Da Vinci Book Review High School World History

Controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code , a popular suspense novel by Dan Brown, generated criticism and controversy subsequently its publication in 2003. Many of the complaints centered on the volume's speculations and misrepresentations of core aspects of Christianity and the history of the Catholic Church. Additional criticisms were directed toward the book's inaccurate descriptions of European fine art, history, architecture, and geography.^[1]

Charges of copyright infringement were as well leveled by the novelist Lewis Perdue and by the authors of the 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, which puts forward the hypothesis that the historical Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and that their children or their descendants emigrated to what is now southern France, and married into families that became the Merovingian dynasty, whose claim to the throne of France is championed today by the Priory of Sion.^[2] Brown was cleared of these copyright infringement charges in a 2006 trial.^{[3] [4]}

Fact or fiction [edit]

Brown prefaces his novel with a page titled "Fact" asserting that certain elements in the novel are truthful in reality, and a page at his website repeats these ideas and others.^[v] In the early on publicity for the novel, Dan Brown made repeated assertions that, while the novel is a work of fiction, the historical information in it is all accurate and well-researched. For example:

Martin Savidge: When we talk about da Vinci and your volume, how much is true and how much is fabricated in your storyline?
Dan Brown: 99 percent of it is true. All of the compages, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true, the Gnostic gospels. All of that is … all that is fiction, of course, is that there's a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. Simply the background is all true.^[6]

Matt Lauer: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?
Dan Chocolate-brown: Absolutely all of it. Obviously, at that place are—Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, compages, undercover rituals, undercover societies, all of that is historical fact.^[7]

These claims in the volume and past the author, combined with the presentation of religious ideas that some Christians regard as offensive,^{[8] [9] [10] [11] [12]} led to a great deal of controversy and argue, which found its mode into political discourse in the media. In May 2006, The Independent reported that Ruth Kelly, a senior British Minister, had been scrutinized well-nigh her membership in Opus Dei during her early years as an Teaching Secretary.^[13]

Religious disputes [edit]

Mary Magdalene [edit]

The novel asserts that Mary Magdalene was of the Tribe of Benjamin, merely historians dispute this claim, and at that place is no mention of this in the Bible or in other ancient sources. Co-ordinate to Sandra Miesel and Carl E. Olson, writing in their 2004 book, The Da Vinci Hoax, state the fact that Magdala was located in northern Israel, whereas the tribe of Benjamin resided in the southward, weighs against it.^[14]

In Affiliate 58 it is suggested that the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene created a "potent political marriage with the potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne."^[15] Olson and Meisel not merely country that this assertion is without any historical ground, simply question why Solomon'due south kingship would have whatever purpose or meaning today that would motivate a large-calibration conspiracy. The authors also question why if Jesus were simply a "mortal prophet", as the novel suggests, a royal goddess would have whatsoever interest in him. Olson and Meisel quote Chicago archbishop Francis Central George, who remarked, "Jesus isn't God but Mary Magdalene is a goddess? I hateful, what does that mean? If he's not God, why is he married to a goddess?" Olson and Meisel likewise argued that having Davidic blood in Jesus' time would not have been unique, since all of his stepfather Joseph's relatives, which included 20 generations of kings of Judah, had it equally well. The authors besides state that the Benjamites were not considered "rightful" heirs to the throne, and that the New Testament does not mention Mary Magdalene'south tribal affiliation, and that she was probable not from the tribe of Benjamin, and that her connection with that tribe is traced to the 1982 volume Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which does not substantiate the idea.^[14]

Characters in the book also claim that Mary Magdalene was labeled a prostitute by the Church.^[15] While Catholic tradition in the past, in dissimilarity to other Christian traditions, defended these imputations,^[xvi] these claims are now rejected by the bulk of biblical scholars, Cosmic and non-Cosmic akin, according to Carol Ann Morrow of AmericanCatholic.org.^{[17] [eighteen]} Also, Pope Gregory I's teaching most Mary Magdalene, though popular throughout much of the Church'south history, was never formally integrated into Cosmic dogma; nor was he speaking ex cathedra at the fourth dimension, so his voice communication is non seen as infallible. Whatever weight is given to this tradition, even so, there is no show that it was used to defame Mary, who was considered a saint to whose honor churches were built. She is also respected as a witness to Christ's resurrection equally written in the Gospels.^[14]

