What do you think?
Rate this book
Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine
In his staggeringly popular work of fiction, Dan Brown states up front that the historical information in the The Da Vinci Code is all factually accurate. But is this claim true? As historian Bart D. Ehrman shows in this informative and witty book, The Da Vinci Code is filled with numerous historical mistakes.
Did the ancient church engage in a cover-up to make the man Jesus into a divine figure? Did Emperor Constantine select for the New Testament--from some 80 contending Gospels--the only four Gospels that stressed that Jesus was divine? Was Jesus Christ married to Mary Magdalene? Did the Church suppress Gospels that told the secret of their marriage? Bart Ehrman thoroughly debunks all of these claims. But the book is not merely a laundry list of Brown's misreading of history. Throughout, Ehrman offers a wealth of fascinating background information--all historically accurate--on early Christianity. He describes, for instance, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls ; outlines in simple terms how scholars of early Christianity determine which sources are most reliable; and explores the many other Gospels that have been found in the last half century. In his engaging book, Ehrman separates fact from fiction, the historical realities from the flights of literary fancy. Anyone who would like
to know the truth about the beginnings of Christianity and the real truth behind The Da Vinci Code will find this book riveting.
Did the ancient church engage in a cover-up to make the man Jesus into a divine figure? Did Emperor Constantine select for the New Testament--from some 80 contending Gospels--the only four Gospels that stressed that Jesus was divine? Was Jesus Christ married to Mary Magdalene? Did the Church suppress Gospels that told the secret of their marriage? Bart Ehrman thoroughly debunks all of these claims. But the book is not merely a laundry list of Brown's misreading of history. Throughout, Ehrman offers a wealth of fascinating background information--all historically accurate--on early Christianity. He describes, for instance, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls ; outlines in simple terms how scholars of early Christianity determine which sources are most reliable; and explores the many other Gospels that have been found in the last half century. In his engaging book, Ehrman separates fact from fiction, the historical realities from the flights of literary fancy. Anyone who would like
to know the truth about the beginnings of Christianity and the real truth behind The Da Vinci Code will find this book riveting.
207 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
71 people are currently reading
845 people want to read
About the author
Bart D. Ehrman
67 books2,093 followersBart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
October 19, 2023
Truth be told I wasn't actually all that curious about the inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. I really enjoyed the book when it came out but I just assumed it was complete fiction.
Apparently, not everyone thought that.
This would have probably also been better if I'd read it back in 2004 when it was relevant. But as it is, hearing Ehrman quote the book and then do a rebuttal of something the character says was just a bit cringy. Then again, I do remember folks taking The Da Vinci Code waaay too seriously when it came out. Lots of religious leaders up in arms and whatnot.
As they do...
However, I can see why a historian might gnash their teeth a little when something like that book pops up, and people actually start to believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that there has been a vast and ancient conspiracy that covered it up. And he's not wrong when he says that most people get a lot of their "knowledge" about Jesus' life from movies and television. So when writers take liberties to spice things up, over time it tends to become canon to a lot of Christians.
Ehrman did what he set out to do, in that he took apart the book and shined a light on the historical and scriptural inaccuracies that supposedly Dan Brown claimed were the real deal.
I was looking for something fast and easy to listen to and this fit the bill.
But if you happened to just now read the book and are wondering if any of it could be true, then this is as good a place as any to find out why it's an excellent murder mystery and not such an excellent factual look at the life of Jesus.
Apparently, not everyone thought that.
This would have probably also been better if I'd read it back in 2004 when it was relevant. But as it is, hearing Ehrman quote the book and then do a rebuttal of something the character says was just a bit cringy. Then again, I do remember folks taking The Da Vinci Code waaay too seriously when it came out. Lots of religious leaders up in arms and whatnot.
As they do...
However, I can see why a historian might gnash their teeth a little when something like that book pops up, and people actually start to believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that there has been a vast and ancient conspiracy that covered it up. And he's not wrong when he says that most people get a lot of their "knowledge" about Jesus' life from movies and television. So when writers take liberties to spice things up, over time it tends to become canon to a lot of Christians.
Ehrman did what he set out to do, in that he took apart the book and shined a light on the historical and scriptural inaccuracies that supposedly Dan Brown claimed were the real deal.
I was looking for something fast and easy to listen to and this fit the bill.
But if you happened to just now read the book and are wondering if any of it could be true, then this is as good a place as any to find out why it's an excellent murder mystery and not such an excellent factual look at the life of Jesus.
May 11, 2014
Before I get into my review, I'd like to state that I knew of Mr. Ehrman and his reputation before I read this book. If you've done research on the Historical Jesus, chances are that you've heard of Mr. Ehrman. It seems that the general consesus is you love him or you hate him. Mr. Ehrman is absolutely not shy in his views and research and has become a leading authority on many Bible-related subjects.
That all being said, on to the book. Like everyone else, I read the Da Vinci Code and was left with more questions than answers. I knew enough at the time to know a lot of "facts" were actually either fabrications of truth or plain made up stories. The copy I read had pictures included which probably added to my questions more than took from them.
Mr. Ehrman has written a book that is extremely easy to read. He explains things well and seems to understand that his average reader will not have the knowledge that he does.
One thing I especially liked was that, although I do know his beliefs, he does not make it obvious and he doesn't try to change the readers belief. He simply says, "this is not correct" and then presents facts, backed up by Scripture or Gnostic writings, as to why it isn't correct.
However, like most people in his field, Mr. Ehrman talks about Q. Since we haven't found Q yet, we don't know what it says IF it even exists. It seems a bit premature to me to refer to a document that currently exists only in theory. Mr. Erhman goes as far as quoting Q, stating that things are preserved for us in this document.
As far as disproving the "facts" in Dan Brown's novel, this book does a fantastic job. Mr. Ehrman gives a breif history on most of the sources he credits and he does not make assumptions where a conclusion can not be made.
I think this is a good book for anyone looking for the real truth behind Dan Brown's allegations. While The Da Vinci Code is a fun read, it has things in it that are absolutely not truth, but presented as such, and Dan Brown has stated he would not change a thing about his "facts" as he believes they actually are facts. The real facts are in Bart Ehrman's book, and it's well worth the read.
That all being said, on to the book. Like everyone else, I read the Da Vinci Code and was left with more questions than answers. I knew enough at the time to know a lot of "facts" were actually either fabrications of truth or plain made up stories. The copy I read had pictures included which probably added to my questions more than took from them.
Mr. Ehrman has written a book that is extremely easy to read. He explains things well and seems to understand that his average reader will not have the knowledge that he does.
One thing I especially liked was that, although I do know his beliefs, he does not make it obvious and he doesn't try to change the readers belief. He simply says, "this is not correct" and then presents facts, backed up by Scripture or Gnostic writings, as to why it isn't correct.
However, like most people in his field, Mr. Ehrman talks about Q. Since we haven't found Q yet, we don't know what it says IF it even exists. It seems a bit premature to me to refer to a document that currently exists only in theory. Mr. Erhman goes as far as quoting Q, stating that things are preserved for us in this document.
As far as disproving the "facts" in Dan Brown's novel, this book does a fantastic job. Mr. Ehrman gives a breif history on most of the sources he credits and he does not make assumptions where a conclusion can not be made.
