I'm writing this on the eve of the release of the much-anticipated film adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code. I read Brown's book when it was first released. I enjoyed it, but never considered it great literature. Brown is a competent writer (I know some disagree). But there is no missing the impact his book has had on religionists all over the world. And with the release of the move, the temperature surrounding the controversy continues to rise.

I also harkened back to another novel I'd read not long ago -- Michael Crichton's State of Fear. The author ofJurassic Park and other best-selling novels came to be convinced that global warming was indeed a myth, and set out to prove this through the instrument of fiction. Unlike Brown, however, Crichton's book is filled with footnotes, annotations, charts, all sorts of things he accumulated to support his thesis. I'm hopelessly lost in these kinds of conversations, so I have no idea whether he used the data correctly or not.

Should Brown have more carefully documented his ideas? Yes, it's just a novel, but he does make this claim at the beginning of the book: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." It is here that critics have attacked Brown. I understand those who yell, "It's just a novel!" I've said this myself. But when a novelist makes a factually-provable claim, he should expect others to jump to the challenge. And this they've done in spades.

As I read through this latest book, two things struck me:

Should some of the ideas in Brown's book be provable, it would be less of a problem to a religion like Mormonism, which has never maintained that the canon is closed and that the Bible is inerrant. There's lots of elbow room here.

But if the Church should object to the book too strongly, it will have to explain why many of their early leaders believed some of the things Brown teaches, such as a married Jesus.

It's a delicate balancing act. I was interested in seeing how well the authors handle these tensions.

Here are the subjects specifically addressed:

Suppression of texts within early Christianity
A married Savior?
The search for the Holy Grail
The Story of Mary Magdalene
Leonardo's "The Last Supper"
Women in early Christianity

Each is treated in its own chapter, and the authors do a creditable job of studying the issues and challenging Brown's statements. In each case Brown is quoted (and I found nothing quoted out of context, it's done very fairly) and answered with the authors' understanding from the historical evidence. As you may be able to tell from the page count given above, there is little in the way of wasted prose here. They get right to the point, express their views clearly, and leave it to the reader to decide whether their evidence is convincing.

Certain issues were of special interest to me.

Let's look first at the idea of the teachings of early LDS church leaders. While the authors don't spend a lot of time discussing the idea of Jesus marrying and having children, they do acknowledge that some Church leaders have indeed taught this. And they go so far as to say that a married Jesus wouldn't be such a big problem. But they do insist on following the evidence in any quest for a true history of Jesus Christ. They are ready to toss early Mormon teachings overboard in favor of a correlated, commonly-based doctrinal base. Nothing new here, of course, but a bit more jarring in this case, given the varied and colorful teachings of the early Saints.

Some of the history they present was very helpful, and new to me. Beginning on page 67, embedded in the chapter addressing Mary Magdalene, they explore how the various Marys of the Bible may have been conflated into a skewed picture of Mary Magdalene. Was she really a harlot? Or has the tradition grown around what we know of her, creating a mythic character? I really enjoyed this discussion.

From time to time the authors wander off into what I consider risky territory. Take this comment that ends their discussion of Da Vinci's "The Last Supper," addressing some of Brown's speculations regarding this great work of art:

This situation is reflective of the major flaw in The Da Vinci Code's historical reconstruction throughout most of the book. The novel provides no evidence except speculation of what might have been. Anyone can claim anything about the past when those from the past are not present to be questioned or interviewed. However, such speculation is often an argument from silence. Therefore, historians must be careful to sift the evidence and then provide probable reconstructions that are based on available evidence. Of course, such a secretive history is alluring, and if and when the facts are revealed, the legend may indeed prove to be more exciting than the reality. (p. 86)

I mean no disrespect when I wonder why, in an atmosphere that accepts "testimony" as both necessary and sufficient for belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the authors would insist that a book providing "no evidence" for the claims is to be dismissed on that basis. Yes, the issues are more complex than what I've implied here, but it does, in a strange way, compel the Mormon scholarly community to more actively pursue empirically provable evidence for the historical claims of the Book of Mormon.

And here we get to the heart of the whole Da Vinci Code furor, both in wider Christianity and in Mormonism. Boycotts are being urged, churches are running series debunking the book -- there seems to be a hysteria surrounding the release of this movie. And some of the responses have been equally hysterical. The present volume, however, is a sober and sensible approach for Latter-day Saints.

Some may complain that the writers did not sufficiently address how much of Brown's speculation was actually taught in early Mormonism. As mentioned, they do discuss this, but only briefly. Others may complain that this present volume doesn't provide a sufficient defense to demolish Brown's ideas. But I would say that this whole hullabaloo gives Mormons, and others, an opportunity to really hit the books and study for themselves. This is not the time to sit back and let others do our thinking for us.

What Da Vinci Didn't Know can be a bit uneven in places. The authors can resort to sarcasm, and some of their arguments seem just a bit trite. But overall this book can help the larger Mormon audience to understand the issues and formulate an opinion based upon study and earnest consideration.

-----------------------------------

Jeffrey Needle
May 19, 2006