Customer Reviews

The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in the Da Vinci Code

5 star:		(35)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I've read quite a few books of the Holy Blood, Holy Grail (HBHG) genre over the last two decades, and generally enjoyed them -- not as history, but as a fun, pseudo-historical modern mythos. I enjoyed that aspect of The Da Vinci Code (DVC) as well, (although the book had flimsy caricatures in place of characters, logical errors and a weak story). However, with his great success and his absurd insistence that the HBHG background material is factual, Dan Brown has popularized the HBHG bunk as real history, and done so on a huge scale. So when DVC generated a shelf-load of rebuttals, I was interested in them too. The Da Vinci Hoax appears to be the best of the lot.

There are several areas of HBHG lore with which I have more than a little familiarity, so I use those as checkpoints. In those areas, Olson and Miesel cite good sources and say all the right things. Having now checked some of their sources with which I wasn't previously familiar, they too seem reliable. My only criticism is that a few of the early discussions in their book have some Christian apologetics thrown in. It is certainly understandable that many of the people motivated to debunk HBHG and related anti-Catholic materials (like DVC) are themselves devout Christians, as are many who would purchase such debunking books. However, such pro-Christian side arguments tend to obscure main issue, the historical problems with the HBHG lore, making it seem as if the debate were between committed Christians and neo-Gnostic Magdalene-bloodline true believers. However, that is a minor criticism directed to only a few passages, (as opposed to some of the other DVC debunking books, which are swamped by Christian apologetics).

Despite the number of other DVC rebuttals on the shelves, this book was very much needed. It provides a serious and documented analysis of all the main historical points of Brown's misleading bestseller, with useful and reliable references.

Up till now, I thought Darrell Bock's Breaking the Da Vinci Code was the best book on exposing the errors of Dan Brown's multi-million selling foolishness. This new book is slightly better, primarily because it's more comprehensive.

For one thing, it extensively quotes not only the main characters in Brown's book as they relate their version of "history," it also has quite a few quotes from the author himself from various interviews. These quotes are then examined for accuracy in relation to a wide variety of expert opinion. In every case, the quotes Brown has his characters utter, as well as his own quotes, are shown to be either simply false or the opinions of a tiny minority of authors whose views have been found wanting at the bar of history and scholarship. This book, which is about twice as long as Bock's book (which is limited pretty much to the time before Constantine and the Council of Nicea), also covers a good deal more ground. Topics addressed include Holy Grail myths, the real Templars, the Priory of Sion silliness, and errors in interpreting not only Leonardo's Last Supper but his take on art, the occult, and Christianity in general.

If you think The Da Vinci Code--the foundations of which are a synthesis of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation, The Chalice and the Blade, Drawing Down the Moon, and the works of Margaret Starbird and other marginalized and/or discredited books--accurately depicts what really went on in Western history (which no serious person does who has any familiarity with the available materials), then you will not like any of the books debunking Dan Brown's ridiculous book, least of all this one. But if you want to find out what really happened, this gives as complete an accounting as you'll find anywhere.

In sum, this critique is extensive, even exhaustive, and in the end entirely persuasive.

Dan Brown's anti-Catholic bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, has gone beyond mere market success to become a cultural phenomenon. Indeed, it was the hype surrounding the book which first induced me to read it. After a few pages, I quickly understood that Mr. Brown had written the kind of book that would have resulted in a fatwa issued against him, had he targeted Islam instead of Christianity. However, in the tradition of St. Ignatius of Loyola, we Catholics today use the keyboard, not the scimitar, when rebutting our attackers. Admirably, Olson and Miesel have risen to Dan Brown's challenge and written, in The Da Vinci Hoax, a book which is a devastating critique of Brown's noxious anti-Catholicism and an exposition of the true history of Christ and the Catholic Church.

The Da Vinci Hoax is more than just a standard debunker. It is everything that Dan Brown's work isn't. First, it's well-sourced. Dan Brown had the luxury of being able to make outrageous claims about the Catholic Church while using the cover of "it's just fiction" to hide his sources. As it turns out, most of the "history" presented in Brown's book is lifted from a couple of crack-pot pop-conspiracy works of almost no scholarly value. The Da Vinci Hoax on the other hand, provides copious footnotes and allows the interested reader to check the primary sources themselves, if they are so inclined.