I think this is a good book for anyone looking for the real truth behind Dan Brown's allegations. While The Da Vinci Code is a fun read, it has things in it that are absolutely not truth, but presented as such, and Dan Brown has stated he would not change a thing about his "facts" as he believes they actually are facts. The real facts are in Bart Ehrman's book, and it's well worth the read.
September 20, 2016
Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code promises, among other things, to be faithful to the documentary facts upon which its plot depends. Bart Ehrman shows how often this simply is not true while managing in the course of his critique to discuss the origins of Christianity and its canon in a clear and simple manner. Indeed, one would benefit from reading this text whether or not familiar with either Brown's book or the movie based upon it.
As I noticed, and as Ehrlich notes, Brown's work, and his thesis about the descendants of Jesus, is derivative on a highly speculative work by nonspecialists entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail. So, too, is much of The Matrix movie trilogy.
As I noticed, and as Ehrlich notes, Brown's work, and his thesis about the descendants of Jesus, is derivative on a highly speculative work by nonspecialists entitled Holy Blood, Holy Grail. So, too, is much of The Matrix movie trilogy.
April 25, 2011
I found this volume refreshingly straight-forward and a good review of all of what I learned in my college studies of religion, the world religions, and various other information. Ehrman is thoughtful, bringing his own experience, doubts, certainties, and learning to the task of examining Dan Brown's best-seller. Like many, I found The Da Vinci Code a wonderful page-turner, and I was absorbed in its twists and turns, but I was on occasion, a little uneasy when the "facts" Brown was offering conflicted with what I thought I knew. Looking back, the discomfort might have been completely avoided if Brown had not asserted at the beginning of the book that all of this information was accurate. Actually, I think his book would have been more success as a fiction for me if he hadn't insisted on his own veracity. It is my own personal quirk, perhaps, that when I see the first frames of a movie or the introductory pages of a novel list a phrase like "based on a true story," I am convinced that what I am about to view or read is an absolute fiction. Anyone who's ever watched Cops or been unlucky enough to encounter a sociopath in his or her life KNOWS that the statement "I'm not going to lie" always and only proceeds a torrent of untruth. So maybe I should have been a little more ready to take Brown's tale as fiction, but my lack of detailed knowledge about Christianity and the history of the Christian church unsettled me too many times and just enough to make me step away from the fiction I was enjoying and wonder. This volume is, thus, a welcome and useful refresher for those of us who want to know which was truth and which was fiction while at the same time learning or re-learning a number of fascinating facts.
July 17, 2009
I liked that the author didn't set out to bash "The Da Vinci Code" and that he did, indeed, enjoy the novel (as did I). He attempted to examine what is known historically to either confirm or refute Brown's statements in the novel.
However, I DIDN'T like that Ehrman seemed to interpret historical documents in the way that fit his thesis (this being that Brown was mostly wrong in the novel). I read a lot of "it's impossible to tell for sure, but it is most likely...." when the interpretation fit his thesis, and a lot of "it's impossible to tell for sure, but it is unlikely that...." when it DIDN'T fit his thesis. Sorry, Bart, but you can't have it both ways. If the documents aren't clear on intent, you don't get to "guess" intent.
I'm not a Christian scholar, but I have done a fair amount of reading on many subjects discussed in this book. I feel that overall, Ehrman wasn't objective enough in his interpretations and came across as too sure that the current Bible was the original. Also, he sure seems to love Emperor Constantine (not sure why, though!) I think there's a lot more to ancient religious history covered up, but I DO remind people that "Da Vinci Code" IS on the fiction shelf!
However, I DIDN'T like that Ehrman seemed to interpret historical documents in the way that fit his thesis (this being that Brown was mostly wrong in the novel). I read a lot of "it's impossible to tell for sure, but it is most likely...." when the interpretation fit his thesis, and a lot of "it's impossible to tell for sure, but it is unlikely that...." when it DIDN'T fit his thesis. Sorry, Bart, but you can't have it both ways. If the documents aren't clear on intent, you don't get to "guess" intent.
I'm not a Christian scholar, but I have done a fair amount of reading on many subjects discussed in this book. I feel that overall, Ehrman wasn't objective enough in his interpretations and came across as too sure that the current Bible was the original. Also, he sure seems to love Emperor Constantine (not sure why, though!) I think there's a lot more to ancient religious history covered up, but I DO remind people that "Da Vinci Code" IS on the fiction shelf!
January 30, 2011
If you want to get an idea of what early Christianity and Christians were about I'd go with Ehrman's serious works like Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture & the Faiths We Never Knew or Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible & Why.
And he's far too kind to Dan Brown.
And he's far too kind to Dan Brown.
February 10, 2018
Ja läbilugemiseks läks ainult kuus aastat. Muidu oli täitsa asjalik.
April 19, 2009
Ehrman has outdone himself again. This is a great little book for people who are actually interested in the historical questions that The Da Vinci Code claims to answer: Who wrote the New Testament? Who decided whether Jesus was a human or a god? Was he married? What did Jesus actually teach? Who was Mary Magdalene, and what was her relationship with Jesus? and what were the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library, and the gnostic gospels?
One puzzling thing at the beginning of the Da Vinci code, on the first page or on one of the cover pages, is Dan Brown's claim that all of the descriptions of the ancient documents in the book are true. In light of what Ehrman and other historians of early Christianity actually know, the only way to make sense of Brown's claim (other than to assume his research consisted of skimming a single book and copying it's ideas wholesale - ie ignorance) is to read this page as part of the fiction of the Da Vinci Code. As if the fictional author, who lives in a fictional parallel world where all of his claims are true, were writing it, because from Dan Brown that statement is a lie.
The real historical knowledge about these questions is in some ways just as subversive and interesting as the more fanciful daydreams presented in the Da Vinci Code. The only reason authors like Brown can spin such a tale about early Christianity and get away with it, is that people, even devout Christians (especially devout Christians) have the real information hidden from them by omission. Read this book; Ehrman presents his material with clarity and authority.
One puzzling thing at the beginning of the Da Vinci code, on the first page or on one of the cover pages, is Dan Brown's claim that all of the descriptions of the ancient documents in the book are true. In light of what Ehrman and other historians of early Christianity actually know, the only way to make sense of Brown's claim (other than to assume his research consisted of skimming a single book and copying it's ideas wholesale - ie ignorance) is to read this page as part of the fiction of the Da Vinci Code. As if the fictional author, who lives in a fictional parallel world where all of his claims are true, were writing it, because from Dan Brown that statement is a lie.
The real historical knowledge about these questions is in some ways just as subversive and interesting as the more fanciful daydreams presented in the Da Vinci Code. The only reason authors like Brown can spin such a tale about early Christianity and get away with it, is that people, even devout Christians (especially devout Christians) have the real information hidden from them by omission. Read this book; Ehrman presents his material with clarity and authority.
December 23, 2018
Libro davvero interessante. Le correzioni al ben più celebre romanzo di Dan Brown sono ottimi spunti di riflessione per chi non riesce a discernere tra fantasie romanzesche e “verità storiche” o presunte tali.