Alleged matrimony to Jesus [edit]

The story claims the "Holy Grail" is not a beaker but a bloodline sprung from the marital union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This idea is not original to Brown; it was previously hypothesized by others, including Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh in The Holy Claret and the Holy Grail. Many textual and historical scholars have characterized this claim every bit being without prove.^[19]

Women in the Gospels were usually identified with husbands or male person relatives, especially if they shared their names with others. For example, there are many mentions of women called "Mary", all designated differently (any possible identification with each other nonwithstanding). At that place is Mary "the female parent of Jesus", Mary Magdalene, Mary "the female parent of James and Joses", Mary "[the mother] of James", "the other" Mary, Mary "the wife of Cl[e]opas" and Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. Mary Magdalene stands out from most of the other Marys equally she is not direct associated with any man. Mary "Magdalene" means "Mary of Magdala", just as Jesus "the Nazarene" ways "Jesus of Nazareth." Some researchers have claimed that, if indeed she was married to Jesus, she would accept been designated, following custom, Mary "the wife of Jesus" instead.^[twenty]

According to The Da Vinci Hoax, the use of the term "bride of Christ" for the Church in some of the letters of Paul (Ephesians 5:25–27, 2 Corinthians 11:2–3) and the Volume of Revelation suggests that Jesus was not married. The authors of that work also speculate that the recorded words of Jesus that "those people who tin can remain celibate, for the kingdom of heaven's sake should do and so" (Matt. 19:12) were fabricated in response to criticisms of his own celibacy.^[14]

In the novel, a line of the Gospel of Philip is quoted where Mary Magdalene is referred to as Jesus's "companion", and a character of The Da Vinci Code says that Aramaic scholars know that this ways "wife". James M. Robinson, an authority on the gnostic gospels, has responded to this passage by pointing out that "companion" was not necessarily a sexual activity-related term. In improver, "the Gospel of Philip is in Coptic, translated from Greek, so there is no word in the text for Aramaic scholars to consider. The Gospel of Philip depicts Mary as Jesus's koinonos, a Greek term indicating a 'close friend', 'companion' or, potentially, a lover. In context of Gnostic behavior, Gnostic writings employ Mary to illustrate a disciple's spiritual relationship with Jesus, making whatever physical relationship irrelevant.^[14]

Mary Magdalene in Leonardo's The Concluding Supper [edit]

Many art historians dispute that Leonardo'due south famous The Last Supper depicts Mary Magdalene beside Jesus.^{[21] [22]}

Jesus in Church pedagogy [edit]

According to Sir Leigh Teabing in Chapter 55 of the novel, the early Church consolidated its power by suppressing ideas about the sacred feminine and elevating the mortal prophet Jesus into a divine beingness. Co-ordinate to Faith Facts, the questions discussed by the Quango were not whether he was divine, as the New Attestation authors already believe that he was, but what his precise relationship to God was. In item, the Council decided upon the question of whether Jesus was homoousios, "of one substance" with God the Father, or whether instead Jesus was the first created being, junior to the Male parent just like him, but nonetheless superior to all other beings (see Arianism), or whether he was merely of like substance to the begetter, or homoiousios.^{[23] [24]}

Portrayal of Gnosticism [edit]

The novel claims Constantine wanted Christianity to unify the Roman Empire merely thought it would appeal to pagans only if information technology featured a demigod like to infidel heroes, so he destroyed the Gnostic Gospels that said Jesus was a human being prophet and promoted the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which portray Jesus every bit divine.^[25]

