Da Vinci Code

English 101 Sec. 54
Christine Cranford
Project 3
The Da Vinci Code Dan Brown’s fictional novel, The Da Vinci Code, is one of the most popular books in recent history. In fact it’s over forty million copies sold worldwide is second only to J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series (Koyzis 1). Along with its astounding popularity, the novel also has aroused a great deal of controversy within the religious community. Most of the hysteria is centralized over the plot of the story which claims that Jesus Christ had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene, creating a bloodline known as the Holy Grail. Although the book is fiction, Brown’s claims have been heralded as truth. Dan Brown himself recognizes his work as truth by saying, “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate” (Holding 2). This report recognizes the work “Re-sexualizing the Magdalene: Dan Brown’s Misuse of Early Christian Documents in The Da Vinci Code” by Nancy Calvert-Koyzis and an article by James P. Holding, “The Da Vinci Code: Revisiting a Cracked Conspiracy.” These articles, despite the use of different interpretive perspectives, arrive at a common conclusion which proves that Dan Brown falsely interpreted historical documents, and his book is nothing more than fiction. In James Holding’s Article, he uses an Internalist approach in his attempt to disprove The Da Vinci Code. This can be confirmed by his quote, “Though marked as fiction, The Da Vinci Code is clearly intended to present what Brown believes is factual about the origins of the Christian church” (Holding 2). Holding’s logic in disproving Brown, revolves around refuting three main interpretive concepts used in The Da Vinci Code: Leonardo Da Vinci used hidden messages in his paintings, Constantine distorted true Christianity, and chMary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife.
Holding first chooses to attack the notion that Leonardo Da Vinci used encoded messages in his art in order to direct seekers to the truth about Christian origins (2). He does this by looking at two major pieces of art used by Brown to support his thesis. The first and most notable painting used in The Da Vinci Code was the Mona Lisa. Brown claims that the painting was intended to portray Da Vinci as the woman, making Mona Lisa’s mysterious smile a symbol of his secret (Holding). However, Holding points out that the closest historical testimony by Giorgio Vasari, indicates that the Mona Lisa is a genuine portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of a wealthy merchant (2). Holding believes he refutes Brown’s intended meaning for the painting by using historical evidence to prove him wrong. This argument is very logical and precise, but is based on the assumption that current historical testimony is complete and accurate.
Holding follows an identical chain of logic when he disproves another Da Vinci painting mentioned in the book. In Brown’s novel, he uses the painting The Virgin of the Rocks as another example in which Leonardo Da Vinci left behind clues regarding the mystery surrounding the Christian church. According to the book, Leonardo painted the picture for the church of Milan, and that the nuns rejected the painting due to “explosive and disturbing details” (Holding 2). Da Vinci then “mollified the nuns by painting a second version without the offensive symbolism” (Holding 2). Brown’s theory was in his book was that these offensive symbols in the original painting alluded toward the Holy Bloodline. However, a comparison between the two paintings reveals that although there are minor differences, all of the disturbing symbols were found in both paintings. In fact the argument between the nuns and Da Vinci was not over “offensive symbolism” at all, but due time delays resulting in several years before the picture was completed. Holding proves this by pointing out that the so called “disturbing details” were never taken out of the painting, thus they were not an issue. Once again, Holding provides a precise logical explanation for his argument, assuming that historical records and interpretations are correct.
The next main point that Holding makes, is that Brown incorrectly interpreted the origin of the Christian Church, particularly in regards to the role of Constantine. In his book, Brown claims that, “Constantine collated the various documents that comprise the Bible as we know it today causing dozens of other gospels to be discarded and destroyed in favor of the current collection of four in the New Testament” (Holding 4). He also claims that “Constantine assembled the Council of Nicaea, at which the church voted on several subjects, among them the divinity of Jesus” (Holding 4). Through his characters, Brown expresses that, “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless” (Holding 4). In addition to this he assert, “Constantine stood behind this effort to turn Jesus into the ‘Son of God’ as he and the Roman Catholic Church set about hijacking [Jesus’] human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand their own power” (Holding 4). He concludes by arguing The Council of Nicaea decided on Jesus’ divinity by a close vote, destroying the original Christian message.
Holding refutes all these claims by using historical texts and scholars to back his argument. When disproving the claim that Constantine decided the books of the Bible, also known as the canon, Holding used testimony from a scholar specializing in the composition of the cannon. In this testimony it states, “The canon was not the product of official assemblies or even the studies of a few religious theologians, but rather reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographical, and even ideological differences, could finally be united in accepting these 27 diverse documents as expressing the meaning of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and to his church” (4). He continues by clarifying that no one person decided the books of the Bible, and the process for deciding was started well before the time of Constantine (Holding).
