The Da Vinci Code: History and Myth

by Bill Creasy

The book The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, has been tremendously popular, selling 40 million copies. The movie came out recently, and it is also doing well. The book and movie have similar plots, and both have been controversial about their criticism, or reinterpretation, of Christianity, specifically the Catholic organization Opus Dei.

It is hard to know where to start, in talking about this book and movie. Perhaps the key paradox revolves around the Christian need to have historical authenticity for the stories about Jesus, but at the same time, to interpret events in a way that is consistent with their theology. These competing goals may be the key to understanding the tension about this story.

In summary, the story is a complex murder mystery set in the present, with the sleuths avoiding capture and outwitting their enemies until they find the murderer. Perhaps it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that. But the murder plot is intertwined with selected historical facts (or questionable factoids) and interpretations about Christianity. These select factoids are used to show a conspiracy that is as old as Christianity.

The conspiracy has a historical side that suggests Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. She was pregnant at the crucifixion, she had his child, and descendants still survive from his royal blood line. Some evidence is presented to support this assertion, but the evidence has dubious value. In particular, the secret society called the Priory of Scion, that is supposed to be the protector of the descendents of Jesus, was a total fabrication by a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard in 1956. (Unless, of course, there really is a secret society and it really is secret. That is the curious problem with conspiracy theories.)

This hypothetical historical evidence has to have an attraction to Christians who are fans of the book and movie. It would be a fabulous validation of Christianity to have actual historical documents, descendants, and artifacts that corroborate the existence of Jesus and the accuracy of the Gospel stories.

The problem, though, is the challenge to the theology. The theological aspect of the story is that it says the Christian establishment has intentionally covered up the importance of Mary Magdalene. The movie does not include much explanation of why the church leaders would want to do this coverup. The book includes more of the conspiracy theory. It suggests that Jesus and Mary were only divine as a union of male and female. Mary is a reflection of pagan goddess worship. The church, taken over by a male patriarchy, turned Jesus into a divine male, suppressing the female side. The church burned witches and tortured heretics who didn't follow the male superiority dogma. As a result, the descendants of Jesus were at risk of being murdered by dogmatic Catholics who feared the destruction of the official Christian dogma.

Like any good conspiracy theory, this one is entertaining but doesn't stand up to much scrutiny or common sense. (But then, how much of the rest of Christian dogma stands up to common sense?) Perhaps it has some resonance with the modern audience, though. Fundamentalist Christians like to claim that the Bible is an absolute historical reference, and their interpretation is the true version. The Catholic Pope claims to speak absolute truth, even if many Catholics don't agree on such matters as birth control. If nothing else, The Da Vinci Code shows how easy it is to find alternate historical factoids and theological interpretation. Do the fundamentalists really have The Truth? Is their interpretation of the Gospels really any better than Dan Brown's? Perhaps this is some comfort to liberal Christians.

It shouldn't be assumed that fundamentalist Christianity and "Dan Brownism" are polar opposites. For example, the role of Mary Magdalene is really quite traditional and conservative, according to Dan Brown. Her role as a wife and mother gives her a traditional woman's role in Jesus's life. (See, for more discussion, "An Inconvenient Woman", Newsweek, May 29, 2006.) The more radical interpretation, which is in the gospels, is that she was a single woman who had equal status and influence with the male Apostles, and who freely traveled with Jesus. All four gospels agree that Mary Magdalene was one of the first people to see Jesus's empty tomb.

What does this mean for a humanist? As a historial reference, The Da Vinci Code shouldn't be taken any more seriously than any other fictional murder mystery. A publishing subgenre has sprung up over discussion of various plot points, and these works can be consulted for anyone who is interested. But none of the facts or issues raised by the book should be accepted uncritically.

The theological interpretation of Jesus as a married man and father makes him seem more humanistic, in the sense that he is more concerned with normal human existence, and less concerned with his role in the fate of humankind. It suggests that his life was not simply a fulfillment of some divine plan for supernatural salvation. But the book may not be any less supernatural than conventional Christianity. It may have the effect of reinforcing the beliefs of Christians rather than transitioning them to secular worldviews.

Humanists can take some encouragement that many Americans seem willing to question Christian dogma. We can take some pleasure at the discomfort of fundamentalists. Heretical interpretations have been justification for torture and executions for much of the past two thousand years. As Steven Waldman pointed out in Newsweek, heretics now get million-dollar book contracts. ("Beliefwatch: Good Word," in Periscope section, Newsweek, May 22, 2006.)

But heretics are nothing new. The established church has always been busy trying to maintain a consistent doctrine. It isn't clear that a popular interest in a heretical interpretation of Christianity is an indication that the public will reject Christianity or supernaturalism.

This article was published in the July 2006 issue of WASHline, the newsletter of the Washington Area Secular Humanists.