Historically, nevertheless, Gnosticism did not portray Jesus as only homo. In fact, the Gnostic Jesus was less human than the Jesus of orthodox Christianity. While orthodox Christianity by and large considered Christ both divine and human, many Gnostic sects considered Christ purely divine, his human being body existence a mere illusion (see Docetism). Many Gnostics saw matter as evil, and believed that a divine spirit would never have taken on a material body.^{[26] [27]} Some varieties of Gnosticism went so far as to hold that the God of the Jews is only a demiurge who has trapped humanity in a fleshly prison; and that Christ is an emanation of the true God, sent to free humanity from that bondage to the flesh. (Run into Marcionism, Aeon, Archon).^{[ citation needed ]}

Sacred feminine [edit]

Characters in the book claim Christianity has suppressed the sacred feminine, the representation of the globe or mother Goddess's mystic power that's often linked to symbols of fertility and reproduction, such as Venus and Isis.

Early Christian devotion to female martyrs (such every bit Perpetua and Felicity) and the apocryphal writings virtually figures like St. Thecla seem to indicate that women did play a role in the early Church, far more than either Brown or some modern critics of Christianity acknowledge, though historical evidence does not advise men and women shared all roles of office.^[xiv] The Catholic and Orthodox Churches peculiarly venerate the Virgin Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, but the book deems this a desexualised aspect of femininity that suppresses the sacred feminine. Brown echoes scholars such as Joseph Campbell in maxim this epitome of Mary derives from Isis and her child Horus.^[28] Meisel and Olson counters that the "Mother and child" symbol, every bit a universal office of the general human feel, can be found in other faiths; and then Christianity did not copy this chemical element from Egyptian mythology.^[fourteen]

Christian documents and traditions tend to stress the virtues of chaste womanhood in keeping with general Christian encouragement of chastity for both genders. The Gnostics expressed anti-female views, for example, in the Gospel of Thomas'southward famous ending verse where Jesus says he volition make Mary into a male person to make her worthy to enter the Kingdom.^[14]

Goddess worship [edit]

Israelites [edit]

While the grapheme Robert Langdon claims in the book that early on Israelites worshipped the goddess Shekinah equally Yahweh's equal, this is contradictory to Jewish theology. Judaism is and was a monotheistic religion, and conventionalities in a goddess counterpart to God is both illogical and expressly forbidden. In fact, the term Shekinah (derived from Hebrew for "abode") does non announced in early Judaism at all, but later Talmudic Judaism used it to refer to the God'south "habitation" or presence amid his people. The term describes a spiritual radiance. Critics contend that this comes from an understanding of Kabbalah, which speaks of God as having "male person" and "female" attributes in the Sephirot.^[29]

The Bible [edit]

Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel state that contrary to the book's claims, the Gnostic Gospels (e.g. the Gospels of Thomas, Philip, Mary Magdalene, and the Judas) also do not focus more on Jesus' humanity. The other known Gospels, for the well-nigh part, treat Jesus as more otherworldly and lack the humanizing item of the Biblical accounts.^[14] The assertion of "more than lxxx gospels" written, with only the familiar four chosen as canonical, greatly exaggerates the number of Gnostic Gospels written.^{[fourteen] [20]}

The assertions that the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947 (not the 1950s as Dark-brown predicates), contain lost or hidden Gospels is also fake. The scrolls comprise books of the Hebrew Scriptures, apocryphal and pseudepigraphic books, and manuals used by the Essenes (a Jewish community) at Qumran. No definite Christian documents—orthodox, Gnostic, or otherwise—have ever been found at this site.^[14]

The texts of the Nag Hammadi library are non "the most ancient texts in Christianity", but later Gnostic texts (usually dated to the 2nd and 3rd century CE), which were written after the approved Gospels. Contrarily to Dark-brown's statements, these Gospels do not focus on Jesus's humanity, but depict Jesus as more otherworldly and lack the humanizing item of the canonical Biblical acoounts. The only exception to this is the Gospel of Thomas, which is a drove of sayings (logia) attributed to Jesus; however, such sayings (most of which are strikingly like to the ones plant in the Canonical Gospels) do not focus on Jesus'south life nor on his humanity/divinity, only on his teachings.^[14]

Opus Dei [edit]

