Introduction

The Da Vinci Code is an extremely popular thriller- religious- conspiracy novel (and movie) by Dan Brown (movie directed by Ron Howard) that reinterprets historical Christianity along radical feminist- Gnostic- "New Age" lines. Jesus was not the Son of God portrayed in the Gospels (John 3:16-18; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:35; cf. Romans 1:3-4; etc), was not divine or God incarnate (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1,14; 5:18; 8:58-59; 10:30-33; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Col 2:9; etc), did not die for our sins, nor was raised from the dead (1 Cor 15:1-8). Rather, Jesus was the first "feminist," was married to Mary Magdalene, and she was intended by Christ to be head of the Church, not the apostle Peter (Matthew 16:18-19; John 21:15-17). Mary Magdalene and Jesus had a child whose relatives and "bloodline" is with us to this day. This "bloodline" from Mary Magdalene (not the cup of the Last Supper) is the real "Holy Grail" and scholars through history such as Leonardo da Vinci were "in" on this "dangerous secret" that the Roman Catholic Church has been trying to suppress for 2000 years.

While it is "just" a novel, the author claims the information contained in it is based on truth and historical facts, and for that reason many (rather ignorant and uninformed) folks have been taking it seriously. And given the explosive popularity of the novel (#1 multiple months on the Best-Seller lists, tens of millions of copies sold, major motion picture released worldwide 5/19/2006, etc) it therefore seems right to dedicate a page to it on my Catholic apologetics site.

The author also takes his claims as dead serious. Author Dan Brown states in an online FAQ: "...the secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss" (see above). On the novel's first page we read: "FACT:.... All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." In an interview for WCVB-TV's "Chronicle" with Mary Richardson, Dan Brown says: "When I started researching Da Vinci Code I really was skeptical, and I expected on some level to disprove all of this history that's unearthed in the book[s]. But after three trips to Paris, and a lot of interviews, I became a believer."

The following will discuss some of the main historical claims, the people, groups, and important subjects in the novel, and the fabrications, falsehoods, and many errors of Dan Brown. I have written Fiction (False Claims) citing The Da Vinci Code (DVC refers to the original 2003 hardcover edition) and Response (Truth) giving a factual response to the Fiction. This is just an outline. Many more details are found in the well-researched and documented books, articles, and other links on this page.

TOP OF PAGE

Fiction (False Claims) on Jesus Christ

• until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Jesus was viewed by His followers as only a mortal prophet (DVC 233)
• Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea which was a relatively close vote (DVC 233)
• Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers, hijacked His human message, shrouded it in a cloak of divinity, and used it to expand the Church's power (DVC 233)
• almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false (DVC 235)
• the early Church needed to convince the world that the mortal prophet Jesus was a divine being so any gospels that described earthly aspects of Jesus' life were omitted from the Bible (DVC 244)
• The marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene was one particularly troubling earthly theme that kept recurring in the gospels, and is a matter of historical record (DVC 244)
• Jesus as a married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor (DVC 245)
• there are countless references to Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union and this has been explored ad nauseum by modern historians (DVC 247)
• Jesus was the original feminist who intended for the future of His Church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene (DVC 248)
• the greatest cover-up in human history is not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father (DVC 249)
• The royal bloodline of Jesus Christ has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians (DVC 253)

Response (Truth): This is probably the most offensive part of the novel to Christians as it contains many unhistorical blunders and outright lies about our Lord and Savior. Many books and online articles have refuted these errors extensively. I will try to add a little bit to these already good Christian responses.

Jesus was indeed viewed as a prophet (Matt 10:41; 13:57; 21:11; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; 24:19; John 4:19,44; 9:17; etc) but He was much more than that. He not only spoke the Word of God like the prophets (2 Peter 1:19-21), He was the Word of God (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:1-3). He is fully God and fully man in one divine Person. This is the mystery of the Incarnation (John 1:14; 1 John 4:1-3; 1 Tim 3:16).

Jesus was viewed as Lord and God from the very beginning of Christianity. He is called Lord, God, and Son of God in all four canonical Gospels (Matt 1:23; 4:3,6; 14:33; 16:16; 26:63-66; 27:40,43,54; Mark 1:1; 3:11-12; 14:61-62; 15:39; Luke 1:32,35; 8:28; 22:70; John 1:1-3,14,18,34,49; 3:16-18; 5:18,25-29; 8:58-59; 10:30-36; 11:27; 19:7; 20:28,31; etc), in Acts of the Apostles (Acts 3:13; 8:37; 9:20; 20:28; etc) and the New Testament epistles (Romans 1:3-4; 5:10; 8:3; 9:5; 10:9-10; 1 Cor 8:4-6; Gal 2:20; 4:4; Eph 4:13; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8-10; 4:14; 5:8; 10:29; 2 Peter 1:1,17; 1 John 3:8; 4:9-10,15; 5:5-13,20; etc). The divinity and deity of Jesus Christ is really unquestioned in the New Testament itself. These are the earliest Christian documents we have, despite the false claims in the novel. They are all dated (with few exceptions) to the first century AD by all biblical scholars conservative or liberal.

