Is there any truth in Dan Brown's Book
Let me begin by saying the I enjoyed Da Vinci Code just as I enjoyed the Rule of Four. Both are immensely readable and written in a racy style that makes one turn the page to find out what happens next. While the Rule of Four does not take great liberty with history, it has not created a major stir as has Da Vinci Code. It is unfortunate that many take the version of the Life of Christ and the subsequent developments in the Roman world especially after Constantine as being based on historical facts. Dan Brown has erected an interesting theory based entirely on fanciful interpretation, wishful thinking, a clutch of conspiracy theories and reads too much in the silences ever present in the historical record. I will concede that historians use these devices in their writings, but generally do not subordinate their entire vision to a narrow, albeit, interesting narrative.
The plot revolves around the alledged relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus the Christ. Da Vinci tries to argue that Mary was expecting a child at the time of the Passion of Christ. Apart from being immensely revolting to Catholics this statement is historically inaccurate. There is no evidence in fact to back this claim and from this silence, Dan Brown goes on to create an elaborate armature of conspiracy:The Coucil of Niccea expunged all traces of the human aspect of Jesus. A few years earlier the book, Holy Grail, Holy Blood set out to make a similar claim and the book is based on documents that are palpably contrived and probably, forged in the late nineteenth on early twentieth century, when the French Roayalists made a last ditch attemt to get back the throne. The Gnostic Bibles that are used by Dan Brown to argue out his case are not in Aramaic, the language of Jesus the Christ, but in Coptic. The word used is a loan word from greek, koinonos which only means companion not wife or spouse. This is just one example of the several instances of over interpretation that we have in Da Vinci Code.
The Roman historian, Josephus is perhaps the best source yet fro the early history of the Christian religion. Even though Jesus is not mentioned by name, the fact is there are referecnces to an Essene whose teachings drew attention. There is no doubt that Josephus refers to Jesus here. The apocalyptic language used by Christ is entirely drawn from Essene text and hence the fact that though he was Jewish and remained unmarried can be explained with reference to this feature.
There is however, one point on which Dan Brown is spot on the money. He is right to point out that the Catholic Church of the Roman variety was deeply implicated in power politics and was often unholyn in its actions. The fact that Roman Catholisim became the accepted creed of Chritendom has more to do with the suppression of all other reading of the Bible and the imposition of one hegemonic view that maginalizes all other creeds. Dan Brown has done a great service in drawing popular attention to the differet schools within the Christian faith that have virually disappeared today.