Second, The Da Vinci Hoax is educational. As Olson and Miesel knock down Dan Brown's spurious claims one after another, the reader is given a wonderful lesson in early Church history and in the history of the various heresies and conspiracy theories that have grown up around the Church from the very beginning. They also address the bogus claims Brown makes about Da Vinci himself, the so-called Priory of Sion, the Knights Templar, St. Mary Magdalene, Constantine, and many others.

Third,The Da Vinci Hoax is well-written. It may be dense with facts, but the prose is cheerful and occasionally humorous. A good reader could probably make it through the book in a couple of nights.

In attempting to explain the cultural phenomenon Dan Brown's book has become, Olson and Miesel write: "The Da Vinci Code is custom made fiction for our time: pretentious, posturing, self-serving, arrogant, self-congratulatory, condescending, glib, illogical, superficial, and deviant." Given how our 'elites' in the major media and entertainment industry have fawned all over Dan Brown and his book--and how they tend to behave in general--I'd say that Olson and Miesel have hit the nail squarely on the head.

The Da Vinci Hoax is a "must-have" for any serious person who is sick of hearing Dan Brown's drivel praised to the heavens by the ignorant.

Olsen and Miesel have put together a solid refutation of the many and various silly claims made in *The Da Vinci Code* and (despite the fact the novel is a work of fiction) believed by a remarkable number of readers and by the novel's author. Dan Brown has made his belief that the plagarised conspiracy theory he wraps in his fiction is actual historical fact very clear in interviews. And for evidence that some of his readers are ignorant enough to agree with him, see the one star reviews of this book below.

An acquaintance of mine recently discovered I studied ancient and medieval history. She asked (in hushed and reverent tones) 'Have you read *The Da Vinci Code*?' When I replied that I had and that it was about the worst novel I'd ever read, she became perturbed. 'But you have to admit, he's onto something.' she said. I told her that I had never come across any book, fiction or non-fiction, that managed to get just about every point of history or religion it touched on so completely wrong.

After detailing some of Brown's many howlers and why an intelligent 12 year old with a decent encyclopaedia could have done better research, she countered by saying 'Well, you would say that - you're obviously a Catholic.' She was startled to then be told that I'm an atheist. 'I don't care at all about the Catholic Church or Christianity,' I replied, 'But I do care about people distorting history with silly New Age fantasies.'

Olsen and Miesel are, on the other hand, obviously Catholic. Olsen is a writer for *Envoy* magazine - a fairly traditionalist and hardline Catholic publication. Both writers seem to have had a Catholic audience in mind when they wrote this book and, as a result, while the information given is solid and well supported, the tone is insular and self-congratulatory. In many places the book seems to be sneering 'THEY think they're right but WE know they're wrong.'

This book may convince a Catholic or fundamentalist Christian that the DVC is a load of rubbish, but it is highly unlikely to convince the average DVC reader. Firstly, the sneering tone is likely to be off-putting. Secondly, the use of Catholic doctrinal terms like 'the Eucharist' or even 'the Incarnation' is unlikely to mean much to the general reader. And thirdly - (er, how can I put this?) many DVC fans aren't the most sophisticated readers in the world. It's pretty likely that many of C&M's more detailed arguements are going to go over many DVC fans' heads.

This is a book that I am happy to use as a reference when countering the more fanatical fans of Brown's very silly book, but I wonder if C&M ever worked out who their audience actually was.

Conspiracy theories books/movies/personalities always tend to be best sellers. The Da Vinci code is no exception. I've heard so many people talk about it and some even describing it as interesting, enlightening, revealing...What's even more intriguing, is that a lot of people who took time to read such a book have usually never been interested in reading about religion or Christianity and have little knowledge about both. And so with so much popularity, I decided to go check for myself what the fuss is all about.