You have to believe that Dan Brown, his publishers, his characters "Robert Langdon," "Leigh Teabing," and "Sophie Neveu" never cracked open the New Testament in their life. Jesus is called the Son of God, Lord and God throughout, by friends, enemies, and Jesus Himself. This is at least 250 years before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Starting in the 2nd century (c. 100 AD) and beyond, we have numerous early Church Fathers, Christian Saints, and Catholic Bishops explicitly calling Jesus Christ Lord, God, and Son of God with a rudimentary understanding of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God in three divine Persons). This is anywhere from 200 to 100 years before the Council of Nicaea:

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) --

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia, which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by the fullness of God the Father, predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father IN JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD...."

"For OUR GOD, JESUS CHRIST, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit." (Letter to Ephesians addr; also 7:2; 9:1; 18:2; from Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, volume 1, p. 17-18; see also Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1; Jurgens, p. 24)

St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 AD) --

"Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, IT WAS IN FACT THE SON OF GOD, who is called both Angel and Apostle, who spoke to him; they are, therefore, justly accused by both the prophetic Spirit and by Christ Himself of knowing neither the Father nor the Son. They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God AND IS GOD [John 1:1]." (First Apology 6, 61, 63, 66, 67; Jurgens, p. 51, 54-55; see also Dialogue with Trypho 48; Jurgens, p. 60)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 AD) --

"....and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to re-establish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND GOD AND SAVIOR AND KING, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess Him, and that He may make just judgment of them all...." (Against Heresies 1:10:1; Jurgens, p. 84-104; see also numerous examples from Against Heresies)

I also have quotes from Aristides of Athens (c. 140); St. Melito of Sardes (c. 177); Athenagoras of Athens (c. 180); St. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 181), St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 216 AD); St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200 AD); Origen (c. 185 - 254 AD); Tertullian (c. 155 - 250 AD); Novatian (c. 235 AD); St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD); St. Dionysius of Rome (c. 262 AD). There is no question the ante-Nicene Fathers and early Church writers, from all parts of the Church Catholic (east and west) knew Jesus Christ was Lord, God, and Son of God.

The Council of Nicaea was not responsible for establishing those beliefs. The Council was called to clarify precisely how the Son of God related to God the Father (as "one in being [or substance or essence] with the Father" as the Creed states). As for it being a "relatively close vote" -- the final tally was 300 bishops (give or take a few, the exact number is uncertain) to two. Nobody at the Council was there thinking Jesus was just a "mortal prophet" -- not even the Arian heretics who clearly believed Jesus was "divine" or "God" in some sense. The Council of Nicaea clarified the exact nature and meaning of Jesus as "Lord and God." The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD clarified further how the Holy Spirit related to the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity (Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14).

As for the "earthly aspects" of Jesus' life supposedly being "omitted from the Bible," again Dan Brown has not read the canonical Gospels. Jesus is fully human (God became man is what the Incarnation means). Jesus walks in a human body, talks, touches, eats, sleeps, weeps, feels real pain and anguish, shows righteous anger and other human emotions, etc. He was "in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15; cf. 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). He was fully human, yet sinless. God became a sinless man so that sinful man could be united and reconciled to God, and partake of the divine nature (Romans 5:5-12; 1 John 4:9-14; 2 Peter 1:4). That is the basic message of the Christian gospel: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day (1 Cor 15:1-8), and by believing in Him we might have life, and that more abundantly (John 3:16; 5:24; 10:10). Dan Brown does not discuss the Resurrection in his novel (however, see the recommended and exhaustive books by Anglican scholar N.T. Wright below).

That Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene, and remained single and celibate does not make him any less human, which is what Dan Brown and his novel implies. The Bible states Jesus is spiritually married as the bridegroom to His Church, called "the Bride of Christ" (Eph 5:20-33; cf. Matt 25:1ff; Rev 21:2,9; 22:17). That is at least one good theological reason why Jesus remained single and celibate: He is married to His Church, and loves Her as a husband loves his wife. Jesus' celibacy is in fact the basis for the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood (see recommended books by Cardinal Stickler and Christian Cochini below).

Other examples of single and celibate Jews and prophets include John the Baptist, Jeremiah the prophet, Moses probably after his encounter with God, the Essene community at Qumran, the great St. Paul the Apostle, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, according to Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc. Jesus Himself said some become eunuchs (virgins or celibates) for the sake of the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:10-12). St. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 7 it is sometimes better to remain single as he himself was; in 1 Corinthians 9 he mentions other apostles having wives, but never mentions Jesus having a wife when it would have been greatly advantageous to his argument (see chapter by Darrell Bock, "Was Jesus Married?" in Breaking the Da Vinci Code).

There is in fact no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus was married (except to His Church) in the canonical Gospels, the New Testament, or the first 800 years of orthodox Christianity (the patristic era of the Fathers, Saints, and Bishops). There is also no evidence in the apocryphal or so-called "secret" Gnostic Gospels or non-canonical writings (despite false arguments made from the Gospel of Philip, see below The Bible). There is therefore no evidence for a "royal bloodline" either.

That the Catholic Church does not put down marriage we know from the fact it is elevated to a Sacrament (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

1642. Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony" (Vatican II, GS 48