Dismissing the Da Vinci Code
May 17th, 2006 | No, not Cracking, Breaking, Exploring, De-Coding, or even Walking the Da Vinci Code. I am dismissing it, and as far as I can tell, no one has written a book about that yet. The first five links all lead to books on Amazon which generally claim to either “find the truth” or “uncover the lies” behind Dan Brown’s bestselling novel. Having read the book myself and with the movie nearing release in the US, I couldn’t resist giving my two cents.
Christians everywhere are all up in a mess about the Da Vinci Code, thinking that it somehow threatens them - even Christianity as a whole. Well, I have good news: the book is fiction. If it were a history book, people wouldn’t be buying it. If it were a history book about early Christianity, even fewer people would be buying it. But it’s a fiction book which pretends to uncover some ancient secret that’s been kept hush-hush for centuries, so people buy it, wondering what the secret is.
As I was reading the book last January, I could spot many “errors” in the book. One that stuck in my mind was Brown’s description of the tetragrammaton YHWH1. Brown says that YHWH comes from the word Jehovah, but really it’s the other way around. YHWH is an English transliteration of the Hebrew word יהוה. Before English was Latin, and the Latin alphabet doesn’t include Y or W; I and V are used instead. So YHWH became IHVH and vowels were added so it was pronoucable: IEHOVAH. English transliterations of Latin sometimes use J for I (e.g. Iulius = Julius), so IEHOVAH became Jehovah.
I have the advantage of being a Religion major at college, and we have actually discussed things like this in class. I’ve also had other courses on topics like early Christian history, so spotting other falsities was rather easy. Many people, however, simply don’t have the background. The Da Vinci Code is the first place some even hear about the First Council of Nicaea (there were two) which happened in 325 C.E., and that’s okay.
I’ve rambled on for far too long. I guess my main point is that the Da Vinci Code is not as controversial as people think… it’s just a work of fiction. It wouldn’t be so threataning to people - especially Christians - if we simply had a working knowledge of Christian history, but the only Christian history we get takes place between 4 B.C.E. and 29 C.E (Jesus’ life).2 Go ahead, read the book. See the movie. Maybe you’ll learn something. As far as fiction goes, The Da Vinci Code is alright, but another of Brown’s books, Angels and Demons, is far better.
- I got out my book and found where he mentions this: “The Jewish tetragrammaton YHWH - the sacred name of God - in fact derived from Jehovah, an androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah.” It’s completely false, but he makes it sound convincing. ↩
- It is interesting and a bit funny that most scholars agree that Jesus was born a few years Before the Common Era (B.C.E.) or Before Christ (B.C.). ↩
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed to have articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always sign up for email updates and have fresh content delivered daily to your inbox.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
No feed reader? No problem! Subscribe by email to receive daily updates featuring the freshest content from JakeBouma.com!
![Another world. [edit]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2426374093_1c9b676580_t.jpg)
Jake,
Wow! The liberal arts college education suits you to a T, man! I am really glad that I went that route too.
I too think that many churches are overly cautious about the DaVinci code (including my own). My thoughts about that though include the following:
1. There are those who are riding the fence (read “skeptic”) will use the claims in the book as a base to further their own doubts about the Christian faith and its underpinnings.
2. Some folks in our culture use popular media to inform themselves on many vital decisions in their lives ranging from child-rearing, sexual behaviors, diets, and intellectual curiosity. Rather than digging like you have in your religion classes at Luther, most people find it convenient to take what is convenient as “gospel”.
3. The book serves as a departure point for further discourse. I think Pastor Quintin at our church doesn’t really seem threatened at all by the book and its claims. But contrasting some of the more major claims in the book serves as a compare-contrast point in further development to bring some more of the salient points of our faith out to better clarification and understanding. Additionally, Quintin underscores the value of being able to fill in the gaps in discussions at the “water cooler” for those who might question the claims made by the Church.
Anyway, that’s all I know and it’s probably way too much for this forum. I hope all is well.
P.S. The fam and I have been to Qdoba twice already. I dunno…. I am kind of partial to Panchero’s right now.
I agree that if were non-fiction few would read it. Because, behind this book that is mostly fiction, there is some well-researched and well-documented pieces in it. And they have been written about in non-fiction books that few have read. And really, these theories are what we should be discussing, not a pop thriller. There may very well be some truth here, but if everyone just pokes holes in the fiction, we may never get there. I recommend people read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and then come back to the discussion table.
Amen, Jake.
Jess,
Thanks for your comment. There is some well-researched material in the book, and there is a lot that is just plain false. That’s what’s throwing many people off.
I haven’t read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but I’m familiar with its thesis and familiar with the scholarly debate going on. Many of the book’s claims are hopeful at best. For example, I the authors point to a passage in the Gospel of Philip that says Jesus and Mary kissed. If they kissed they must have been married. If they married, they must have had a kid. Oh boy, now we have a bloodline.
The only problem is all the logical gymnastics. The Gospel of Philip, saying 59 actually says “And the Consort of the [Christ] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth],” where anything in brackets are actual holes in the document that have been filled in by educated guesses.
I think reading actual (generally accepted) Christian history would benefit more than reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
i appreciate this post Jake, and feel you are right on target. i’ve been wanting to read this book for a while and am frustrated that as our church “studies” how to oppose it, hardly anyone has read it, but thinks they must have an argument against it. it simply annoys me that Christians feel so “threatened”.
anyway, i too have pretty much dimissed it. well said!
You may agree or disgree with the book, but on the up side, at least it has people talking and thinking about religion.
Dad,
I agree that it has people talking about religion, but I don’t necessarily believe that it’s fruitful.
As John pointed out, it’s possible that “those who are riding the fence (read “skeptic”) will use the claims in the book as a base to further their own doubts about the Christian faith and its underpinnings.”
The book has more people asking (unfortunately) “what’s wrong with religion/Christianity?” than “what’s right about religion/Christianity?”
But, humans thrive on controversy, and the Da Vinci Code, thanks to our ridiculous media, has become our religious talking point.
I agree with you that people may use it to further their doubts, but I just meant that it is bringing religion to a for front. If it makes just one person “think” about religion, that’s not so bad. Sometimes “controversy” can make people act, and sometimes for the good.
And, as my point, look how many comments you’ve received on this subject compared to others. :)
In my view, what people are doubting is the church… At the end of the day, does this “fiction” change Jesus’ death and glorious resurrection? No…
Would it really matter if Jesus had a daughter? Not to me…
This is a refreshing post. Keep it up.