Sfortunatamente gran parte delle fonti storiche, dall’autore ritenute quasi “attendibili”, sono i vangeli canonici e gli atti degli apostoli che, come ammette anche Ehrman, lo sono relativamente. Come ammette a malincuore anche l’autore, non vi sono fonti gnostiche o ebraiche a testimonianza della vita di Gesù, quindi basare un libro che cerca di dare le giuste connotazioni storiche ad un personaggio partendo da testi che romanzano la storia di tale personaggio la vedo tragica.
Le correzioni riportate, al contrario, sui testi utilizzati da Brown e a come vengono citate sono molto più interessanti.
In sunto, il libro è molto interessante, ben scritto e ricco di curiosità, ma per sfortuna del l’autore, secondo me, non si può correggere un romanzo di fantasia utilizzando come fonti altri.
Sfortunatamente gran parte delle fonti storiche, dall’autore ritenute quasi “attendibili”, sono i vangeli canonici e gli atti degli apostoli che, come ammette anche Ehrman, lo sono relativamente. Come ammette a malincuore anche l’autore, non vi sono fonti gnostiche o ebraiche a testimonianza della vita di Gesù, quindi basare un libro che cerca di dare le giuste connotazioni storiche ad un personaggio partendo da testi che romanzano la storia di tale personaggio la vedo tragica.
Le correzioni riportate, al contrario, sui testi utilizzati da Brown e a come vengono citate sono molto più interessanti.
In sunto, il libro è molto interessante, ben scritto e ricco di curiosità, ma per sfortuna del l’autore, secondo me, non si può correggere un romanzo di fantasia utilizzando come fonti altri.
December 29, 2024
Interessante, ma alla fine cade nella noia.
January 14, 2021
Thoroughly enjoyed this book. Explained very clearly truth and fiction about Jesus. Also about early Christianity. I saw the Da Vinci Code film and it was interesting to see what was true and what was fiction. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the life of Jesus.
April 10, 2021
“… history is like any good story. It is a narrative that we tell and retell, filled with characters that we can relate to, with plots and subplots that we somehow feel a part of. The past is a story that we ourselves can live in, one that can inform our lives in the present. It is a true story, one that contributes to our sense of ourselves and our place in the world. And for that reason, if no other, it seems important for us to know the truth about what happened in the past”
This book does what it says it will on the cover. I only gave it three stars because the repetition was grating. There's nothing worse than a book that could have been a shorter book, or better yet, a long-form article. Regardless, the history was enlightening, and the methodology was a good reminder of how to pursue spiritual curiosity critically.
Some interesting things:
- Constantine's worship of the sun god leaked into the Christian rituals. E.g. he determined the Christian God was to be worshiped on the day of the sun (Sunday) and the birth of Christ came to be celebrated at the time of the winter solstice
- There was no vote at the Council of Nicea to determine Jesus' divinity
- Apocalypticism comes from the Greek word "apocalypsis" which means "uncovering" or "unveiling". They believed God "unveiled" to them heavenly secrets, in particular what would happen when God intervened in the near future to destroy evil and establish His good kingdom. They were dualists (there was good and bad. God, angels, righteousness and life vs the Devil, demons, sin and death) who believed sin was a cosmic force, aligned against God, that attempts to make people act in ways contrary to God. This age is the age of evil, and when it gets as bad as it can, God will intervene and overthrow evil in an act of judgment and bring his good kingdom to earth.
- Gnostics (from the Greek gnosis, which means knowledge) believe you need true self-knowledge for salvation. The world of matter is inherently evil and must be escaped by our spirits, which are trapped in our material bodies, to the world of spirits, which is inherently good. This trapping of spirits happened when there was catastrophe in the divine realm when Sophia became separated from the rest and spontaneously created another divine being outside the divine realm, who was evil, and he created the material world as imprisonment for Sophia, who had fallen. Deliverance can only come through liberating knowledge. Christ brought that knowledge.
- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas talks about Jesus as a young boy. According to the Gospel he had a temper and randomly killed people if they annoyed him (usually later restoring life).
- The Gospel of Peter claims the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, not the Romans
- The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter claims that Jesus' body is just a shell, and his true self is within and cannot be touched by physical pain (e.g. during the crucification). Salvation comes from escaping the body.
- The Coptic Gospel of Thomas at one point quotes Jesus as saying “On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what you will you do?” (Reminds me of Taoism) This refers to a unified spirit (one) becoming trapped in a body and becoming body and spirit (two). It must become one again by escaping.
- The same Gospel says “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.” The interpretation is that the material world is death, and you must rise above it as life is in the spirit. The material world is worthless and you must escape it. For spirits imprisoned in this material world it is like being blind and not being able to see.
- The same Gospel says Jesus said that when “you make the two one”, “you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female”. Heaven is genderless?
- However, the same Gospel also states that Jesus said “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” This is because, at that time, it was believed all the world operated along a continuum of perfection: lifeless things to living things, plants to animals, animals to humans, women to men, men to gods. Women had to pass through the next “stage” on the continuum before becoming “perfected”.
- Irenaeus defined what books would be canon early on by saying there should be four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) because there are four corners of the earth, over which the four winds blow, carrying the truth of the Christian gospel.
- Criteria for inclusion in the canon: ancient, apostolic (written by an apostle), Catholic (widespread acceptance amongst churches), orthodox (in line with current view)
- Athanasius in 367CE set out list of canon as it looks like today - beginning of the end about arguments about canon
- Almost everyone during Jesus’ time was illiterate, hence the lack of sources from his time
- Q is a hypothetical document that scholars believe once contained sayings of Jesus written about twenty years after his death, and used as a source by Matthew and Luke
- Gospels not written by those they are named after - they were anonymous. Titles added by second-century Christians decades after the books had been written to claim they were apostolic. Written by highly trained, Greek speaking Christians., not Aramaic-speaking peasant disciples.
- Matthew and Luke based many of theirs stories off of Mark’s gospel - hence the close similarities.
- Gospels based on oral tradition - stories told over and over, and therefore changed for different situations and contexts. New stories could have been made up, some could have been lost, some could have been embellished.
- Methods for working out the truth: earlier the better, more independent testimonies is better, cutting against the grain (things that go against Christian belief are more likely to be true bc unlikely to be made up), context corroborates.
- Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew who believed God would intervene in the world of suffering and establish a new kingdom on earth (see: apocalypticism above). Specifically, Jesus predicted an actual physical presence of God on earth (not just a spiritual kingdom) where the twelve disciples would be human rulers and all would eat, drink and talk. It also included a judgment day.
- Women were the first to discover Jesus was not in his tomb and had been resurrected. There are differing accounts as to whether it was just Mary Magdalene or multiple women.
- Jesus encouraged Mary of Bethany to attend to his teaching rather than busy herself with “womanly” household duties (Luke 10:38-42). (Though only in one gospel so less likely to be authentic).
- Jesus preached a “radically egalitarian society” in his kingdom on earth. He may also have urged his followers to implement these implications in the present.
- Paul’s view of women similar - Galations 3:28 “… there is no longer male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
- Untrustworthy Epiphanius claim about secret rituals where Phibionites have ritual sex, but both partners eat the semen of the man saying “This is the body of Christ” and the woman’s menstrual blood saying “This is the blood of Christ”. If the woman becomes pregnant, the foetus is aborted and eaten in a communal meal called “the perfect Passover”.
