"Brown Uses Forgeries
to Prove ‘Jesus’ Bloodline'"
by Richard Abanes


This article appeared @ pastors.com, a Saddleback Church website for pastors.

In many ways, Christians must remember that this is not a purely ‘Christian' issue.
It is an issue of truth versus lies.
The Da Vinci Code would be just as offensive if it misrepresented any religion
as seriously as it misrepresents Christianity.

The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown has sold millions of copies and will likely sell millions more thanks to director Ron Howard's motion picture adaptation of it starring Tom Hanks. Unfortunately, the saga boldly attacks various Christian beliefs relating to the reliability of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and the organization of the early church. As one book reviewer put it, The Da Vinci Code promotes "the gleefully heretical notion that the entirety of Judeo-Christian culture is founded on a misogynist [woman-hating] lie." Or as the novel itself reads, "Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false" (p. 235).

The truth, according to Dan Brown, is that Jesus was never viewed as divine by his followers, but instead, was seen as merely another prophet. Furthermore, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, who not only bore his child, but who also was handpicked by him to lead the church. This plan, however, fell through after Christ's death because the other apostles, especially Peter, were enraged about her being Christ's successor. So she fled in fear of her life to France in order to escape Peter's wrath and raise Christ's daughter in safety. There, so the story goes, Christ's lineage eventually intermarried with French royalty, thereby creating the Merovingian bloodline of kings.

This account of Christ's life, says Brown, is unknown to most people because early church leaders – all males who detested the feminine aspect of pagan spirituality – initiated "the greatest cover-up in human history" (p. 249). They first turned Mary into a harlot to sully her good name, and then turned Jesus into a deity – all in an effort to subjugate women and conceal "the truth." Fortunately, says Brown, a secret society called the Priory of Sion was created to guard the documents proving Mary's role as Christ's mate, mother of his child, and designated Church leader. These texts allegedly tell the real story – unlike our current Bible that is filled with lies.

Clearly, Brown's version of history, which is being accepted as fact by countless readers, utterly negates the reputation of the Gospel message, the Church in general, and many faithful followers of Christ throughout history. To make matters worse, both Brown and his publisher adamantly declare that the book's historical references, documentation, religious rituals, and "codes" described in the novel are accurate (p. 1). In one interview, for example, Brown noted, "When you finish reading the book – like it or not – you've learned a ton."  Likewise, his publisher has declared, "Brown gives you a crash course in art history and the Catholic Church."

But nothing could be further from the truth. Consider Brown's assertion that Christ's followers never considered him divine until this status was conferred upon him through a vote of corrupt church leaders at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). We have many pre-325 A.D. quotes from Christians wherein Jesus is referred to as "God" (Justin Martyr, 150 A.D.), "Lord, and God" (Irenaeus, 185 A.D.), and "most manifest Deity" (Clement of Alexandria 200 A.D.).

Regarding Mary, there exists no documentation to substantiate the claim that she was anything more to Christ than a beloved follower. And there certainly is no evidence suggesting that she ever went to France or gave birth to a child whose descendants married French royalty, thereby creating the Merovingians, who according to Brown, founded Paris. That city, in fact, was founded in 250 to 200 B.C. by a Celtic tribe. And as for the Merovingians, they sprang from a King Merovech who ruled the region around 447 to 457 A.D.

Interestingly, in order to validate his Merovingian tale, Brown references King Dagobert II – the same king who, according to the literature Brown cites, married a "historical" figure named Giselle de Razés. It was through this woman that Christ's bloodline was allegedly passed on. But no such person ever existed. Giselle de Razés was fabricated by a modern-day French con-man named of Pierre Plantard who believed that he was a direct descendant of Jesus Christ.

Here is where we begin to see the actual source from which Brown pulled a great deal of his "documentation" and so-called "history" – Pierre Plantard, the true founder of the Priory of Sion.

Contrary to Brown's claims, the Priory did not begin in the Middle Ages. Nor was it created as a secret society committed to protecting the truth about Mary and Jesus. Plantard started his Priory in the 1960s, then placed forged documents in numerous libraries throughout Europe in an effort to prove that his group had an illustrious past, complete with notable leaders such as Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. These forgeries are the very same "historical documents" Dan Brown appeals to in his book.

Some fans of the novel, however, point to Brown's listing of "historians" who have "chronicled in exhaustive detail" the bloodline of Christ in books: Margaret Starbird, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (p. 253). Such a list would indeed be significant if any of these persons were actually historians. But none of them are. Starbird has a master of arts in comparative literature and German. Baigent holds an undergraduate degree in psychology and is pursuing a master of arts in mysticism. Leigh is a novelist and short story writer.  Lincoln gained notoriety as a BBC television personality and scriptwriter. And Picknett, along with Prince, is deeply involved in occultism, the paranormal, and UFO studies.

Other errors abound in The Da Vinci Code and not just about Christianity either, but also about the Knights Templar, Medieval witch hunts, pagan symbolism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic gospels, and the works of Leonardo Da Vinci, who Brown claims was a goddess worshiper adept at placing hidden pagan symbols and codes in his art. Brown does not even get right the number of glass panes in the Louvre Museum's pyramid (there were 673 panes not 666) or the origins of the Olympic games in ancient Greece (he claims they were based on an eight-year cycle in honor of Venus, when in reality, they ran on a four-year cycle in honor of Zeus).

How should Christians respond? First, speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:14-15), realizing that correcting error is part of the Christian faith (Jude 3). Second, understand that we are not at war with any individuals, but rather, with spiritual forces of darkness seeking to distract people from Christ (Eph. 6:12-13). Finally, in many ways, Christians must remember that this is not a purely "Christian" issue. It is an issue of truth versus lies. The Da Vinci Code would be just as offensive if it misrepresented any religion as seriously as it misrepresents Christianity. Brown has re-written a vast amount of history and twisted truth so severely that many people are now confused. It is our job as Christians to bring correction, "with gentleness," hoping and believing that as we do so, many will come "to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:24-25).

about
me		 my
articles		 home wordpressblog

crosswalk.com
(a blog) 		in the
media