Holding also points out that Brown “grossly misrepresents both the nature and the outcome of the Council of Nicaea” (4). He points out that the issue of the council was not to decide if Jesus was divine or mortal. This issue had already been affirmed by the church, and this topic was only put on the table due to one man who declared he had a vastly conflicting view with the church who saw Jesus as something less than the Son of God. When the council voted the result was almost unanimous favoring Jesus’ divinity. In fact out of the 300 bishops present only two sided with the heretic. Thus, Holding concludes, “the only matter Brown correctly reports about the Council of Nicaea is its location” (Holding 4)
When Holding was refuting Brown’s second main point he did a notable job by using expert opinion and historical records. His argument exposed gaping holes within The Da Vinci Code and its supposed “historical evidence”. Once again, this argument is based on the assumption that current historical records and his choice of expert opinion are completely accurate and infallible.
The final and most important point that Holding attacks, is Brown’s portrayal of Mary Magdalene. In the novel Brown claims that Jesus and Mary married, produced offspring, and created a Holy Bloodline. In attempt to prove this, Brown gives two explanations: Jesus was required to marry, and the gospel of Phillip alludes to their marriage.
In his first claim, Brown states that “Jesus must have been married because in the Jewish world, social decorum…virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried” (Holding 3). Holding proves this false by refuting Brown’s misconception of celibacy in the Jewish world. He quotes, “The Jewish atmosphere of Jesus’ day clearly had a tradition of celibacy for those who devoted their lives to God, as exemplified by the unmarried prophets Jeremiah and Elijah and as expressed by New Testament-era groups such as the Essenes and figures such as John the Baptist and Banus the prophet” (Holding 3). Although celibacy was not very common in Jewish culture, it was by no means forbidden. Holding’s logic to refute Brown’s claims was by giving examples of important Old Testament figures that were well respected by the Jewish community who remained single throughout their life. He also pointed out a sect of Judaism, called the Essenes, during Jesus’ time that actually required its followers to remain celibate.
Although Holding provides a great logical explanation for his argument, he does in fact assume multiple things. He did do a great job at refuting that it was a requirement to be married, but he assumes that Jesus was celibate based on the fact it was not forbidden. Another flaw in his argument is his use of the Essene community. Again, it was used well to refute the claim that marriage was required, but it does little in proving Jesus never married. There is no evidence that Jesus belonged to the Essene sect of Judaism.
Dan Brown next uses textual evidence from the Gospel of Phillip in an attempt to prove Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene. In his book, he describes the Gospel of Philip as part of the “earliest Christian records” (Holding 3). He also uses a citation from the text that says Jesus kissed Mary often and that Mary was Jesus’ companion. Holding dismisses these claims by revealing that historical records date the document no earlier than late-second century to mid-third century (3). This places the document well after the date of the other gospels in the Bible, and suggests that it is a product of Gnostic thought. Holding believes that the textual reference to Jesus’ kissing Mary on the mouth and her being his companion was merely a Gnostic view that “spiritual beings exist in pairs” (3).
Holding’s logic behind his argument was that because the Gospel of Phillip was written significantly after the other gospels, it is not creditable and holds beliefs from the Gnostic movement. Although this is a plausible argument, it does not do a sufficient job at proving the document to be completely inaccurate. It is based solely on the assumption that the Gospel of Philip is indeed false.
In Nancy Calvert-Koyzis’ article “Re-sexualizing the Magdalene: Dan Brown’s Misuse of Early Christian Documents in The Da Vinci Code”, also focuses on Brown’s portrayal of Mary Magdalene. However, unlike Holding’s intentionalist perspective, Koyzis follows a formalist view. In her paper she focuses on the value of the text itself, not by attacking Dan Brown, but by debating the sources from which he uses.
Although Koyzis’ uses a vast selection of sources, each of these sources focus on one central point. This issue is the supposed marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. Koyzis first chooses to dispute Jesus’ marriage by exposing a fault within Brown’s source Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This book by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln provided Brown with the idea that Jesus must have been married because “it was almost mandatory according to Jewish custom that a man be married” (Koyzis 4). Unlike Holding, Koyzis attacks this common misconception not by attacking Brown’s intentions, but by looking deeper into Christian documents. She first uses an excerpt from Matthew 19:12 which reads, “Blessed are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of heaven” (Koyzis 4). Koyzis believes this is a direct example from the Bible that views celibacy as a privilege, not as a condemnable act. She also believes that this may possibly show that Jesus himself was celibate.