This book does what it says it will on the cover. I only gave it three stars because the repetition was grating. There's nothing worse than a book that could have been a shorter book, or better yet, a long-form article. Regardless, the history was enlightening, and the methodology was a good reminder of how to pursue spiritual curiosity critically.
Some interesting things:
- Constantine's worship of the sun god leaked into the Christian rituals. E.g. he determined the Christian God was to be worshiped on the day of the sun (Sunday) and the birth of Christ came to be celebrated at the time of the winter solstice
- There was no vote at the Council of Nicea to determine Jesus' divinity
- Apocalypticism comes from the Greek word "apocalypsis" which means "uncovering" or "unveiling". They believed God "unveiled" to them heavenly secrets, in particular what would happen when God intervened in the near future to destroy evil and establish His good kingdom. They were dualists (there was good and bad. God, angels, righteousness and life vs the Devil, demons, sin and death) who believed sin was a cosmic force, aligned against God, that attempts to make people act in ways contrary to God. This age is the age of evil, and when it gets as bad as it can, God will intervene and overthrow evil in an act of judgment and bring his good kingdom to earth.
- Gnostics (from the Greek gnosis, which means knowledge) believe you need true self-knowledge for salvation. The world of matter is inherently evil and must be escaped by our spirits, which are trapped in our material bodies, to the world of spirits, which is inherently good. This trapping of spirits happened when there was catastrophe in the divine realm when Sophia became separated from the rest and spontaneously created another divine being outside the divine realm, who was evil, and he created the material world as imprisonment for Sophia, who had fallen. Deliverance can only come through liberating knowledge. Christ brought that knowledge.
- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas talks about Jesus as a young boy. According to the Gospel he had a temper and randomly killed people if they annoyed him (usually later restoring life).
- The Gospel of Peter claims the Jews were responsible for Jesus' death, not the Romans
- The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter claims that Jesus' body is just a shell, and his true self is within and cannot be touched by physical pain (e.g. during the crucification). Salvation comes from escaping the body.
- The Coptic Gospel of Thomas at one point quotes Jesus as saying “On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what you will you do?” (Reminds me of Taoism) This refers to a unified spirit (one) becoming trapped in a body and becoming body and spirit (two). It must become one again by escaping.
- The same Gospel says “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.” The interpretation is that the material world is death, and you must rise above it as life is in the spirit. The material world is worthless and you must escape it. For spirits imprisoned in this material world it is like being blind and not being able to see.
- The same Gospel says Jesus said that when “you make the two one”, “you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female”. Heaven is genderless?
- However, the same Gospel also states that Jesus said “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” This is because, at that time, it was believed all the world operated along a continuum of perfection: lifeless things to living things, plants to animals, animals to humans, women to men, men to gods. Women had to pass through the next “stage” on the continuum before becoming “perfected”.
- Irenaeus defined what books would be canon early on by saying there should be four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) because there are four corners of the earth, over which the four winds blow, carrying the truth of the Christian gospel.
- Criteria for inclusion in the canon: ancient, apostolic (written by an apostle), Catholic (widespread acceptance amongst churches), orthodox (in line with current view)
- Athanasius in 367CE set out list of canon as it looks like today - beginning of the end about arguments about canon
- Almost everyone during Jesus’ time was illiterate, hence the lack of sources from his time
- Q is a hypothetical document that scholars believe once contained sayings of Jesus written about twenty years after his death, and used as a source by Matthew and Luke
- Gospels not written by those they are named after - they were anonymous. Titles added by second-century Christians decades after the books had been written to claim they were apostolic. Written by highly trained, Greek speaking Christians., not Aramaic-speaking peasant disciples.
- Matthew and Luke based many of theirs stories off of Mark’s gospel - hence the close similarities.
- Gospels based on oral tradition - stories told over and over, and therefore changed for different situations and contexts. New stories could have been made up, some could have been lost, some could have been embellished.
- Methods for working out the truth: earlier the better, more independent testimonies is better, cutting against the grain (things that go against Christian belief are more likely to be true bc unlikely to be made up), context corroborates.
- Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew who believed God would intervene in the world of suffering and establish a new kingdom on earth (see: apocalypticism above). Specifically, Jesus predicted an actual physical presence of God on earth (not just a spiritual kingdom) where the twelve disciples would be human rulers and all would eat, drink and talk. It also included a judgment day.
- Women were the first to discover Jesus was not in his tomb and had been resurrected. There are differing accounts as to whether it was just Mary Magdalene or multiple women.
- Jesus encouraged Mary of Bethany to attend to his teaching rather than busy herself with “womanly” household duties (Luke 10:38-42). (Though only in one gospel so less likely to be authentic).
- Jesus preached a “radically egalitarian society” in his kingdom on earth. He may also have urged his followers to implement these implications in the present.
- Paul’s view of women similar - Galations 3:28 “… there is no longer male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
- Untrustworthy Epiphanius claim about secret rituals where Phibionites have ritual sex, but both partners eat the semen of the man saying “This is the body of Christ” and the woman’s menstrual blood saying “This is the blood of Christ”. If the woman becomes pregnant, the foetus is aborted and eaten in a communal meal called “the perfect Passover”.
May 1, 2010
This audiobook was incredibly interesting. The author is a noted Biblical scholar and he refuted many of the claims made in Dan Brown's book resoundingly. For example, that the Emperor Constantine decided the can of Scripture and that he rejected some 80 other Gospels. The canon was established more than 100 years beyond his time and there were only a few other gospels and they had glaring errors or in some cases were almost nonsense. The mystique of "the sacred feminine" is simply not supported by the available documents or the known history of the time and place. The book was very well arranged and written respectfully refuting the character's statements in the books rather than attacking Brown. As a work of fiction, the Da Vinci Code was a real page turner, but the actual documents that Brown says exist to prove what he wrote simply don't exist.
The only problem I found with Ehrman is that he does not have any room in his historical facts for faith, and especially a personal faith with a real Jesus Christ. His approach is purely historical, which is fine, but there is more to religion than simply choosing to believe a bit of history and staking your life on it. With that said, I would recommend the book to anyone interested in real scholarship presented in a logical, easy to listen to or read text. The author is clear and concise and easy to follow.
The only problem I found with Ehrman is that he does not have any room in his historical facts for faith, and especially a personal faith with a real Jesus Christ. His approach is purely historical, which is fine, but there is more to religion than simply choosing to believe a bit of history and staking your life on it. With that said, I would recommend the book to anyone interested in real scholarship presented in a logical, easy to listen to or read text. The author is clear and concise and easy to follow.
March 20, 2010
This is a very good introductuion for anyone who interests in the study of Bible and historical Jesus. I would argue that professor Ehrman does not intend to smash 'The Davinci Code', his main target of criticism, nor does he intend to judge the value of the novel itself. His effort is doing at his best to assure us, his readers, to recognize the fact that this novel is a novel, not a book containing of historical facts, and to correct facts claimed of its validity by the novelist himself - most of which, as he has shown throughout his essays, has been wrong. His style of writing is witty and readable. He provides historical background of Jesus' life, of the first-century Palestine, and of the early Christianity. It does not elaborate in many details, but opens our eyes to the world that we may not know before or once consider that we've already known. I suggest to anyone who wants to begin his study on history of Christianity or has interest in the topic about the man who proclaimed himself to his contemporary Jewish fellows a Messiah.
