The Priory of Sion

In James Garlow's book "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" he says, "Brown relies on a 1982 publication "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", for his information on the Priory of Sion. The authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" relied on documents provided them by Pierre Pantard, who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1956 called the Priory of Sion... throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Plantard created a series of documents 'proving' the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdelene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include (surprise!) Pierre Plantard... in 1993... Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme."

In "The Da Vinci Code" Dan Brown claims that the description of the Priory of Sion is accurate. He claims that it was founded in 1099 AD in Jerusalem, but it has been exposed that Pierre Plantard planted secret documents in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. Dan Brown has backed of on his claim, and on his website he restates that the facts described on his fact page merely "exist". The documents are real, but they're phony. This is a crucial item that undermines the credbility of Dan Brown and his claims. Nothing in this book, not even the "fact" page is true. It is truly a fiction book, and it is based on fictional history. That is how this book should be received.

Problems with the Gnostic Gospels

Dan Brown, in the Da Vinci Code, uses references from the Gnostic gospels as an historical resource. However, some of his theories don't even gibe with what those books teach. Even if it did the problem with the Gnostic gospels is that they were written long after the New Testament Gospels, and contain much information inconsistent with eyewitnesses to the events in Yeshua's life. Why must they be reconciled with the New Testament Gospels?

As A. M. Hunter, author of "Bible and Gospel" published in 1969, puts it:

1. The earliest Christians were very detail oriented in preserving the traditions of the Messiah's words and life.
2. The Gospel writers were very close to the eyewitnesses and pursued the facts as they related to Yeshua.
3. There are many indications that these authors were honest in their reporting.
4. The composite image of Yeshua is consistent across all four Gospels.

So we know the New Testament Gospels are a strong source of accurate information. Anything inconsistent with them must be examined closely to find why there is a difference. In the case of the Gnostic gospels, they are less reliable because of their distance from the eyewitnesses, their inconsistent diversity of facts, and the relative unreliability of the authors.

Dan Brown's Historical Objectivity

Is Dan Brown's claim that the descriptions of the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel are accurate, true? Well, he has backed off a bit on his website to say that they merely exist, but the book can't be changed at this point. The problem is that he failed to maintain objectivity about his historical claims, and let his fictional characters follow a biased interpretation of history. This commits the error he claims the church has made throughout history. This error is referred to as relativistic hypotheses. It suffers from self-contradiction, logical fallacy, and inconsistency.

Personal bias distorts the interpretation of facts. So how can we avoid that mistake? You must find historical evidence, which is usually testimonies of eyewitnesses, written documents as close to event as possible, and physical evidence from archaeological finds. Assemble the evidence, and examine the possible alternative conclusions, setting your own personal beliefs aside for the moment. There is primary evidence and secondary evidence. Primary holds greater weight. Always check authenticity, and use external criticism to check it. Also use internal criticism to analyze the docment's reliability, or to use the scientific dating methods for verification. In the end, all the pieces of the puzzle need to be assembled, and a conclusion made based on the most likely conclusion.

Many historians that have tested biblical history, following this standard, have produced results that support the Bible's account of history. Those conclusions have never been proven wrong, not even once. Can Dan Brown's claims stand up to that scrutiny?

Looking to History

If there is one thing good about the Da Vinci Code, it has brought to light the need to recognize the difference between the truth and fiction. While it is enough to simply have faith, it is more difficult when you have intellectual barriers to understanding certain concerns with it. One way to overcome that is to use Historiography to validate your faith. This simply means doing some research and finding objective facts that answer your questions. This is the work of historians. Dan Brown has attempted this with a novel, but failed miserably on objectivity with facts. Messianic believers can be guilty of the same.

If you truly believe the scriptures are reliable truth, then historical evidence can only verify what is in scripture. Unfortunately, we can't be 100% objective, there is some subjectivity involved in every source, but the historical event itself is objective and multiple sources from various positions of subjectivity is good verification of facts. It isn't perfect, so you can't necessarily prove history beyond a shadow of a doubt - especially biblical history. There may be proof of certain things, but not all facts can be proven. There are unexpected chance events outside the ordinary that cast doubt on facts. However, probability plays a role in determining what most likely is true.

The Da Vinci Code is far from meeting the standards of historiography. That should make it's conclusions suspect. However, attempting to verify the book's "facts" can lead you down a path of finding what the truth really is. I think if you followed the previous posts here on the Da Vinci Code, you will see there is a lot to know about history that validates that Yeshua is the Messiah.

Yeshua's Miracles

The idea that the miracles couldn't have happened because they violate the laws of nature is faulty logic. The laws of nature are simply explanations of how things usually happen. Scientific research has still not proven that miracles can happen, but it also has not disproven them.

In the case of Yeshua's resurrection, Paul supports the event with eyewitnesses and historical testimony in 1 Cor. 15:1-20. There are also many strong historical reasons to believe that Yeshua was resurrected. He died by crucifixion, the disciples testify to literal appearances afterwards, and the disciples lives were transformed after those appearances. If the Gospels are reliable historical documents, and it testifies to these facts, it is extremely likely that it happened.

What The Templars Have To Say

See this review of the Da Vinci Code book, by a man who affiliates himself with the group on the Rosslyn Templars website.

Reliability of the New Testament

Gary Habermas in his book "The Historical Jesus", he makes his case for the reliability of the New Testament books.

1. The New Testament has better manuscript evidence than any other ancient book with over 5000 manuscripts compared to less than 20 for the majority of classical works. They are dated close to the original writings, and none of them is missing.
2. Each Gospel was written by an eyewitness, or with firsthand testimony.
3. The Gospels measure up well by historical standards used in historiography, even without eyewitnesses.
4. The picture of the Gospels is virtually the same in all four books.
5. The Gospels and Acts show a specific interest in reporting historical facts, not mythology.
6. Radical criticisms of the New Testament are frequently rejected by contemporary historians, because they fail to be convincing on many points of using historiography standards.
7. Older studies that try to discern Hellenistic influences are outdated.
8. Attempts to date the Gospels later into the second century are disproven by many facts.
9. The Gospels and Acts were recognized as inspired books almost immediately after they were written. Clement of Rome refers to them as the words of Jesus in AD 95, Ignatius and Polycarp do this as well in AD 115, as many others have during the time.
10. Paul's epistles were also recognized as inspired scripture almost immediately by Peter in 2 Peter 3:15,16 and by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.