The depiction of Opus Dei every bit a monastic order which is the Pope's "personal prelature" is inaccurate. In fact, there are no monks in Opus Dei, which has primarily lay membership and whose celibate lay members are chosen numeraries. But it may be explained by the fact that Silas is referred to every bit a monk generally by the protagonists, Langdon and Neveu, who are shown to accept lilliputian knowledge of Opus Dei. The word numerary is used to refer to Silas, by actual Opus Dei members such as the person at Opus Dei centre in London. Moreover, Opus Dei encourages its lay members to avert practices that are perceived as fundamentalist to the exterior earth. The term personal prelature does not refer to a special relationship to the Pope; it means an institution in which the jurisdiction of the prelate is not linked to a territory but over persons, wherever they be.^[14]

Silas, the murderous "Opus Dei monk", uses a cilice and flagellates himself. Some members of Opus Dei do practice voluntary mortification of the flesh, which has been a Christian tradition since at least St. Anthony in the third century, and it has too been practiced by Mother Teresa, Padre Pio, the child visionaries of Our Lady of Fatima, and slain archbishop Óscar Romero. Saint Thomas More and Catherine of Aragon, Queen of England both wore hairshirts in the Tudor era.^[thirty]

Critics take accused the book of depicting the order as misogynistic, a claim which the order's defenders say has no basis in reality because half of the leadership positions in Opus Dei are held by women.^[30]

Critics take also stated that the novel's allegations of dealings between Pope John Paul Two and the club concerning the Institute for the Works of Organized religion likewise accept no footing in reality. Allegedly due to these dealings, Opus Dei'south founder was declared a Saint just xx years after his death. In reality, Josemaría Escrivá was canonized 27 years after his expiry; admittedly faster than some others—but this is attributed to streamlining of the whole process and John Paul II'south decision to brand Escriva's sanctity and message known.^[30]

In the novel, the caput of Opus Dei travels alone and makes momentous decisions on his own. In real life, the head of Opus Dei is commonly accompanied by two other priests chosen custodes or guardians. Decision making in Opus Dei is "collegial": i.e., the head has merely one vote.^[30]

Historical disputes [edit]

Leonardo da Vinci [edit]

The contention that the Mona Lisa was painted by Leonardo as an androgynous "whole" humanity that represented both genders is contested by Olson and Meisel's book, in which they country that reputable art historians have explained that it is simply a masterful portrait of a woman. Olson and Meisel also accept result with the thought that Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa every bit a self-portrait, and that this thought is based on the fact that points of congruency are found between Leonardo'due south face up and the Mona Lisa'due south. Olson and Meisel respond that points of congruency can be establish among many faces, which is how calculator morphing of faces is facilitated.^[14]

The title of the book is not consistent with naming conventions, because "Da Vinci" was non Leonardo's surname. As Tom Chivers of The Daily Telegraph comments, "[Leonardo] was from Vinci, or of Vinci. Every bit many critics have pointed out, calling it The Da Vinci Code is like referring to Lawrence of Arabia as Mr. Of Arabia, or asking What Would Of Nazareth Practise?".^[31]

Knights Templar [edit]

The allegation that Pope Clement V burned the Templars to ashes and threw the ashes into the Tiber River in Rome is simulated. The last leaders of the Knights Templar were killed in France in 1314 past King Philip Iv of France, being burned at the pale on a small isle in the Seine. Pope Clement's administration was not in Rome every bit he had moved the papal headquarters to Avignon.^[14]

The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail [edit]

The fable of the Holy Grail declared that a sacred relic (in many versions, either the loving cup used at the Last Supper, or the cup said to have been used by Joseph of Arimathea to collect claret of Christ – or both) existed, which would bring untold blessings to any pure knight who found it. The story appeared around the time of the Crusades and is featured in Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. In Sometime French, the Holy Grail was written as San Graal. However The Da Vinci Code, taking cues from The Holy Claret and the Holy Grail, interprets this as "Sang Réal" and translated this as "royal blood". In early Grail romances, graal in fact denotes a large dish for fish, itself a Christian religious symbol, just clearly removed from the traditional loving cup. The idea of a cup seems to accept developed speedily during the late twelfth and early on 13th centuries, influenced both by not-canonical religious legends, such as that of Joseph of Arimathea, and by heathen stories involving magic containers that, for case, produced endless food.^[14]

French republic [edit]

Several claims almost the Church of Saint-Sulpice in Paris are disputed. While there is a brass line running due north-due south through the church, it is not a function of the Paris Top. The line is instead more than of a gnomon or sundial/agenda, meant to marker the solstice and equinoxes. Further, at that place is no evidence that in that location was ever a temple of Isis on the site. This annotation has been on brandish in the church:^[32]

Opposite to fanciful allegations in a recent all-time-selling novel, this [the line in the floor] is not a vestige of a pagan temple. No such temple always existed in this place. It was never called a Rose-Line. It does not coincide with the summit traced through the middle of the Paris Observatory which serves as a reference for maps where longitudes are measured in degrees East or West of Paris. Please also annotation that the letters P and Southward in the small-scale round windows at both ends of the transept refer to Peter and Sulpice, the patron saints of the church, and not an imaginary "Priory of Sion."^{[32] [33]}

The reference to Paris having been founded by the Merovingians (Affiliate 55) is false; in fact, the metropolis was settled by Gauls by the 3rd century BC. The Romans, who knew it as Lutetia, captured it in 52 BC nether Julius Caesar, and left substantial ruins in the city, including an amphitheater and public baths. The Merovingians did not rule in France until the 5th century Advertizing, by which time Paris was at to the lowest degree 800 years one-time.^[14]

Scientific disputes [edit]

Chocolate-brown characterized the cycle of Venus as "trac[ing] a perfect pentacle across the ecliptic heaven every four years".^[34] This was corrected to "8 years" in some subsequently editions, such as the British paperback and the April 2003 printing of the US hardback.^[35]

Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins, writing in an commodity in Nature, says that the notion that a small number of people living today could be the only descendants from any detail person who lived millennia ago, such as Jesus and Mary, is statistically flawed. According to Olson, "If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, then are about of us on the planet."^[36]

About the terminate of the novel, Sophie and Langdon are continuing outside Roslyn Chapel in the evening, Dark-brown describes them looking to the east watching Venus ascension in a higher place the horizon in the twilight. Astronomically, due to the location of its orbit between the earth and the sun, Venus is merely visible ascension in the east early on in the morning shortly before sunrise or setting in the evening toward the w shortly later on sunset. It is not possible to see Venus ascent higher up the eastern horizon in the evening.

Allegations of plagiarism [edit]

A number of copyright infringement lawsuits have been brought alleging plagiarism in The Da Vinci Code.^[37]

On April 11, 2005, novelist Lewis Perdue sued Chocolate-brown and his publisher Random House for plagiarizing his novels The Da Vinci Legacy (1983) and Daughter of God (1999), claiming "there are far likewise many parallels between my books and The Da Vinci Lawmaking for it to be an accident." On August 4, 2005, District Judge George B. Daniels granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit, ruling that "a reasonable average lay observer would not conclude that The Da Vinci Lawmaking is essentially like to Daughter of God. Whatever slightly similar elements are on the level of generalized or otherwise unprotectable ideas." He affirmed that The Da Vinci Code does non infringe upon copyrights held past Perdue.^[38]

In February 2006, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two of the three authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, took the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland publisher of The Da Vinci Code to court for breach of copyright, alleging plagiarism.^[39] Some sources suggested the lawsuit was a publicity stunt^[40] intended to boost sales of The Holy Claret and the Holy Grail (a heave which did in fact occur). However, the projected court costs of over 1 one thousand thousand pounds outweigh or at least essentially reduce the financial benefit of the lawsuit.^[41]

Dan Dark-brown repeatedly said in his defense that history cannot exist plagiarized and therefore the accusations of the two authors were false. Leigh stated, "It's non that Dan Brown has lifted certain ideas considering a number of people have washed that before. Information technology'south rather that he's lifted the whole compages – the whole jigsaw puzzle – and hung information technology on to the peg of a fictional thriller".^[42] Dan Brown has admitted some of the ideas taken from Baigent and Leigh's work were indispensable to the book only stated that at that place were many other sources too behind it. Yet, he claimed that neither he nor his wife had read Baigent and Leigh'southward book when he produced his original "synopsis" of the novel.^[43] Among Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh'due south arguments were that the given name of the character Sir Leigh Teabing'south is the aforementioned of Richard Leigh'south surname, and that "Teabing" is an anagram of "Baigent".^[44]

On Apr vii, 2006, High Court judge Sir Peter Smith rejected the copyright-infringement claim by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, and Random House won the court case.^{[3] [4]} However, in the published extracts of his judgement^[45] the judge criticised the non-appearance of Blythe Dark-brown and the vagueness of Dan Dark-brown's evidence, saying, "He has presented himself as existence a deep and thorough researcher...evidence in this case demonstrates that as regards DVC [The Da Vinci Code] that is only not right with respect to historical lectures...The reality of his research is that it is superficial."^{[46] [47] [48]}

The gauge also included a code in his judgment. Throughout the judgment, apparently random letters are italicised and these form the bulletin. The messages in the first paragraphs spell smithy code and the residuum announced as follows "jaeiextostgpsacgreamqwfkadpmqzv". This was afterwards decoded to read "Smithy Lawmaking Jackie Fisher who are you lot Dreadnought",^[49] referring to the British admiral whom Estimate Smith admires. As with the book, this hole-and-corner message made use of Fibonacci numbers for its encoding.

In 2007 author Jack Dunn filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Dan Brown in Massachusetts, Random House and Sony Pictures claiming that Brown plagiarized his 1997 novel The Vatican Boys when writing The Da Vinci Lawmaking. Dunn stated, "Dan Brown took huge elements from my book. Of form everybody can write about Opus Dei and have copyright protection, only in both 'The Vatican Boys' and 'The Da Vinci Code' the head of the Opus Dei hires a mercenary to observe them a relic and then that he can go the nigh powerful man in Christendom." Estimate Michael Ponsor dismissed the example in 2007, ruling, "No prior example recognizing a theory of copyright infringement based on the sort of thematic or structural similarity posited by the plaintiff has been offered in his memorandum opposing summary judgment, nor has the court found 1." In 2017 Marketwatch reported that Dunn was preparing to bring a lawsuit against Brown'due south publisher Penguin Random Business firm in the United Kingdom.^[l]

Christian response [edit]

At a conference on April 28, 2006 Archbishop Angelo Amato, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican curial department, specifically chosen for a boycott of the film version of The Da Vinci Lawmaking, characterizing the moving picture equally "full of calumnies, offenses, and historical and theological errors."^[8] The film was rated as "morally offensive" past the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.^{[ix] [51]}

In India, home to 30 1000000 Christians (iii% of the population), the Central Board of Film Certification gave the film an developed rating on condition that disclaimers saying information technology was a work of fiction were inserted at the beginning and end of the film.^[12]

In contrast, some Catholic groups sought to utilise interest in this book and moving-picture show as a means to educate Catholics and non-Catholics on the history of the Christian Church, and what information technology teaches regarding Jesus Christ.^{[10] [11]} Similarly, other Christians take looked to utilize the pic as a tool for evangelism.^[51]

Notes [edit]

1. ^ "Fine art historian calls 'Da Vinci Code' museum of errors on Cosmic bishops Web site". Catholic Online. Catholic News Bureau. March twenty, 2006. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved November 27, 2010.
2. ^ The Secret of the Priory of Sion, 'sixty Minutes', thirty April 2006, presented by Ed Bradley, produced by Jeanne Langley, CBS News
3. ^ ^{a b} Baigent and Leigh five The Random House Group Ltd [2006] EWHC 719 (Ch) (7 April 2006), High Court (England and Wales)
4. ^ ^{a b} "Court rejects Da Vinci copy claim". BBC News. April 7, 2006
5. ^ "Bizarre True Facts – The Da Vinci Code". danbrown.com. Retrieved July 31, 2011.
6. ^ "Interview With Dan Brown". CNN Sunday Morn. CNN. May 25, 2003.
7. ^ "NBC Today Interview". NBC Today. June 3, 2003. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007.
8. ^ ^{a b} "Offensive against 'Da Vinci'". The New York Times. April 28, 2006.
9. ^ ^{a b} Kohn, Joe (June 2, 2006). "Church handled 'Da Vinci' well, says UDM prof". The Michigan Catholic. The Archdiocese of Detroit.
10. ^ ^{a b} "Cracking Da Vinci Code". Catholci Answers. 2004. Archived from the original on September 2, 2011. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
11. ^ ^{a b} "'Da Vinci Code' shrouded in secrecy". Cosmic League. May 2, 2006. Archived from the original on December 5, 2013. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
12. ^ ^{a b} "Row in India delays Da Vinci Code". BBC News. May 19, 2006.
13. ^ Russell, Ben (May 10, 2006). "Is homosexuality a sin? Government minister for Equality refuses to rule information technology out". The Contained. Archived from the original on May 22, 2008. Retrieved August 22, 2021.
14. ^ ^{a b c d due east f g h i j thousand 50 m n o p q} Olson, Carl E.; Miesel, Sandra (Jan 1, 2004). The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code. Ignatius Press. ISBN978-one-58617-034-ix.
15. ^ ^{a b} Brown, Dan. "The Da Vinci Code". Amazon. p. 249. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
16. ^ "St. Mary Magdalen". Cosmic Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
17. ^ Carol Ann Morrow (May 2006). "St. Mary Magdalene: Redeeming Her Gospel Reputation". Catholic Update. Archived from the original on July 21, 2012.
18. ^ "Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene lovers?". The Straight Dope.
19. ^ Dan Burstein, ed. (2004). Secrets of the Code. CDS Books. ISBN1-59315-022-9.
20. ^ ^{a b} Bock, Darrell (2004). Breaking The Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everybody's Asking. Nelson Books. ISBN0-7852-6046-3.
21. ^ "Decoding 'The Da Vinci Code'". Newsweek. MSNBC. December viii, 2004. Archived from the original on June 9, 2004. Retrieved Nov 27, 2010.
22. ^ "Decoding The Da Vinci Code". Seattle Pacific University. Summer 2005. Volume 28, Number 2. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
23. ^ "The Quango of Nicea and The Da Vinci Code". ReligionFacts.
24. ^ Davis, Leo Donald (1990). The Start Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21). Liturgical Press. p. 342. ISBN978-0-8146-5616-seven.
25. ^ Tim O'Neill (2006). "Early on Christianity and Political Power". History vs The Da Vinci Code.
26. ^ Tim O'Neill (2006). "Nag Hammadi and the Expressionless Body of water Scrolls". History vs The Da Vinci Code.
27. ^ "GNOSTICISM – Beliefs and practices". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance . Retrieved November 27, 2010.
28. ^ "The antique model for the Madonna, actually, is Isis with Horus at her breast" The Power of Myth, 1988 (first edition), p. 176
29. ^ Hansard, Mark. "The Da Vinci Code Movie: Checking the Facts". Jesus & DaVinci. 2006. Retrieved July 31, 2011. Archived May 19, 2009, at the Wayback Motorcar
30. ^ ^{a b c d} John L. Allen, Jr. (2005). Opus Dei: An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church. Doubleday Faith.
31. ^ Chivers, Tom (September xv, 2009). "The Lost Symbol and The Da Vinci Code writer Dan Dark-brown'south xx worst sentences". Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
32. ^ ^{a b} Benishal, Richard. "Articles – Saint Sulpice and the 'Rose-Line'". Geobiology.co.il. Retrieved July 31, 2011.
33. ^ Tony Robinson's The Real Da Vinci Code. Acorn Media. Channel 4. First broadcast February three, 2005
34. ^ The Da Vinci Lawmaking. Bantam. 2003. p. 36. ISBN9780593051528.
35. ^ "The Da Vinci Code". Amazon. 2003. p. 36.
36. ^ Steve Olson (March 15, 2006). "Why we're all Jesus' children". Slate.
37. ^ Armstrong, Ruth (January 12, 2005). "Da Vinci author is hit by fresh plagiarism merits"". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on June 5, 2011.
38. ^ Daniels, George B. "Memorandum Opinion and Order, 04 Civ. 7417 (GBD)" (PDF). Us District Court Southern District of New York.
39. ^ Kennedy, Maev (Feb 28, 2006). In a packed high court, a new twist in The Da Vinci Lawmaking begins to unfold. The Guardian.
40. ^ Expanding on a theory isn't plagiarism, Collegiate Times, March 14, 2006
41. ^ "Publish and be damned if you don't sell more than". The Birmingham Mail service. March 10, 2006
42. ^ "Da Vinci trial pits history against art". The Observer. February 26, 2006
43. ^ The primal to "The Da Vinci Code?" Dan Brown's wife ^{[ permanent dead link ]} , Reuters/Yahoo! News, March 16, 2006
44. ^ Frances Gibb and Ben Hoyle. "Author breaks code of silence". The Sunday Times. February 25, 2006
45. ^ "The Da Vinci Lawmaking case judgement". BBC News. April vii, 2006
46. ^ "The Da Vinci Lawmaking case judgement". BBC News. April 7, 2006.
47. ^ [2006] EWHC 719 (Ch) at para. 345
48. ^ "Da Vinci Lawmaking Publisher Random House Wins In Court". ABC News/Associated Press. Apr 7, 2006.
49. ^ "Estimate'south own Da Vinci lawmaking croaky". BBC News. Retrieved April 28, 2006.
50. ^ Teodorczuk, Tom (December 14, 2017). "Dan Brown faces possible new plagiarism lawsuit over 'The Da Vinci Code'". Marketwatch. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved December 21, 2021.
51. ^ ^{a b} Maier, Paul Fifty. "THE DA VINCI Lawmaking: TOOL FOR EVANGELISM?" Christian Inquiry Institute. Retrieved July 31, 2011.