June 8, 2013
I've read, and mostly enjoyed, about half a dozen of Bart Ehrman's works on early Christianity. As a result, I was familiar with his approach to the subject before finding this work at a discount book store and deciding to add it to my collection. The book does a decent job of setting the record straight regarding the factual claims posited by Dan Brown as background to The Da Vinci Code. In the process, Ehrman manages once again to promote his own well-reasoned take on the early history of Christianity. I found it amusing that the majority of notes in the back of the book refer the reader to other, more in-depth, books by the same author. In summary, this book is a fine summary of the realities behind many of Dan Brown's claims, and an even better summary and promotion for Bart Ehrman's more important works. Not bad for 207 pages.
January 8, 2010
I found the information given to be very interesting. That said, the writing was atrocious. Every point made is belabored to the extreme and the continuous debates with Dan Brown's fictional characters drove me nuts. Dan Brown is the man with whom you disagree. Teabing and Langdon are not real.
If it wasn't on audio CD and we weren't on a 6 hour car trip in the middle of nowhere, I don't know that I could have made it through this book. Even so, I learned quite a bit about early Christianity and the creation of the New Testament.
If it wasn't on audio CD and we weren't on a 6 hour car trip in the middle of nowhere, I don't know that I could have made it through this book. Even so, I learned quite a bit about early Christianity and the creation of the New Testament.
August 11, 2014
I wasn't terribly concerned with the veracity of the historical claims made in The Da Vinci Code, but I am a big fan of Bart Ehrman, so I picked this up. It's been so long since I read the Da Vinci Code that I forgot much of what was said about Jesus and his bunch. As is often the case, this book points out that the historically-justified story just isn't as sensational as the story designed to pique our interest.
Read
March 21, 2009Interesting and informative study on the potential truths and fallacies of the Da Vinci code and other such mythos.
September 30, 2018
Pe alocuri m-a facut sa am incredere mai multa in intuitia lui Dan Brown.
December 13, 2019
DNF. superficial, quotes The da Vinci Code extensively but doesn't really offer rebuttals; very repetitive
April 21, 2021
Fiction in literature of good and historical fiction can be a valuable learning tool. In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown claims that all presented historical information is accurate. Then in Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Bart Ehrman lists a few of Browns claims: 1) Jesus’ life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land; 2) eighty Gospels “were considered for the New Testament”; 3) Jesus was not considered divine until the Council of Nicea; 4) Constantine commissioned a “new Bible” that omitted references to Jesus’ human traits; 5) Nag Hammadi documents emphasize Jesus’ human traits; 6) “Jewish decorum” forbade “a Jewish man to be unmarried”; 7) the Dead Sea Scrolls were among “the earliest Christian records”; 8) Mary Magdalene was a Jew of the House of Benjamin;) 9) The Q document is a surviving source, hidden for centuries by the Vatican; 10) numerous others.
However, there is not a word of truth in claims 1) through 10) or in many other of Brown’s claims. 1) If Jesus had thousands of followers, there is no evidence that any of them recorded anything; 2) far fewer than 80 gospels were considered for the Christian Canon; 3) Jesus’ divinity was not considered at the Council of Nicaea. The debate was the Trinitarian view [God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] vs the Arian view that the Son is lesser than the Father - both being divine; 4) Constantine had nothing to do with which books became part of the canon; 5) Nag Hammadi documents emphasize the divinity of Jesus, not His human side; 6) “Jewish decorum” DID NOT forbid “a Jewish man to be unmarried”; 7) The Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT among “the earliest Christian records. In fact, the entire collection is Jewish, not Christian; 8) there is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a Jew of the House of Benjamin; 9) the Q document is a NOT a surviving source. If fact, it is only an assumed source.
I have not read Dan Brown’s novel, but if it is as deceitful and misleading as the movie of the same title, I would refuse to review it. However, in Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Bart Ehrman did just that, in intriguing detail. In the novel, Dan Brown claims that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”. However, despite Brown’s claim, much of the asserted historical material is pure fiction, totally clashing with recorded history. Shortly after I began reading Ehrman’s Truth and Fiction, I briefly put the book aside and watched the movie twice, very carefully analyzing it each time. Ehrman had no issues with the plot of Brown’s book: the alleged marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the subsequent bloodline, nor do I, so long as it is presented as fiction. However, Brown claims that his historical material is “accurate”, and as Ehrman points out in the paragraph above, so much of it is clearly incorrect. To deceive the reading public with such incorrect history, claiming it is “accurate”, is despicable.
Ehrman rigorously points out Browns errors, reviews relevant details from the Holy Bible, and presents a well written coverage of the research-based history of the pertinent Christian era. I highly recommend Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code to everyone who has an interest in Christian theology.
However, there is not a word of truth in claims 1) through 10) or in many other of Brown’s claims. 1) If Jesus had thousands of followers, there is no evidence that any of them recorded anything; 2) far fewer than 80 gospels were considered for the Christian Canon; 3) Jesus’ divinity was not considered at the Council of Nicaea. The debate was the Trinitarian view [God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] vs the Arian view that the Son is lesser than the Father - both being divine; 4) Constantine had nothing to do with which books became part of the canon; 5) Nag Hammadi documents emphasize the divinity of Jesus, not His human side; 6) “Jewish decorum” DID NOT forbid “a Jewish man to be unmarried”; 7) The Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT among “the earliest Christian records. In fact, the entire collection is Jewish, not Christian; 8) there is no evidence that Mary Magdalene was a Jew of the House of Benjamin; 9) the Q document is a NOT a surviving source. If fact, it is only an assumed source.
I have not read Dan Brown’s novel, but if it is as deceitful and misleading as the movie of the same title, I would refuse to review it. However, in Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Bart Ehrman did just that, in intriguing detail. In the novel, Dan Brown claims that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”. However, despite Brown’s claim, much of the asserted historical material is pure fiction, totally clashing with recorded history. Shortly after I began reading Ehrman’s Truth and Fiction, I briefly put the book aside and watched the movie twice, very carefully analyzing it each time. Ehrman had no issues with the plot of Brown’s book: the alleged marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the subsequent bloodline, nor do I, so long as it is presented as fiction. However, Brown claims that his historical material is “accurate”, and as Ehrman points out in the paragraph above, so much of it is clearly incorrect. To deceive the reading public with such incorrect history, claiming it is “accurate”, is despicable.
Ehrman rigorously points out Browns errors, reviews relevant details from the Holy Bible, and presents a well written coverage of the research-based history of the pertinent Christian era. I highly recommend Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code to everyone who has an interest in Christian theology.
