Customer Reviews

Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

Are you a Christian who was duped into reading Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code," thinking it was just a run-of-the-mill mystery/suspense thriller? Were you deeply traumatized by the "revelations" within? Are you overwhelmed by the prospect of researching all those questions yourself? Well, rest easy. It turns out that you don't have to use that brain of yours at all. Some fine folks have looked into the matter, and guess what--everything you thought you knew about Jesus and the Bible and the history of Christianity is COMPLETELY CORRECT! Dan Brown is nothing more than a filthy liar with an Anti-Christian (Anti-Catholic in particular) Agenda. Hallelujah! Now go back to sleep.

I am referring, of course, to the dozen or so books that have been published with the purpose of "proving" Dan Brown wrong in the last several months. I work in one of amazon.com's warehouses, so I am familiar with most of them (I've actually read almost all of Kellmeyer's book at work while my bosses were looking the other way). Some of these books are irritating; some are just dumb; a couple of them actually treat the subject fairly, although I don't agree with all their conclusions. But Steve Kellmeyer's "Fact And Fiction In The Da Vinci Code" is one of the most infuriating things I've ever read.

If "The Da Vinci Code" really bothered you, I can save you some time and money. Grab a copy of the book; open it to the page with the publication info. About a third of the way down the page is what you're looking for: "All of the characters and events in this book are fictitious, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." That's right. This is a work of FICTION. That means it's made-up. Don't thank me all at once.

I'm not defending Brown. He certainly doesn't need me to do so. This book is making him a very rich man, and I doubt he loses much sleep over anything people like Steve Kellmeyer are saying about him. While I thoroughly enjoyed "The Da Vinci Code," I will concede that Brown brought this upon himself, to a certain extent. He is guilty of some sloppy scholarship and bad semantics (he states some things as facts that aren't exactly factual, and he gets a few things completely wrong). I don't advise that anyone believe anything just because it was in "The Da Vinci Code," and I definitely don't recommend that you use Brown's novel to back up your arguments unless you want to look stupid. What I am trying to defend is the right to question beliefs, challenge assumptions, and disagree with the mainstream.

What really burns me is the condescending tone of Kellmeyer's book. Instead of attacking Brown's "claims," he uses Brown's "errors" to prove that "The Da Vinci Code" is set in an "alternate universe" where everything is different (by the way, the "claims" in "The Da Vinci Code" are not Brown's at all, but a hodgepodge of parts of theories put forth by Henry Lincoln, Richard Leigh, Michael Baigent, Margaret Starbird, Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince, and others). It's really very ingenious, in a way. He presents his evidence the way you might explain your senile grandfather's temper tantrum to your eight year old kid. Poor Dan Brown. He can't help getting this stuff wrong--he's living in a fantasy world. This way he can saturate his book with sneering sarcasm without doing anything so petty as insulting Brown outright. Well, Steve, here's a little tidbit that might interest you: ALL fiction is set in an alternate universe. If it happened in our universe, it wouldn't exactly be fiction, now would it.

But I can prove that Kellmeyer's book is also a work of fiction set in an alternate universe. Have a look:

Point 1. Kellmeyer is universally acknowledged as the foremost expert on whatever he happens to be talking about. Not so in our universe. But it's definitely the case in Kellmeyer?s world--he feels almost never feels the need to back up anything he says and he doesn't even bother with a bibliography (bibliographies are certainly not required in fiction, but on the first page of ch. 60 in The Da Vinci Code, Brown list his four most important sources, which puts him four points ahead of Kellmeyer. And if you look on his website, he lists about fifteen more).

Point 2. Nothing bad has ever been done in the name of Christianity, especially not by the Catholic Church. According to Kellmeyer, Brown is slandering the good name of Christianity with his talk of Inquisitions, witch-burnings, the oppression of women/Jews/pagans/scientists, the organized cover-up of clerical sexual abuse, etc. All of these things are facts in our world. But they apparently never happened on Kellmeyer's planet.

Point 3. There was no child molestation scandal involving Catholic priests. Doesn?t Kellmeyer?s world sound so much more pleasant than our own? Actually, I?m oversimplifying a bit. In Kellmeyer?s world, the scandal was about homosexuality, not pedophilia. The offending priests were merely gay men who like ?em real young, because the victims were young teenagers and not prepubescent children. In a purely objective sense, this isn?t that different from the way it happened in our world, although not all of the victims had reached puberty. Here?s the difference: in Kellmeyer?s world, ephebophiles (those who molest young teenagers) occupy considerably higher moral ground than pedophiles (those who molest pre-pubescent children). But in our world, I don?t think there are many people who see a meaningful distinction between molesting an 11 year old and molesting a 13 year old.