And wow, the things I have found. Although The Da Vinci code by Dan Brown is written as a fictional novel, it starts with the assertion that the historical events and people, the architecture, the theories depicted in the book are all facts. And from there, Dan builds his attack on Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular. For those who don't know, some of the conclusions Dan presents are the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their having children, Mary Magdalene being the real holy grail, the church destroying the "true" information about Jesus, the secret societies that maintained this "truth" and suffered for it, Leonardo's preserving those secrets in his paintings, Christianity being nothing but an "updated" form of macho paganism, etc... So it's very obvious the book isn't just intended to be a fiction novel but a tool to introduce the Gnostic way of thought to the general public.

Myself having read quite a bit about the history of Christianity and the church, about how the bible came to be, the scholarly studies of scriptures as well as so called "hidden" (or the more popularized term "forbidden") gospels, I couldn't help myself but be awed at how much inaccurate, fraudulent, superficial and zero-scholared Dan's book is! I mean, Dan state as facts some things that even atheist historians and scholars publicly laugh at. Also, Dan fails to present not ONE hard piece of evidence for his claims, but rely heavily on other Gnostic books (themselves being nothing but conspiracy theories without scholarly proof) especially Holy blood, Holy grail and the Templar's revelation. Dan isn't even ashamed in deliberately lying in some facts (to give an example, the "relatively close" vote for the divinity of Jesus in the Nicea council as Dan puts it, knowing that it is a historical fact that over 99% of the bishops agreed that the scriptures taught Jesus was God; 218 bishops for and 2 against. Is that close? I think Dan needs to relearn his English, or his Math...both would be even better)

The Da Vinci hoax does a good role in exposing all those errors and showing the true intention of Brown's book: re-introducing the "divine feminine" into the thoughts of modern society as well as repopularizing the neo-paganism. There's nothing new in this, our society has long been filled with neo-pagan cults and Christian ideologies twisters. Even the apostles fought against them! Dan simply put it in a user-friendly and fun format. The Da Vinci hoax was a very informative read, dealing with the main ideas of Dan's book and presenting the true historical and accurate facts to denounce his claims. It is very well structured and easy to follow, yet I felt the authors weren't quite firm in some areas and not quite engaging.

I advise people who want to be true to themselves to read the Bible and study the church history first. It just isn't logical to study the criticism of something before knowing what that something is! For example, let's say I read a book criticizing the theory of relativity; there is a 99% chance I will believe everything it says, because I barely have studied what that theory really is. I truly believe a faith unexamined isn't worth having; if what I believe in is true, then I shouldn't be afraid of reading or getting in touch with anything! Reading Dan's book only bolstered my faith in the historical Christ. But some people simply are searching for reasons NOT to believe so they continue living as they want, and by this they are only deceiving themselves. Read the "evidence" of BOTH sides, and you decide for yourself which one you find is more convincing.

The DaVinci Hoax is a painstakingly thorough debunking of Dan Brown's bestselling The DaVinci Code. From minute to monstrous, each factual error is documented (and documented, and documented, and documented). If you are looking for an easy read, this isn't it. If you are looking for a book that quickly gives an accurate overview of what's wrong with The DaVinci Code, this isn't it. BUT if you want a precise, scholarly, documented (and documented, and documented, and documented) presentation of every error in The DaVinci Code, including Brown's sources and documentation of THEIR inaccuracies, this is it. The DaVinci Hoax authors are upfront about their perspective and thorough in their research. The only thing this book lacks is pizzazz -- and I don't think that's what the authors were trying to achieve. A good read? No. Good information? Yes.

Excellent book, and well documented. Certainly worth the read.

As some have stated, the Da Vinci code is a work of fiction, but it is difficult to simply ignore the book, as many people are taking it seriously. (A director at my company quipped, "it's difficult to know what's real and what isn't in that book"). Also, Dan Brown himself continues to defend his source materials, and indicates that much of the book must be taken seriously.

Now, with the movie coming out, DVC will continue to worm its way into people's minds as fact (much the same way that people come to accept other "historical" movies as facts such as Oliver Stone's JFK or his Nixon movie). (btw: I've lost a lot of respect for Tom Hanks agreeing to be in this movie).