March 9, 2022
Codul lui Da Vinci are o intrigă complexă şi încurcată, pe care o voi reda doar într-o formă foarte scurtă. La Paris a avut loc un asasinat misterios. A fost ucis renumitul curator al muzeului Luvru, Jacques Saunière. Din cauza unor simboluri religioase bizare lăsate la locul crimei şi care fuseseră desenate chiar de Saunière înainte să moară, este chemat Robert Langdon, maestru în simbologie religioasă şi profesor la Universitatea Harvard, care se află la Paris pentru o conferinţă. I se alătură un criptograf al poliţiei, Sophie Neveu, care, din întâmplare, este nepoata lui Saunière; ea şi bunicul ei nu au păstrat legătura de zece ani. Ceea ce Langdon şi Neveu nu ştiu la început, dar îşi dau seama mai târziu, este că Saunière era capul unei grupări religioase secrete, cunoscute în istorie ca Stăreţia Sionului, care a păstrat peste secole secretul naturii Graalului şi al locului unde se află el.
Un set bizar de circumstanţe îi determină pe Langdon şi pe Neveu să facă cercetări urmând indiciile pe care le lăsase Saunière, cu scopul final de a găsi misteriosul şi mult căutatul Graal. Ei îi urmăresc şi pe aceia care sunt vinovaţi de moartea lui Saunière şi care, în mod evident, îl uciseseră în vreme ce încercau să afle unde era ascuns Graalul. Aceşti "ceilalţi" misterioşi îi folosesc drept pioni pe membrii ordinului catolic fanatic "Opus Dei", care urmează să îi conducă la locul tainic unde se află Graalul.
Pe parcursul peripeţiilor lor, Langdon şi Neveu se întâlnesc cu Sir Leigh Teabing, un aristocrat bogat şi expert în povestea Graalului, care vorbeşte despre fundalul istoric al misterului ce îl înconjoară. Graalul nu este cupa lui Christos, ci vasul care a conţinut sămânţa sa - este de fapt o persoană, şi anume Maria Magdalena, soţia şi iubita lui Christos, care a fost însărcinată cu el şi care i-a născut o fiică. După crucificarea lui Christos, Maria Magdalena şi copilul ei au fugit în Franţa, unde neamul de urmaşi divini ai lui Christos s-a perpetuat de-a lungul secolelor.
Există documente despre urmaşii lui Christos care au fost păstrate secrete. Aceste documente sărbătoresc principiul feminin în perioada de început a creştinismului şi includ câteva dintre primele evanghelii care au fost suprimate de creştinism în secolul al IV-lea, în special de către Constantin cel Mare. Împăratul Constantin a distrus cele optzeci şi ceva de evanghelii care erau în competiţie spre a fi incluse în Noul Testament, l-a ridicat pe Iisus de la statutul de muritor la acela de Fiu al lui Dumnezeu, a redus la tăcere tradiţia despre Maria şi femininul divin, a demonizat femininul în creştinism şi a distrus natura sa adevărată, de celebrare a zeităţii feminine.
Un set bizar de circumstanţe îi determină pe Langdon şi pe Neveu să facă cercetări urmând indiciile pe care le lăsase Saunière, cu scopul final de a găsi misteriosul şi mult căutatul Graal. Ei îi urmăresc şi pe aceia care sunt vinovaţi de moartea lui Saunière şi care, în mod evident, îl uciseseră în vreme ce încercau să afle unde era ascuns Graalul. Aceşti "ceilalţi" misterioşi îi folosesc drept pioni pe membrii ordinului catolic fanatic "Opus Dei", care urmează să îi conducă la locul tainic unde se află Graalul.
Pe parcursul peripeţiilor lor, Langdon şi Neveu se întâlnesc cu Sir Leigh Teabing, un aristocrat bogat şi expert în povestea Graalului, care vorbeşte despre fundalul istoric al misterului ce îl înconjoară. Graalul nu este cupa lui Christos, ci vasul care a conţinut sămânţa sa - este de fapt o persoană, şi anume Maria Magdalena, soţia şi iubita lui Christos, care a fost însărcinată cu el şi care i-a născut o fiică. După crucificarea lui Christos, Maria Magdalena şi copilul ei au fugit în Franţa, unde neamul de urmaşi divini ai lui Christos s-a perpetuat de-a lungul secolelor.
Există documente despre urmaşii lui Christos care au fost păstrate secrete. Aceste documente sărbătoresc principiul feminin în perioada de început a creştinismului şi includ câteva dintre primele evanghelii care au fost suprimate de creştinism în secolul al IV-lea, în special de către Constantin cel Mare. Împăratul Constantin a distrus cele optzeci şi ceva de evanghelii care erau în competiţie spre a fi incluse în Noul Testament, l-a ridicat pe Iisus de la statutul de muritor la acela de Fiu al lui Dumnezeu, a redus la tăcere tradiţia despre Maria şi femininul divin, a demonizat femininul în creştinism şi a distrus natura sa adevărată, de celebrare a zeităţii feminine.
June 13, 2022
This information can be found in the later work "The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon" by the same author. Many people asked him how accurate Dan Brown's book, "The Da Vinci Code" is. As it turns out there were a lot of avoidable, major errors. I agree. Fun murder mystery though.
I remember reading the book and noticing errors. I have copies of both "The Nag Hammadi Library", "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments", and "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2: Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works". I've even read through some of the documents in those collections. I even wrote a paper on The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in college.
With that background I could read Dan Brown's book, and not be misled by the wild claims made by the book's characters. But I worried about people without such a background being mislead, thinking somehow that Christianity was hijacked and "the real Christianity" was suppressed. And Dr. Ehrman (the author of the reviewed book) was also worried. He ran off a quick response to the book, praising the writing, but pointing out a number of misleading ideas in the book. The current book is an expansion on that first missive Very informative. My only complaint is that it became repetitive at times, as if the author prepared each chapter as a standalone essay.
I'd probably only reread this book after reading The Da Vinci Code.
I remember reading the book and noticing errors. I have copies of both "The Nag Hammadi Library", "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments", and "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2: Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works". I've even read through some of the documents in those collections. I even wrote a paper on The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in college.
With that background I could read Dan Brown's book, and not be misled by the wild claims made by the book's characters. But I worried about people without such a background being mislead, thinking somehow that Christianity was hijacked and "the real Christianity" was suppressed. And Dr. Ehrman (the author of the reviewed book) was also worried. He ran off a quick response to the book, praising the writing, but pointing out a number of misleading ideas in the book. The current book is an expansion on that first missive Very informative. My only complaint is that it became repetitive at times, as if the author prepared each chapter as a standalone essay.
I'd probably only reread this book after reading The Da Vinci Code.
May 25, 2025
Not much into dry non-fic about the bible but I was a little curious.
I know the DaVinci code was about Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus and I wasn't interested. To me whether she was or wasn't doesn't change the core of Christianity, that Jesus was born, died and was resurrected so that we could accept Him as our Saviour and go to Heaven. We're separated from God by sin. Jesus is the bridge between us and God. I didn't pay much attention to anything biblically critical or controversial unless it's about the core of Christianity. This stuff about Mary M. is unimportant to me but I was still curious as I like the idea of Jesus having a companion, a wife.
The book does a good job explaining what is considered reliable and likely and what is not. Mary Magdalene was never mentioned in the accepted gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Not once. That may not seem like a big deal but it's explained why the 4 gospels were the only ones accepted and why Mary Magdalene not being mentioned is not a problem. Those on the for Mary Magdalene side say that it was a big deal for a normal Jewish man to not be married and it would have been out of place and therefore worthy of mention if he had been single and since it wasn't mentioned, then he must have been married. Except the author explains that it was not unusual or a negative thing for a Jewish man not to marry.