Point 4. Archaeology has proven that the four Canonical Gospels are completely accurate. I definitely knew I was dealing with someone from another dimension the first time I read this claim. For one thing, it's not even possible in our world, as the Gospels contradict each other on too many points to go into here, so they can?t all be true. For another, no one has ever found a single written reference to Jesus that dates from his alleged lifetime. Even the oldest extant accounts by people who knew him (Simon Peter, etc.) are copies of copies of copies. But in Kellmeyer's world, there are probably signed affidavits from eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles, notarized photographs of the crucifixion, and digital video footage of the resurrection.

Point 5. History is made up of an unbroken sequence of unassailable facts that are never open to interpretation. Kellmeyer makes definite statements regarding controversial historical issues with a rock-solid confidence that is nothing short of astounding. Secular historians also have a bad habit of doing this. But here in our universe, it's not a good idea to do that, unless you relish the possibility of eating crow when new information comes to light. History gets pretty sketchy the further back you go, and when you're talking about stuff that happened a millennium or two ago, you're plunging into some very murky waters indeed. There are numerous gaps in our knowledge of the past, and ancient sources often contradict each other, leaving us with no certain way to discern which are the correct accounts. The original context of much of our evidence is lost, forcing us to guess and speculate, although some historians like to pretend they never do that. As ongoing research brings new evidence to light, we are often forced to adjust our theories. How much simpler it must be in Steve's world, where everything is so clear-cut.

To bring my rant to a close: if you are curious about the subjects discussed in "The Da Vinci Code" (or any other subject, for that matter), then head on down to your local library and start digging (be forewarned that you may never get an answer that completely satisfies you). If after reviewing the available evidence, you still firmly believe what you always believed, then good for you. I'm not trying to tell anyone that they have to believe this or that. But if you let people like Steve Kellmeyer tell you what to think and believe, then you're nothing but a sheep.

Throughout The DaVinci Code, I continually asked myself - is what I have been taught to believe utter nonsense? Is Dan Brown right? Steve Kellmeyer has answered these inquiries and more in his excellant work. This book should be read by every person who has read The DaVinci Code - both Catholics and non-Catholics. Mr. Brown did an excellent job writing his book of fiction - similarly, Mr. Kellmeyer did a superior job distinguishing what was fact and what was simply made up to make The DaVinci more intriguing.

This book is great if you want to know more about the theological underpinnings for some of Dan Brown's assertions.

Like other DVC books, this one goes through all the facts and figures, but unlike other DVC books, this one addresses what Catholics actually believe concerning assertions like "sex is dirty" or "pain is good".

It turns out that the Catholic understanding of sex, pain, sin, faith and reason is really quite a bit different than Dan Brown indicates. For instance, most people assume Catholics are like all other Christians in condemning reason and relying on faith. It turns out this idea is one of the major places where Catholic Faith differs from other Christian faiths.

Catholics view faith and reason as two sides of the same coin, two necessary aspects of intellect that work together in harmony. The idea that they can be in opposition is actually derived from the kind of fundamentalist Christianity Dan Brown was raised with - it is specifically condemned by Catholic teaching. Given the explanations provided in this book, it's easy to see that Brown's novels project his own flawed Christianity onto Catholics.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in finding out more about Dan Brown's theological worldview.

OK! I've finished'The Da Vinci Code' and I'm excited about the things I've learned thru the story. Dan Brown says they're true and what little I know and have read certainly rings true to me. But I'd like to check some of the facts out from a different source before I start lecturing about my new epiphanies at the next cocktail party. 'Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code' written by a theologan and European history scholar....Perfect! Well..maybe not....The author,Steve Kellmeyer,unfortunately has his biases not very well hidden. He is clearly a traditional Christian Church scholar and addresses Dan Brown from that angle. If Brown presents his facts thru his book, then imagine Bishop Aringarosa countering thru this book. For sure there's plenty of facts in Kellmeyer's book to offset most facts that Brown's book may have. However, according to Kellmeyer, Brown apparently never gets it right. And Kellmeyer's views may acually be the most accurate for all I know but it extends even into opinion. To illustrate....Kellmeyer takes Brown to task for saying that God and his Church would not accept women any less than than they would a man. The reason being that God is both male and female and it would not be logical to favor 1 part over another of one's self. Sounds good until you think about the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't have any female priests...or the Church's dubious record of female witch executions in relation to male witch executions. This is only one example of many but you should be the judge. There is no doubt that Kellmeyer knows his facts but I don't trust his interpretations. You would think that Kellmeyer would allow that Brown was sometimes correct. After a while the book seems more about hammering away alternate views. Sound fimiliar? PS. The book is really short, it's really more of a pamphlet than a book.

