmed thus far.

Next, McDowell sometimes argues irrelevant claims. I am not sure why he chooses to dispute claims that aren’t made in the book. For example:

McDowell states that Silas is referred to as a monk but that there are no monks in Opus Dei. However, the book refers to Silas as a monk because of the way he dresses, but when he officially announces himself, (or anyone officially talks about him) he is then referred to as a "brother," or a "numerary", which Opus Dei does have. So he is arguing a moot point. Brown never states in his book that Opus Dei has monks. He describes Silas as a monk from other's perspectives because that is how he appears.

Finally, and most irritatingly, every time McDowell made a really good point that I wanted to follow up on, he would reference me to another DaVinci code debunking book. How irritating. He complains about Dan Brown's sources, and yet many of his own (and most of which that claimed really intriguing points) simply refer to other authors who are clearly writing with the same agenda: "The Truth behind the DaVinci Code", "Breaking the DaVinci Code," "The DaVinci Deception," "DaVinci, Fact or Fiction." etc. This is not to say they are his only references. McDowell has many more. But again, almost every time he stated a fact and sited it that I was curious about the source, it was one of these books. Very frustrating.

So, as such, I do not recommend McDowell's book. Also, I feel I have much more research to do to look for the answer I want. If the authors of all these DaVinci-bunking books are merely a ring of authors quoting each other, I may have a problem. We'll see.

“…every faith in the world is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith – acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we can not prove. Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory, and exaggeration, from the early Egyptians through modern Sunday school. Metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible. The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors.” – The DaVinci Code