I'll end this review by just stating that the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married is a nice thought, but that's all it is. And I'm satisfied by the this book's conclusions.
An excellent reference book, a great book to give to people who love The DaVinci Code book or movie. After all, they might not think the move has not rubbed off on them, shaped their beliefs but it could be really subtle and more on the unconscious side of things. The DaVinci Code could be just one layer of many of their religious beliefs.
I know the DaVinci code was about Mary Magdalene being married to Jesus and I wasn't interested. To me whether she was or wasn't doesn't change the core of Christianity, that Jesus was born, died and was resurrected so that we could accept Him as our Saviour and go to Heaven. We're separated from God by sin. Jesus is the bridge between us and God. I didn't pay much attention to anything biblically critical or controversial unless it's about the core of Christianity. This stuff about Mary M. is unimportant to me but I was still curious as I like the idea of Jesus having a companion, a wife.
The book does a good job explaining what is considered reliable and likely and what is not. Mary Magdalene was never mentioned in the accepted gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Not once. That may not seem like a big deal but it's explained why the 4 gospels were the only ones accepted and why Mary Magdalene not being mentioned is not a problem. Those on the for Mary Magdalene side say that it was a big deal for a normal Jewish man to not be married and it would have been out of place and therefore worthy of mention if he had been single and since it wasn't mentioned, then he must have been married. Except the author explains that it was not unusual or a negative thing for a Jewish man not to marry.
I'll end this review by just stating that the idea of Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married is a nice thought, but that's all it is. And I'm satisfied by the this book's conclusions.
An excellent reference book, a great book to give to people who love The DaVinci Code book or movie. After all, they might not think the move has not rubbed off on them, shaped their beliefs but it could be really subtle and more on the unconscious side of things. The DaVinci Code could be just one layer of many of their religious beliefs.
August 24, 2024
A FORMER EVANGELICAL CRITIQUES "THE DA VINCI CODE"
Bart D. Ehrman (born 1955) is Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; he is also a former evangelical, having studied at Moody Bible Institute and graduated from Wheaton College. He has written many other books, such as 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,' 'Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,' 'Misquoting Jesus,' 'Lost Christianities,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, "The ability of film directors and book authors... to shift public thinking ... is simply a reality of the times. But when the images they create for their viewers or readers are ERRONEOUS---well, it means people misunderstand history as it really was and substitute fiction for fact... And so I've decided to write up a response to Dan Brown's book, to deal... with the nature of its historical claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Constantine the Great, and the formation of the canon of scripture---all of them foundational issues for the story that [Dan] Brown created for us." (Pg. xvi)
He summarizes some "Factual Errors in The Da Vinci Code": "It's absolutely not true that Jesus was not considered divine until the Council of Nicea, that before that he was considered merely as 'a mortal prophet'... The Dead Sea Scrolls were not among 'the earliest Christian records'... They are Jewish, with nothing Christian in them... We have no idea about the lineage of Mary Magdalene; nothing connects her with the 'house of Benjamin.'... Mary Magdalene was PREGNANT at the crucifixion? That's a good one... The Q document is not a surviving source being hid by the Vatican, nor is it a book allegedly written by Jesus himself. It's a hypothetical document that scholars have posited as having been available to Matthew and Luke... there's nothing secretive about it." (Pg. xiv-xv)
He states, "I can point out the following concerning the most obvious fictional claims: (1) It's not true that thousands of Jesus' followers wrote accounts of his life during his lifetime... (2) Nor did most people in his time keep a chronicle of their own lives. Most people could not even write. (3) Relatedly, there is no shred of evidence to suggest that Jesus himself kept a record of his ministry. On the contrary, as far as we know, Jesus never wrote anything." (Pg. 99-100)
He observes, "For much of his 'information' Brown was dependent on an earlier best-seller of the 1980s, a book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Brown explicitly mentions in his novel but which he does not acknowledge as the primary source for much of what he has to say about Mary Magdalene (and the Priory of Sion). Nonetheless, anyone familiar with both books will see the high degree of dependence." (Pg. 141)
He argues, "More specifically with reference to Mary Magdalene, if Jesus were actually married to her, why would there be no reference to it [in the New Testament]? Why is she not singled out as special anywhere in the canonical Gospels? Why in fact, apart from Luke 8:1-3, where she is mentioned by name along with two other named women... is she not mentioned during his ministry at all, let alone as one who stood in a special relationship with Jesus? Why does she figure in none of the stories about Jesus in these Gospels?" (Pg. 154)
This is one of the best critiques of The Da Vinci Code on historical/exegetical grounds---and it is the more interesting for Ehrman's own non-evangelical position.
Bart D. Ehrman (born 1955) is Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; he is also a former evangelical, having studied at Moody Bible Institute and graduated from Wheaton College. He has written many other books, such as 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,' 'Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,' 'Misquoting Jesus,' 'Lost Christianities,' etc.
He wrote in the Introduction to this 2004 book, "The ability of film directors and book authors... to shift public thinking ... is simply a reality of the times. But when the images they create for their viewers or readers are ERRONEOUS---well, it means people misunderstand history as it really was and substitute fiction for fact... And so I've decided to write up a response to Dan Brown's book, to deal... with the nature of its historical claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Constantine the Great, and the formation of the canon of scripture---all of them foundational issues for the story that [Dan] Brown created for us." (Pg. xvi)
He summarizes some "Factual Errors in The Da Vinci Code": "It's absolutely not true that Jesus was not considered divine until the Council of Nicea, that before that he was considered merely as 'a mortal prophet'... The Dead Sea Scrolls were not among 'the earliest Christian records'... They are Jewish, with nothing Christian in them... We have no idea about the lineage of Mary Magdalene; nothing connects her with the 'house of Benjamin.'... Mary Magdalene was PREGNANT at the crucifixion? That's a good one... The Q document is not a surviving source being hid by the Vatican, nor is it a book allegedly written by Jesus himself. It's a hypothetical document that scholars have posited as having been available to Matthew and Luke... there's nothing secretive about it." (Pg. xiv-xv)
He states, "I can point out the following concerning the most obvious fictional claims: (1) It's not true that thousands of Jesus' followers wrote accounts of his life during his lifetime... (2) Nor did most people in his time keep a chronicle of their own lives. Most people could not even write. (3) Relatedly, there is no shred of evidence to suggest that Jesus himself kept a record of his ministry. On the contrary, as far as we know, Jesus never wrote anything." (Pg. 99-100)
He observes, "For much of his 'information' Brown was dependent on an earlier best-seller of the 1980s, a book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which Brown explicitly mentions in his novel but which he does not acknowledge as the primary source for much of what he has to say about Mary Magdalene (and the Priory of Sion). Nonetheless, anyone familiar with both books will see the high degree of dependence." (Pg. 141)
He argues, "More specifically with reference to Mary Magdalene, if Jesus were actually married to her, why would there be no reference to it [in the New Testament]? Why is she not singled out as special anywhere in the canonical Gospels? Why in fact, apart from Luke 8:1-3, where she is mentioned by name along with two other named women... is she not mentioned during his ministry at all, let alone as one who stood in a special relationship with Jesus? Why does she figure in none of the stories about Jesus in these Gospels?" (Pg. 154)
This is one of the best critiques of The Da Vinci Code on historical/exegetical grounds---and it is the more interesting for Ehrman's own non-evangelical position.