This book covers dozens and dozens of different topics in Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" - I've rarely seen any book so thorough and concise as this. Definitely worth buying if you are at all interested in finding out more about where Dan Brown's information is good and where it falls short. A remarkable work!

I, too, was hoping for a reasonably educated analysis of Dan Brown's book and some of the claims it made. Reading several other Amazon reviews of this book made it sound like this book was it. IT IS NOT. Mr. Kellmeyer simply bashes you over the head with Catholic rhetoric. He argues against Silas' "Pain is Good" statement by saying "Pain... is not part of God's original design for the world." No kidding! What does that have to do with Mr. Brown's character? His next analysis asks whether Pagan symbols exist in Chartres Cathedral, and he answers "It is impossible to tell, since no further information is provided." That would be a reasonable answer, but he proceeds to give FOUR PAGES of nonsense about "God changes who we are" and he can "baptize the physical instruments we use" so the Pagan symbols are "perfectly in accord with Scripture." Mr. Kellmeyer proceeds to answer several dozen questions like this -- by using "God's word" to debunk Dan Brown's assertions. I was expecting facts.

This book is utter nonsense and makes no attempt to answer any of The Da Vinci Code's claims in a rational fashion. Save your money.

I was looking forward to reading an objective book about fact and fiction in The Da Vinci Code, but Kellmeyer's book is nothing but a lopsided Christian defense against The Da Vinci Code.

Kellmeyer pretends to support facts but they are often condescending and disrespectful of non-Christian cultures. For example, Kellmeyer tries to defend the existence of pain in God's universe as a defense against Dan Brown's phrase "Pain is good." Kellmeyer's argument goes as follows:

1. God created everything good.
2. Pain is not part of God's original design for the world.
3. Natural evils (Hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.) were created by man.

Does Kellmeyer really believe his readers will fall for such abstruse arguments? Yes, and Kellmeyer insults the reader even more by asking "How can man cause hurricanes? We have to understand how the world works." He then explains how the world works: when humans reject God's grace, the world fractures and natural evils are created. Pardon me, but this still does not explain how the world works as he gives no insight into how "grace fractures" and "natural evils" are connected. Kellmeyer's universe is becoming as fictitious as Dan Browns.

Kellmeyer continues his style throughout his book. Sex is not dirty and Christians who think so are simply "poorly catechized". In a section about Buddhism, Kellmeyer calls the idea of Nirvana a "dim sense" of the idea of speaking directly with God. According to Tony Flanagan, a Religious Studies professor and practicing Buddhist, someone in nirvana is "free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such "defilements", he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance." To call such an idea of Nirvana a "dim sense" is neither well-researched nor very respectful.

At one point, Kellmeyer even points out to his readers that Robert Langdon, the main character of the Da Vinci Code, is actually fictitious and was master-mindedly portrayed to appeal to female book buyers. Like many of his other arguments, we have to take Kellmeyer's words at face value since he offers no other supporting evidence for us. That is, if any of his readers actually thought of Robert Langdon as being real.

I can recommend this book to any Christian reader who needs a quick-fix after his world view was shattered by reading the Da Vinci Code. However, to anyone looking for an objective separation of fact and fiction in The Da Vinci Code, please please look elsewhere. These pages are a complete waste of your time.

When Dan Brown started talking about how Catholics scourge themselves, how Opus Dei members wear a spiked cilice around their legs, it raised the same question that nun had. Why would any god desire that kind of thing? The whole Christian fascination with pain and death seemed wierd. I thought Brown raised a good point and I didn't see how a Christian could explain this without looking like a fascist or an idiot.

Kellmeyer did what I didn't expect. He explained it. The whole way Christians view pain makes sense now. I've never seen a Christian manage this before.

Brown made the same kind of excellent point when it came to the Christian view of sex: sex is dirty, woman is bad, that kind of thing. That is what I knew of the Christian worldview on this issue. Again, I didn't see how any Christian could refute Brown's basic premise.

Here's the really odd thing: Kellmeyer refuted Brown by *ACCEPTING* part of what Brown had to say. He then went on to show the larger context and suddenly everything fell into place. I now see why Christians look at sex the way they do. Their view turns out to be fairly close to Brown's own positive view of sex - now I can see that both Dan Brown and I just misunderstood part of what Christian theology says.