Most people don't even know basic Christian history and historical tenets, let alone Gnostic issues. This book is a good resource to start. You will need further research, however. For instance, for the canonization process, you could read The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce. Also have at your ready a good Bible Dictionary such as The New Bible Dictionary published by Tyndale (or is it IVP), which can cover some of the points of background. I've also begun to read Irenaeus' "Against the Heresies" (2nd century Church Father who extensively attackes Gnosticism). The Ancient Christian Writers version from Newman Press (available on Amazon) is a good version, with lots of helpful notes at the beginning.

Also, I recommend reading the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), and then download and read the Gnostic text "The Gospel of St. Thomas." You can find Thomas easily on line. Once you compare them, you can see the clear difference between St. Thomas and the others, and see how easy a decision it would be to exclude Thomas from the canon.

As noted by others, The Da Vinci Hoax does have a Catholic bent. However, as the authors point out, DVC also has a catholic bent(ignoring, for instance, that the Eastern Church had a parallel canonization process to the west, yet DVC acts like it was solely the west that decided the canon). So, I think this is fair.

Simply reading this book will not win over conspiracy-minded DVC lovers. It will, however, serve as a useful starting place to build your own foundation of understanding, and also give you some points to gently encourage a re-examination on the part of DVC lovers, around the issues of taking the DVC seriously.

It's an odd day when a non-fiction thriller needs rebutting. But the consternation brought about by Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" made a response necessary. In "The Da Vinci Hoax," authors Carl Olson (Catholic author and editor) and Sandra Miesel (a Catholic journalist who writes on history, art and hagiography) go head to head with the assertions in Brown's book, demonstrating one inconsistency or egregious error after another.

Olson and Miesel use historical fact, scholarship and logic to demonstrate that many of Brown's assertions about the Church and its history are wrong or misconstrued. Belief in the divinity of Christ, for instance, goes back to the 1st century -- not the 4th as Brown asserts. The Council of Nicaea was not manipulated by Emperor Constantine to decree that Christ was divine. It definitively settled the argument about the *nature* --not the fact -- of his divinity. Also, it was long-standing Christian practice, not a Constantinian edict, that had Christians worshipping on Sunday. The authors also share scholarly consensus on the late dating of gnostic writing, which Brown falsely treats as contemporaneous alternatives to the canonical gospels. Olson/Miesel *facts* trump Brown *fancy* every time.

"The Da Vinci Hoax" also makes clear Brown's more-than-strong reliance on "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Templar Revelation." Rather than doing his own research, it seems that he not only lifted these books' spurious conclusions, but their verbiage as well.

"The Da Vinci Hoax" very occasionally suffers from a defensiveness evident in Roman Catholics who see their Church under constant attack. The book would have been stronger, for instance, if it distinguished "feminists" who are hostile toward the Church from those who properly seek to challenge the flawed logic that underpins some longstanding and non-dogmatic "certainties." In my experience, very few feminists are incipient or actual goddess worshippers.

Carping aside, "Hoax" is an important effort to counteract the body blow that some peoples' faith took from reading Brown's book. The assertions in "The Da Vinci Code" should have been met with raucous, dismissive laughter. That they were met with stunned silence and even acceptance should alert pastors about serious shortcomings in religious education. I recommend "The Da Vinci Hoax" strongly to these pastors and to all who want or need an antidote to the falsehoods that Brown is passing off as truth.

First of all, I want to object to the notion that the Da Vinci Code is "just fiction." It is alarming how many people use this argument, and it shows that they aren't thinking through the ramifications of this position. Just because the book is in the fiction section doesn't give credence to the argument that it's just fiction for two reasons.

First, as is pointed out in the Da Vinci Hoax, Dan Brown himself states that everything in the book, besides the characters and narrative, is factual. For example, on his website, Dan Brown states the following:

"While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Louvre pyramid, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpretted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that the theories discussed by these characters have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history."

