The Da Vinci Code - Truth behind fiction?

Truth behind Fiction

Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
The Da Vinci Code is one of the most brilliant books ever written and later produced into a movie. Although the book and movie are fictitious, the argument that Brown presents cannot be ignored. The impact the book and movie has had on people is colossal. ‘Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa and a possible successor to the Pope, immediately took up the fight by claiming that the novel was a deliberate attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic Church through absurd and vulgar falsifications.[1] Brown has ingeniously sculpted a theory on Christianity and the Holy Grail. ‘Referring to the Council of Nicaea, Brown claims 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."[2]. Countless examples like these throughout his work have left readers thinking why not?
Although the theory of the Holy Grail existed before Brown wrote the book, people never considered that theory could possibly be true until the Da Vinci Code came out. The reason behind this being that Dan Brown took history and facts and interpreted them to present the theory of the Holy Grail. US Catholic bishops launched a website rebutting the key claims in the novel. The bishops were concerned about what they perceive as serious mis-statements. So how could a book that was mere fiction cause such a stir, that priests and bishops were launching websites in order to convince people that the book was not true?
The impact comes down to the story telling of Brown and how he uses history to his advantage. Brown manages to persuade many people that the greatest story ever told was in fact a hoax. The truth being that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, that they had children, that there was a Priory of Sion, Knights that protected Mary and the secret blood line of Jesus. With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ. Brown also went on to write about how Leonardo Da Vinci was a grandmaster at one point, protecting the secret himself and depicting it in The Last Supper. Brown discusses Constantine, the Counsel of Nicaea and Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. He uses all these things and presents his theory. It is essential to look deeper into them to see whether Brown had reasonable evidence to convince people.
Constantine
Like Brown writes, Constantine was in fact a pagan emperor. He was baptized on his deathbed. In 313 Constantine announced toleration of Christianity in the Edict of Milan, which removed penalties for professing Christianity and returned confiscated Church property.[3] The reason behind this being that Christianity was high on the rise and Constantine did not want a divided Rome. It was Constantine that called for the Counsel of Nicaea.
The Counsel of Nicaea
First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea (present-day Iznik in Turkey), was the first Ecumenical council of the early Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent 'general councils of Bishops, the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the resurrection the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favor of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon, independently of the Bible’s Hebrew Calendar.[4]
Since the Counsel of Nicaea did take place, and the fact that belief of Christianity was defined by ‘people’, why could it not be possible that there was a cover up over the immortality and divinity of Jesus? There is no proof suggesting that Jesus did not have a family, but here we have proof that mere mortals debated over Jesus’ life and death, and then decided to present that as fact. Brown emphasizes this fact throughout his book. Brown claims "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey. There, Brown argues, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican," or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both novelties that had never before existed among Christians.


The Knights Templar
The Templar’s' success was tied closely to the Crusades; when the Crusaders suffered defeat and lost the Holy Land, support for the Order faded. Rumors about the Templar’s' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action. In 1307, King Philip had many of the Order's members in France arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and burned at the stake.[5] In 1312, Pope Clement V, under continuing pressure from King Philip, disbanded the Order.
The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the European infrastructure gave rise to speculation. Could it not be possible that the Pope was being threatened by the Templars? They had grown strong and were very powerful, so it is quite possible that the Church was feeling threatened. The Templars did protect a secret according to Brown; they were the protectors of the Holy Grail, of the royal bloodline of Jesus. It is no surprise that people actually consider this theory because of the history behind it and because of the links between the Templars and the Church. So in essence of all of this, could it be possible that the claim Brown makes in his book is true? That after the Council of Nicaea where the divinity of Jesus was decided, could it not be possible that Jesus was in fact a mere moral, that he had children and was married.
So, is it beyond the realm of possibility that the Church felt threatened by this bloodline of Jesus and sought to destroy it? If that were true then it should come as no surprise that there was a protective order for Mary Magdalene’s safety. In his book Brown claims that Mary was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, that the Knights Templar led her way to a secret place where she gave birth to a baby girl called Sarah. It is ironic that the child is called Sarah because Sarah in French means Princess. This girl would in fact be a princess as both Mary and Jesus were descendents of Kings.
The Last Supper
One of the most important key features in Browns novel is Leonardo Da Vinci’s Last Supper. According to Brown the painting depicts the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and as Brown states, it was she who was supposed to carry on his Church and not St Peter. Brown describes the painting, uncovering the hidden implications. The figure on the right hand of Jesus, with red flowing red hair, folded feminine hands and a hint of a bosom is Mary Magdalene. Brown focuses on the way their clothed, like mirror images. She is joined at Jesus’ hip and is leaning away from him to create a ‘V’ shape, which is the symbol for the womb. Recently an article stated that ‘an Italian musician and computer technician claims to have uncovered musical notes encoded in Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper."[6] So if years later, people are finding music encoded in the painting, it is quite possible for Da Vinci to have included secret messages. Da Vinci is said to be one of the Grand Masters of the Priory. It would have been within his duty to pass the message on someway without suffering the wrath of the church.
Rosslyn Chapel
In the book, Brown’s protagonist goes to Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland because the Holy Grail is said to be there. The architecture within the chapel depicts what Brown is telling us. That it is where the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene is, and where the Grail documents are hidden. In the novel the protagonist finds a rose in place of the sarcophagus (the rose was a symbol for Mary Magdalene), and he finds records that go back to the death of Christ. The documents show a line of Merovingian kings with the name St Clair. The irony here is that Rosslyn Chapel was built by one William Sinclair who was a descendent of the Norman Knights. Within the chapel stands a pillar called the Princess Pillar which holds the engraving ‘wine is strong, a king is stronger, women are stronger still but truth conquers all’.[7] The ‘green men’ carvings all over the chapel symbolize fertility.
The chapel has been a burial place for several generations of the Sinclair’s. The parallels here are too much to ignore. Rosslyn Chapel is covered with symbols of fertility, William Sinclair was said to be ‘a Grand Master’[8] at some point, the chapel holds generations of Sinclair’s and here Brown is telling a story which involves these very things. Brown did not make up the whole façade. There is truth to a lot that he has presented. How ironic is it that the very chapel Brown chose for the Grail documents to be hidden has a pillar called the Princess Pillar (Princess in French is Sarah- the very name of the ‘daughter’ of Jesus) and he pillar states that women are stronger than men and kings?
The exigency here is irrefutable. If Brown’s theories were true, the repercussions would be colossal. It would shake the foundation of Christianity and everything half the world believes in. There have been wars in the past because of religion, however what would happen if the greatest story ever told was a lie. The church would face serious damage.

Brown however, maintains that his novel was just a work of fiction. The novel ends very diplomatically saying ‘what matters is what you believe’. Sure, there may be many people influenced by Brown’s work. People who may question their beliefs and feel that maybe, just maybe there is more than what meets the eye. Christians have for thousands of years believed in what the Bible and the Church have told us. Questioning our faith could be seen as treachery; however I believe that people who do question their faith, and still believe are far more commendable. After all, what is the point in believing in something blindly? There is no passion there. If one has to believe one should look at all the counter arguments and theories. And if one still believes, that is the true test of faith. Brown’s work is brilliant and captivating but it is still fiction. After all, Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)