But It’s Just Fiction….(Part I)

Excerpt from an article by J.P. Holding

“Is this not a work of fiction? Why worry about a few misplaced facts?” Why worry, indeed. While waiting in line to purchase The DaVinci Code at the local Borders bookstore, I scanned a primary chapter of concern, having been forewarned by Bob Passantino of its content. A woman behind me spoke up: “That’s a great book!” I looked back at her. “Not really,” I replied shortly. “It’s full of poor scholarship.”

The woman was shocked. “But it’s just fiction,” she said. Curious nevertheless, she asked for an example.

“Well, it has the date of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls wrong,” I told her, and pointed out specifics of the error. If the author cannot get something that elementary and fundamental right, what else is he wrong on? “Interesting,” she said, nodding. Very much so. The seed of doubt is important, as author Brown uses it to entice his prospective readers. One the first things a reader of The DaVinci Code will see, in prefatory material and under a heading in bolded, capital letters, reading “FACT”, is this statement:

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

In terms of documents and rituals, however – and even artwork and architecture -- The DaVinci Code contains few “facts” and what few it does contain require serious qualification. All of this might be excused, except that Brown baptizes such aspects of the book with the brand of FACT, and that he also puts many of these “facts” into the mouth of a character named Teabing who is described as a reputable historian. I rather think if any genuine, academic historian made certain statements attributed to Teabing, he would be promptly demoted to janitorial duties and remanded for training in History 101. Sadly, Brown’s sleight-of-hand under the cloak of fact has tricked others, including the Book Review Editor of the New York Daily News, who commented naively that “his research is impeccable.”

The work is fiction, yes, but it claims to be rooted in fact. Brown himself, it should be added, acknowledged on the television special that he “became a believer” in the theories The DaVinci Code espouses after allegedly trying to disprove them. We should no more let this pass than one would let pass a fictional work rooted in the premise that a particular race was inferior, and that put the claims of this premise into the mouth of someone cast as a trained anthropologist, and prefaced by a statement that, “All descriptions of cultures, biology, sociology, and genetics in this novel are accurate.” Would such a book stay long on the shelves of a Barnes and Noble? I think not. It is only because Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is considered “fair game” that this sort of work is received not with outrage, but with a Ho Hum.

Leaving aside questions of literary deficiencies and inaccuracies concerning other minor areas, our material of concern does not emerge until about halfway through the book, in Chapter 55. The statements that follow are all put in the mouth of our historian Teabing, answering some questions from the two lead characters about the nature and background of their quest. To begin:

…“The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven….The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book.”

Even in this vague summary, a host of problems emerges:

The implied view being addressed – that “the Bible arrived by fax from heaven” or “dropped out of the clouds” – is a tendentious straw man. The Bible was composed by men, yes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is never claimed, however, that this inspiration involved the Spirit taking any kind of unnatural force over the Bible’s authors, much less that it fell from the clouds. Rather it is held that God chose specific instruments from men and that the Spirit guided them.

“Countless translations, etc.” is excessive hyperbole and vague generalization. Without a specific charge of what was translated, added, or revised, it is impossible to respond to this point specifically. Generally however, these considerations may be offered:

Translation issues for the Bible are not different than translation issues for any document, and cause no more difficulty. The statement implies that there is some great confusion over translation that is cause for concern. It is true that there are issues one may discuss in terms of translating the Bible from ancient Hebrew and Greek to any modern language, but this is a natural function of all translation processes, and in no way is this ever thought to detract from offering a “definitive,” reasonable account of what has been written. In fact, the transmission of the ancient texts, the voluminous quality of manuscript copies, the science of textual criticism, and the art of translation ensure that any reputable modern translation of the Bible is an accurate rendition of what was originally said. This subject has been covered so comprehensively and so well by so many scholars that Brown’s misrepresentation of the facts is inexcusable.