The Da Vinci Hoax (2004)

When Michael Moore's documentary came out a few years ago criticizing the American health care system while extolling the virtues of the Cuban socialist health system, I got into an interesting discussion about the topic with a co-worker. At the end of the debate about the validity of Moore's work I asked my co-worker a simple question...

"Which is easier, making a film that shows American health system as vastly better than Cuba's or the other way around?"

My co-worker responded "That's easy, America's."

"Then you have to wonder the true intent of someone who does the opposite," I replied.

The same basic scrutiny can be used when looking at Dan Brown's work in The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons with his attack on Christianity as a whole and the Catholic Church specifically.

My mother was scanning books at a bookstore up in Georgia and spied one of which she thought would have an interest to me. She was right.

The book is called The Da Vinci Hoax. It's a wonderful book that expertly dissects the massive misinformation abounding in the pages of Brown's work and, more importantly, discusses the drivers behind the author's attempts to undermine the world's greatest religion.

How much garbage is in Brown's book? Well, it takes almost 300 pages in Hoax to cover all of the areas of misinformation. That means there sure is a lot of garbage to clean up!

Brown states that his material is thoroughly researched and historically accurate. He also states that history is written by winners and can't be trusted. So... what, Dan? Are you saying I shouldn't trust your version of history either????

That's just one of the basic red lights that flash about his work.

While raising my children I have tried to instill in them the idea that they should take all of their family responsibility seriously, even the small tasks. I would say to them, "if I can't trust you to take out the garbage when you're supposed to, how can I trust you with something more important?"

The same holds true for researchers claiming to uncovered some hidden truth. Case and point... Brown repeatedly states that "the Vatican" was doing this and that in various parts of history. Unfortunately, many of these events occured prior to "the Vatican" even existing. He should have said "the Church" or "the Catholic Church." But he didn't. Not a big deal, perhaps, but I go back to the phrase, "if you can't get the simple things right, why should I trust you on the big things?" How hard is it to understand that the Church is an entity and the Vatican is a place?

Look Dan, I already understand it after writing one sentence. How did it slip through that enlightened mind of your's? Probably because you were uncovering the whole conspiracy behind the Church/Vatican trying to weed Mary Magdelene out of Church history by refusing to ackowlege her as the "true" Holy Grail.

There's a lot of simple problems with that theory, Dan. If the Church/Vatican wanted to eliminate MM from Church history they simple DON'T HAVE TO MENTION HER IN THEIR STORIES/GOSPELS! I don't believe MM was mentioned by non-Gospel writers, so if the apostles were so intimidated by her place in Church history, all they had to do was simply NOT TALK ABOUT HER.

Second point, Danny boy... you say MM and JC were married and had kids and that JC survived the crucifixion and the apostles covered it up, blah, blah, blah, I have to ask you another simple question... WHY?

Why would the apostles sacrifice their life so JC and MM could have children? What did they possibly have to gain? The Church was not a powerful empire, it was a group of a couple of hundred people who were at odds with the Romans, the Jews and the Gentiles. So, why would they do that? Please, inspire me with a simple, logical answer, Mr. Brown. Well, while you're mulling that over, I have a few more questions...

You really think JC survived the crucifixion? Did you not do ANY research on Roman crucifixions? Or Roman law? Or health care back then?

Lastly, Brown goes on and on about how Da Vinci's painting shows the true meaning of the "Holy Grail" claiming that John sitting next to Jesus in the Last Supper painting was actually MM. And that Peter's depiction of a knife near John's/MM's throat shows that the church wanted to "decpitate" MM's power.


Ugh... Dan, Dan, Dan. I go back to my America/Cuba example. Every credible art and church historian explains the imagery... John, the youngest, would not have a beard. Peter's knife is a visual precursor to his use of the sword in the Garden later in the evening. And the picture itself is supposed to be the moment after Jesus told them there was a betrayer in their midst.

But what about this missing "Grail" Dan would ask? Well, Dan, if you were to simply LOOK at the painting you would see that EVERYONE has a cup in front of them. There is no need for a Grail to be passed around. The Grail isn't missing. It isn't necessary!

That's just some of the "Hello, Danny B., time to get your head out of your anti-Christian buttocks!" you'll find in the many detailed pages of The Da Vinci Hoax.

So why would DB take material from sketchy sources to compile a "historically accurate" alternative view of Christianity?

Because it appears that Dan Brown is all about the Sacred Feminine. And that the masculine Church has apparently been suppressing it all of these centuries. It's all very new-ageish and uses extreme feminist wishlists and imaginary tales to convey the glory that is the Sacred Feminine.

So that's his intent. He tells us to ignore history while presenting his own version of it. He ignores long-standing credible research and embraces Gnostic and feminists views of deity and muddles it all together into a mishmash of elaborate poppycock called The Da Vinci Code. Ignore it at all costs.

I do, however, strongly suggest everyone read The Da Vinci Hoax. There is so much more information on the misinformation Brown spins about the Templars, the Priory of Sion, Constantine, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Da Vinci's volume of work, his relationship with the Church, etc., etc.

The short of it is this... Brown is a very bad historian with an anti-Christian axe to grind, period. He should be mocked or ignored, but never taken seriously.