August 13, 2021
Molti di voi avranno sicuramente letto il romanzo Il Codice Da Vinci (come del resto ho fatto io stessa) e come molti di voi sanno ha fatto grande scalpore soprattutto per le tesi (a mio avviso assurde anche se per alcuni possono avere un certo fascino) riguardanti la religione cristiana.
Per chi non è un storico o un conoscitore profondo della fede cristiana fa fatica a distinguere la realtà dalla finzione nel romanzo per cui ecco una guida per saperne di più.
Questo saggio non è l'unico ma è sicuramente molto interessante perché a scriverlo è stato Ehrman: professore tra i più autorevoli studiosi delle origini del Cristianesimo.
Lo stile è scorrevole anche se per alcuni punti è un po' ripetitivo. Più che un saggio potrei dire che il libro sembra scritto sottoforma di lezione (non a caso lo scrittore è un professore).
Altre cose che lo rendono godibile sono la lunghezza alquanto breve (182 pagine) e il confronto attraverso estratti del romanzo di Dan Brown. Ehrman si è premunito anche di scrivere una breve sinossi del romanzo così che anche chi non ha letto il libro può seguire senza alcun problema.
Il saggio è diviso in 8 capitoli più un'introduzione e un epilogo. I capitoli sono suddivisi in vari paragrafi e alla fine di ognuno di essi c'è un paragrafo intitolato Conclusione una sorta di breve riassunto del capitolo appena letto.
Secondo me il titolo dato a questo saggio è troppo generico invece come dice lo stesso autore si occuperà solo ed esclusivamente delle tesi riguardanti il Cristianesimo.
L'autore utilizza un linguaggio chiaro e semplice senza mai annoiare e questo è uno dei motivi per cui lo consiglio.
Per chi non è un storico o un conoscitore profondo della fede cristiana fa fatica a distinguere la realtà dalla finzione nel romanzo per cui ecco una guida per saperne di più.
Questo saggio non è l'unico ma è sicuramente molto interessante perché a scriverlo è stato Ehrman: professore tra i più autorevoli studiosi delle origini del Cristianesimo.
Lo stile è scorrevole anche se per alcuni punti è un po' ripetitivo. Più che un saggio potrei dire che il libro sembra scritto sottoforma di lezione (non a caso lo scrittore è un professore).
Altre cose che lo rendono godibile sono la lunghezza alquanto breve (182 pagine) e il confronto attraverso estratti del romanzo di Dan Brown. Ehrman si è premunito anche di scrivere una breve sinossi del romanzo così che anche chi non ha letto il libro può seguire senza alcun problema.
Il saggio è diviso in 8 capitoli più un'introduzione e un epilogo. I capitoli sono suddivisi in vari paragrafi e alla fine di ognuno di essi c'è un paragrafo intitolato Conclusione una sorta di breve riassunto del capitolo appena letto.
Secondo me il titolo dato a questo saggio è troppo generico invece come dice lo stesso autore si occuperà solo ed esclusivamente delle tesi riguardanti il Cristianesimo.
L'autore utilizza un linguaggio chiaro e semplice senza mai annoiare e questo è uno dei motivi per cui lo consiglio.
November 3, 2023
Excellent where Ehrman is excellent and disastrous where Ehrman is disastrous.
Ehrman essentially burns Dan Brown’s book “The Da Vinci Code” in front of him from a historical standpoint, and he does it well. Most of Brown’s historical background for his book was either based on half-truths or was outright made up. Ehrman exposes this well, while gently pointing out that he did in fact enjoy Brown’s book as a piece of fictional literature. Ehrman, of course, needed to get a few of his own punches in there and these were whiffs on almost every instance. While Ehrman is quick to point out that there is no reason to think that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, he also wants to say that it was unlikely that Christ was unmarried. Or in the instance where Brown uses the Gospel of Thomas as a resource, Ehrman points out that he uses it wrongly, while simultaneously adding that the Gospel of Thomas is a valid resource for understanding what Christ taught. He springboards from this into comments about Christ’s deity that are just bonkers. This was worth reading when the Da Vinci code was newly released, but the ideas from Brown’s book are no longer relevant, but by that I do not mean that they are unimportant. In many ways, his book(s) are now assumed truth among the masses and that lends itself to a different issue altogether.
Ehrman essentially burns Dan Brown’s book “The Da Vinci Code” in front of him from a historical standpoint, and he does it well. Most of Brown’s historical background for his book was either based on half-truths or was outright made up. Ehrman exposes this well, while gently pointing out that he did in fact enjoy Brown’s book as a piece of fictional literature. Ehrman, of course, needed to get a few of his own punches in there and these were whiffs on almost every instance. While Ehrman is quick to point out that there is no reason to think that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus, he also wants to say that it was unlikely that Christ was unmarried. Or in the instance where Brown uses the Gospel of Thomas as a resource, Ehrman points out that he uses it wrongly, while simultaneously adding that the Gospel of Thomas is a valid resource for understanding what Christ taught. He springboards from this into comments about Christ’s deity that are just bonkers. This was worth reading when the Da Vinci code was newly released, but the ideas from Brown’s book are no longer relevant, but by that I do not mean that they are unimportant. In many ways, his book(s) are now assumed truth among the masses and that lends itself to a different issue altogether.
April 6, 2023
Whilst the Da Vinci Code is an enjoyable story, Ehrman rightly points out the works of fiction that Dan Brown passed as historical fact. Given its impact on how many people viewed the early history of Christianity, it’s important that Ehrman laid out clearly a rebuttal of Brown’s glaring errors.
However, as is often the case with Ehrman, he criticises others for passing their opinions as fact whilst doing the same himself. He often passes as fact his views on biblical authorship, the dating of New Testament writings and other topics that scholars have a range of views on. Hence why I’ve moved it from a 4 to a 3 in my rating
However, as is often the case with Ehrman, he criticises others for passing their opinions as fact whilst doing the same himself. He often passes as fact his views on biblical authorship, the dating of New Testament writings and other topics that scholars have a range of views on. Hence why I’ve moved it from a 4 to a 3 in my rating
July 2, 2024
I read this book because I want to keep fresh in mind facts I've learned from other books by Ehrman. He goes after inaccuracies in the said novel. A few insights: Constantine had no say in what books made up the Canon - that would come later. Also, from day one of Christianity Jesus was considered both human and spiritual (but perhaps for some, not in the same body). To top it off, a 4th century bishop, Epiphanius, wrote a really disgusting tract to discredit the Gnostics. In biblical times, women were considered incomplete humans. Despite what Dan Brown wrote, the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hamadi library are Jewish, not Christian, texts.
April 16, 2025
The author is "agnostic atheist" that tells you everything about him. I really don't think u should be reading anything he writes despite him claiming that he is "historical" scientist later refuting that those two are possible since history cannot be repeatedly tested as its done in science. Basically, the dude is confused. The book is made unnecessary long and since i can't TEST his historical claims based on any repeatedly tested evidence, his conclusions are as nonsensical as he claims Brown's are.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews