FaithfulReader.com - THE DA VINCI CODE Author Roundtable

THE DA VINCI CODE Author Roundtable

11. FaithfulReader.com: What is your opinion of the books Brown cited as historical resources, such as HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL and Margaret Starbird's books on Mary Magdalene?

Ben Witherington III: They involve all kinds of interesting speculation with hardly a shred of solid historical evidence to support the claims. It's all innuendo and inference from obscure clues.

Peter Jones: I am reading HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL now. It is well-written and the documentation, at first glance, seems adequate, granted the kind of raw material with which they have to work. I have no doubt that secret, alternative versions of Jesus and Christianity have existed down the centuries. Some of it can be traced to the Gnostic texts (2nd-4th centuries).

James L. Garlow: There are hundreds of creditable books that Dan Brown could have cited. Either he does not know about these books, or he is tragically ill-informed, or he was being intentionally deceptive.

Steve Kellmeyer: BWAH-HAHAHAH!!!! Sorry, I'll be all right in a minute. Just let me wipe the tears from my eyes and get off the floor.

HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL is based on the fabricated history of a French conman, Pierre Plantard, who created documents that demonstrated he was the uncrowned king of France. He even managed to fool a BBC documentary crew (children can be so gullible). Starbird's books are equally silly --- they are based on a very selective reading of Gnostic documents. If he wanted historical accuracy, Brown would have been better off citing comic books.

Amy Welborn: That's an easy one. If you go to any course dealing with the history of Christianity in any university, secular or religious, will you find these books on the syllabus? No. End of discussion.

Darrell L. Bock: Most of what these books set forth is not very credible at a historical level when it comes to the idea that Jesus was married. Although I do not believe the church would have needed to hide the fact that Jesus was married (had he been married), the fact is we have thousands of documents, orthodox and unorthodox out there, and not one of them states Jesus was married. In fact, this is one of the few points about which a vast majority of liberal and conservative historical Jesus scholars agree. I often tell my students that when liberals and conservatives agree on something about Jesus, it is probably true.

One further point. Had Jesus been married, the church would not have needed to cover it up to protect Jesus' divinity as Brown claimed. Such a marriage would have only expressed that Jesus was human, something the church has always confessed. So even the most basic idea at the plot base of the novel is flawed and in error.

Erwin W. Lutzer: These are esoteric writings that do not deserve to be put on a history shelf. They are obviously agenda-driven, trying to root Christianity in paganism --- the very ideas that the Christians tried to avoid. These books make wild claims and try to connect dots that are unrelated to one another.

Dan Burstein: I included excerpts from both HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, as well as from two of Margaret Starbird's books in SECRETS OF THE CODE. I did this for two reasons: First, to be true to my promise to readers to identify and share with them the key materials that Dan Brown consulted in his research for THE DA VINCI CODE. As readers know, the actual titles of HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, as well as Margaret Starbird's WOMAN WITH THE ALABASTER JAR appear by name on the library shelves of Leigh Teabing in THE DA VINCI CODE, not to mention appearing again in Dan Brown's website bibliography. The character Leigh Teabing is very much based on the authors of HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL; Teabing's surname is an anagram of Baigent and his first name is drawn from the surname of the third author in the HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL trio. So I couldn't possibly do a book like SECRETS OF THE CODE without presenting this material. But I also used material in my book that directly challenged and contradicted HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL (including pieces that more or less demonstrated that the key premises of HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL are probably based on a 1950s era hoax).

I think there are many interesting ideas and elements of history discussed in HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, but I personally see its arguments as more meaningful at the level of folklore than historical fact. The question to ask about key bits of the argument in HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL is not, is this true? (since it probably isn't) but rather, why do so many people believe this to be true?

Margaret Starbird is interesting on the level of folklore and myth as well as metaphor. She is interpreting the events of two thousand years ago through the prism of the myths and metaphors from cultures and eras of history that were, in fact, closer to the time of Jesus than we are today. This is an interesting intellectual exercise. She is reading the Bible as metaphor, archetype, psychological analysis, myth and dream. I don't think her work should be treated as rigorous academic or historical analysis, nor do I think it should be dismissed. She is on to some very interesting ideas and has some compelling ways of popularizing her theories.

Sandra Miesel: HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL and its sequel THE MESSIANIC LEGACY, THE TEMPLAR REVELATION, and the works of Margaret Starbird are worthless esoteric imitations of history. Starbird's is the stupidest of the lot. Brown claimed to have used two valid sources on the Templars: Addison's HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR and Peter Partner's THE MURDERED MAGICIANS: The Templara and Their Myth. I could find no evidence of any material taken from Addison but did see echoes of the bizarre introduction to the book, written by a man who believes in Atlantis. Partner's excellent book was contradicted by Brown at every turn.

Carl E. Olson: They are pseudo-historical, conspiracy-obsessed works with no scholarly value. Starbird's books are often nearly incoherent, both theologically and historically. No scholars take them seriously, and for good reason.

Richard Abanes: I answer this question very concisely in my book (pp. 41-42) as follows:

"Brown clearly intends to add scholarly weight and an air of credibility to his assertion about Jesus' bloodline by utilizing the word 'historians.' He then lists four books: HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL (Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln), THE WOMAN WITH THE ALABASTER JAR (Margaret Starbird), THE GODDESS IN THE GOSPELS (Margaret Starbird), and THE TEMPLAR REVELATION (Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince). But none of these authors are, in fact, historians. Starbird holds an M.A. in comparative literature and German. Baigent has an undergraduate degree in psychology and has recently been pursuing an M.A. in Mysticism and Religious Experience. And Leigh, 'is primarily a novelist and writer of short stories.' What about Lincoln? He is a BBC television personality and scriptwriter. And Picknett and Prince are actually conspiracy theorists with a penchant for occultism, the paranormal, and UFOs."

Previous Question

Next Question