Koyzis’ logic behind her argument is that because a scriptural example was given where celibacy was praised, it was therefore not condemned to be celibate. From a religious standpoint, this argument is overwhelmingly convincing. Christians view the Bible as infallible, preserved through the ages. By giving a reference from the Bible, Koyzis is giving conclusive evidence to her religious audience in the Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. However, if an atheist were to read her article, her conclusion would be irrelevant because it was written on the assumption that the Bible is accurate and without error.
The next and final major point that Koyzis identifies, is the use of the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Phillip. Like Holding, Koyzis also identified errors with the Gospel of Phillip and the claims that it was written around the same time as the canonical Gospels (8). However, unlike Holding, she identifies the Gospel of Mary and also refutes both documents using a different approach. Instead of focusing on the author’s intentions, Koyzis pays close attention to the meaning of the words within the Gospels. For instance, in Brown’s source Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, the authors comment on Mary being a “companion” of Jesus by saying, “Whereas today the word ‘companion’ implies comrade, colleague and friend in a purely platonic sense, the original Greek word actually meant ‘consort” or sexual partner” (Koyzis 9). Koyzis then points out that the original Greek word, koinonos, “denotes a person engaged in fellowship or sharing with someone or in something” (11). She further explains that this type of relationship is vast and could range from a marriage partner to just a casual co-worker or business associate (Koyzis).
Another example that shows Koyzis’ value in the text is her explanation of the kiss found in the Gospel of Phillip. The common belief of Picknett and Prince is that the kiss had sexual context. However, close observation of Biblical scriptures (Rom. 16.16; 1 Cor. 16.20, 2; 2 Cor. 13.12; 1Pet 5.14) by Koyzis, reveal that the kiss is not sexual at all. These references show that the kiss is a reference to the “kiss of peace”, mentioned throughout the New Testament (Koyzis). Koyzis concludes by stating, “The kiss between Jesus and Mary Magdalene indicates her privileged position, a position due not to her being married to Jesus, but to having spiritual insight into his teaching that exceeds that of the other disciples” (12).
Nancy Calvert-Koyzis’ logic was to look at the deeper meaning of biblical texts and meaning of Greek words. This follows the formalist view because she is not specifically refuting the author’s intentions, but rather looks at the text itself in an effort to dismiss it. Although her argument is logical, it does rely on a few underlying assumptions. The first is that the word koinonos, was used by New Testament authors to mean companion in a friendly manner and not in a sexual pretense. She also assumes that the kiss Jesus gave Mary was also meant in a non-sexual way and is merely a “kiss of peace.” In conclusion, she does a good job at showing that her argument is plausible, but fails to give the reader a complete foolproof argument.
Both Holding and Koyzis convey through their different perspectives that they agree on a common consensus. Both articles agree that claims made by Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code are inaccurate. Holding asserts that Brown misinterprets historical data in order to fulfill his intentions of distorting Christian History. The significance of his argument is his success at using historical evidence to refute Brown’s inaccuracies. On the other hand, Koyzis’ formalist argument is significant because it reveals errors made by Brown and his sources on their assumptions on textual evidence. By combining the arguments made by Holding and Koyzis, one can determine that both authors arrive at a common conclusion proving The Da Vinci Code is nothing more than fiction. Critical interpretation, made by authors such as the ones mentioned in this article, is an important part of artistic culture. By giving readers alternate perspectives to view the text from, people can arrive at their own theories and conclusions. Ideas such as these have allowed critical interpretations to thrive in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Works Cited
Holding, James P. “The Da Vinci Code: Revisiting a Cracked Conspiracy.” Christian Research Journal Volume 27 (2004): .
Koyzis, Nancy Calvert. “Re-sexualizing the Magdalene: Dan Brown’s Misuse of Early Christian Documents in The Da Vinci Code.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture Volume 12 (2006): .

Cited: Holding, James P. “The Da Vinci Code: Revisiting a Cracked Conspiracy.” Christian Research Journal Volume 27 (2004): . Koyzis, Nancy Calvert. “Re-sexualizing the Magdalene: Dan Brown’s Misuse of Early Christian Documents in The Da Vinci Code.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture Volume 12 (2006): .