References [edit]

• Amy Welborn, De-coding da Vinci: The Facts Backside the Fiction of the Da Vinci Lawmaking (Our Sun Visitor, 2004). ISBN 1-59276-101-ane
• Richard Abanes, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code (Harvest House Publishers, 2004). ISBN 0-7369-1439-0
• Darrell Bock, Breaking The Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everybody'southward Asking (Nelson Books, 2004). ISBN 0-7852-6046-three
• Dan Burstein (ed), Secrets of the Code (CDS Books, 2004). ISBN 1-59315-022-9
• Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code (Oxford University Press, 2004). ISBN 0-nineteen-518140-9
• Nicky Gumbel, The Da Vinci Code: a response (Blastoff International). ISBN 1-904074-81-2
• Michael Haag and Veronica Haag, The Rough Guide to The Da Vinci Code. ISBN 978-one-84353-713-vii
• Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Maier, Da Vinci Lawmaking: Fact or Fiction? (Tyndale House Publishers, 2004). ISBN 1-4143-0279-7
• Steve Kellmeyer, Fact and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code (Bridegroom Press, 2004). ISBN 0-9718128-vi-ane
• Martin Lunn, Da Vinci Code Decoded (The Disinformation Company, 2004). ISBN 0-9729529-vii-7
• Carl E. Olson, Sandra Miesel, The Da Vinci Hoax (Ignatius Press, 2004). ISBN ane-58617-034-1
• Essak, Shelley, The Florentine Schoolhouse and the Portrayal of Male Youth. Accessed at About.com
• Esaak, Shelley, Leonardo da Vinci – The Last Supper. Accessed at Most.com

External links [edit]

• History versus the Da Vinci Lawmaking a non-religious analysis of The Da Vinci Code 's errors of fact
• The Da Vinci Code – the book, the film, the deception

bushthour1974.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Da_Vinci_Code

Share this post