I knew Brown's plot was fiction, but I thought he based it really well on some basic facts of Christian philosophy. Kellmeyer shows that Brown misunderstands Christian philosophy. I found out I always had too.

Kellmeyer makes sense of Brown's book in a way the other books on The Da Vinci Code just don't manage. I've got to hand it to him: he got to the heart of the issues Brown raises a lot more quickly and a lot more clearly than anyone else I've read.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants their questions answered.

I'm not sure how any reviewer can say this book is poorly organized. It is, in fact, exactingly organized -- responding to over 70 different inventions Brown inserted into his "The Da Vinci Code". Taking each point in turn as it is expressed in Brown's novel, "Fact and Fiction" is a helpful guide around the pitfalls of the anti-Christian propaganda in Brown's book.

I also don't know how anyone can have a problem with it's length, publisher, or physical quality. It's a standard paperback publication, with what I'd consider normal book stock and binding. The only explanation I can offer for the poor reviews I've read above are politcal or ideological differences with the author.

Brown's book is around 450 pages of supermarket romance in the context of a conspiratorial glance at the Catholic Church. "Fact and Fiction" offers the footnotes you would see if the Catholic Church had a chance to respond to the audacity of Mr. Brown. It is certainly a referential guide rather than an ideological treatsie -- it seeks to correct distortions rather than create any of its own.

I'm a Catholic. I'm a convert to Catholicism, having served in ministry for many years outside the Catholic Church. I'm not a fan of Dan Brown, and honestly, I think that he had far more of an "agenda" when writing "The Da Vinci Code" than he has, at times, admitted. Leaving any agenda aside, I don't particularly think Brown is a very good author, nor do I think he is a particularly good researcher (even considering the fictional nature of his book.) Others have pointed out rather basic error in historical fact and location and it is not my intention to re-hash those arguments here.

I am also rather suspicious of both the one-line 5-star reviews AND the one-line 1-star reviews. In the eyes of this reviewer, the book merits between 2 and 3 stars.

I began reading, prepared to like this book. I appreciate good apologetics and a well-crafted argument. However, I was disappointed in many places. Other reviewers have correctly noted that this book is comprised largely of "talking points" designed for Catholics who already know their faith, rather than detailed arguments for or against specific points. I felt the same way. Other reviewers have also noted that the author's tone was not conducive, at some points, to reasonable, irenic dialogue. I agree as well. Still others have noted that the author's use of source material and references is lacking. Not only would I agree, but I would emphasize this particular point even more strongly, being personally familiar with much of the primary source material available on the subject.

My biggest complaint, however, concerns an issue in which the author's analysis is problematic or downright faulty. There seems to me that there is a disturbing trend among some of the more conservative Catholic Biblical writers to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" so to speak whenever the subject of higher criticism is introduced. Honestly, such a trend is unfair and unhelpful. And, at times, this author is more than guilty. Critical methodology is a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used correctly or incorrectly. I will freely grant that there has been a great deal of over-reliance on higher criticism with regard to Biblical scholarship over the last 125 years or so - but the author seems to be making the suggestion that the introduction of higher critical methods in Biblical scholarship by German Protestants was a deliberate attack on the Catholic Church - and I find this a very difficult argument to sustain. (And yes, I went back and checked the author's source material on this subject.)

The author's seeming mistrust of any/all higher criticism is nowhere more manifest than what can only be described as a rant against the "Q" hypothesis on Gospel source material - which he radically mis-defines. Essentially, the theory does not state what he says it states. Even a cursory glance at the Catholic Encyclopedia (yes, even the 1917 edition) will demonstrate this. And the attempt to suggest than a Markan priority is somehow "Darwinistic" is incoherent. (Nor, I might add, is his statement that the Catholic Church has infallibly decreed that Matthew was the first Gospel to be written factually accurate.) The author cites William Farmer when discussing the Gospels. I've met Dr. Farmer and I've used his work on the development of the Canon in my own research. I would suggest that the author is misusing Dr. Farmer's work as well.

So to summarize:

1) I appreciate the attempt to demonstrate, apologetically, the historical and theological factual errors made by Dan Brown. So far, so good.
2) I believe that the author's tone at several points detracted from, rather than added to, his message.
3) The rant against higher criticism in general and the "Q" source hypothesis in particular demonstrated to me that the author was really out of his depth here.

2 stars.