The same thing could be noted in the first few pages of the Da Vinci Code itself. Furthermore, having read interviews with Dan Brown, it is clear that Dan brown uses his characters as a tool for exerting his own beliefs - beliefs that he wouldn't classify as "just fiction."

The second reason to disregard the "its just fiction" argument is that fiction needs refutation in certain circumstances, and this is one of those circumstances. Let me cite a quick example of fiction that has changed the perception of the truth in the past, then I will explain why Dan Brown's book falls into a similar category. In 1963 a play was premiered by Rolf Hochhuth titled "The Deputy." The play was "just fiction," and it distorted the character of Pope Pius XII - from a Pope who helped many Jews escape the Holocaust, to a man who wouldn't condemn the horrors of the holocaust, let alone save Jews. Below is a quote from an examination piece that I found regarding the role Pius had in the Holocaust:

"The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214). Could Pius have saved more lives by speaking out more forcefully? According to Lapide, the concentration camp prisoners did not want Pius to speak out openly (p. 247). As one jurist from the Nuremberg Trials said on WNBC in New York (Feb. 28, 1964), 'Any words of Pius XII, directed against a madman like Hitler, would have brought on an even worse catastrophe... [and] accelerated the massacre of Jews and priests.' (Ibid.) Yet Pius was not totally silent either. Lapide notes a book by the Jewish historian, Jenoe Levai, entitled, The Church Did Not Keep Silent (p. 256)."

The Deputy mainstreamed the idea that Pius was aiding Hitler in his assault against the Jewish people. And as the Second World War becomes more distant, this distortion of Pope Pius XII grows. And the match that started the forest fire against the Pope was "just" a work of fiction!

With a similar purpose as The Deputy, the Da Vinci Code distorts Christian History (Constantine, Jesus, Mary Magdalene...etc.), the Catholic Church, Leonardo Da Vinci, the paintings described in the book, and Christian theology, which if accepted as truth could change societies view about these historical events, institutions, people, and ideas. Dan Brown's claim that history was distorted by the "winners" is a lie, and it involves a subjective theology that, if adopted by society, will lead to the degredation of history in the future. It is important that we refute anything that tries to distort the truth, and simply stated, Dan's Brown's objective is to alter the truth of history.

I can't recommend any other book more highly than The Da Vinci Hoax for providing the truth about history. If you are interested in what really happened, read the Da Vinci Hoax and enjoy it. If you are interested in secret knowledge whether or not it is historically accurate, read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown and "enlighten" yourself. As for me, I will stick to the truth :-)

Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel's "The Da Vinci Hoax" is a thorough and well-documented refutation of the many erroneous historical claims made by Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code" (hereafter referred to in this review as "TDVC"). The task of refuting the claims of TDVC is a large one, not because the claims are difficult to refute, but because of the vast number and incredible nature of these claims. Olson and Miesel prove to be up to this task, with detailed discussions of each of the many erroneous claims made in TDVC, complete with numerous references. It is also noteworthy that while the authors themselves are Catholic, they do not present only the Catholic/Christian point of view, nor do they rely heavily on Catholic sources. Instead, they present a very balanced view of each subject discussed, with many references to secular sources.

I did have just a few complaints about the book, though they are small. First, in a few places (though only a few) The Da Vinci Hoax seems to make the implicit assumption that the reader has also read TDVC, which might not necessarily be true for all readers. Second, in some chapters I found it slightly confusing trying to figure out when the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax switch from presenting the TDVC point of view to presenting the refutation of that point of view. Finally, the reproductions of several of Leonardo da Vinci's paintings in the book are rather poor quality black-and-white prints, making it difficult to follow some of the artistic discussion. (Of course, the book probably would have been more expensive if high quality color prints had been included, so maybe I shouldn't complain.)

In spite of these minor shortcomings, this is an excellent and obviously well-researched book. If you are looking for a quick and simple debunking of The Da Vinci Code, this probably isn't what you are looking for. But if you are looking for a thorough, in-depth discussion of, and response to, the claims made by The Da Vinci Code, then I would highly recommend this book.