Entertaining, grossly inaccurate, inflammatory. Review on The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown

Simply as a page-turner, this book is fairly effective. Most readers agree that it is engrossing and will keep your attention to the end. However, I am completely amazed that so many are taking this author's premises seriously. To those who are so inclined, I challenge you to do the research for yourself and see just how accurate, or inaccurate, this book really is.

Brown quotes the old saying that the victor gets to write the history; apparently, the novelist is supposed to have the same prerogative. This book sounds as if it's been exhaustively researched, but it is entirely without historical basis. In fact, in many places Brown's claims are in direct opposition to historical fact.

Symbology: Brown writes elaborate meanings for many symbols. Where did he get this information? I can't find any support for his explanation of the pentacle, for example, even from pagan sources! The rest of his symbology is just as problematic.

Leonardo da Vinci: Brown's ''facts'' about Leonardo are based on rumor and speculation. Where he does use history, he usually gets it wrong. I suggest you check out Bruce Boucher's article in the NY Times (8/3/03), ''Does 'The Da Vinci Code' Crack Leonardo?'' He asks the question, ''How much does this murder mystery have to do with the real Leonardo? The short answer is not much, and the author's grasp of the historical Leonardo is shaky.'' He says there is ''more sangria than sangreal'' here.

Secret societies: Here again, his ''research'' consists of speculation and myth. For another view, take a look at ''The Priory of Sion Hoax'' by Robert Richardson.

History of Christianity: Here his work is absolutely appalling. Brown seeks to entirely rewrite history to fit his plot. Christianity existed for almost 300 years before Constantine came to power. The beliefs of the early church are very well-documented. To claim that Constantine was responsible for the church worshipping Christ as God is historically laughable. Whether you believe Jesus Christ is God or not, it is historically incontrovertible that the early church believed just that.

Here again, the author often reverses known historical facts. The NT gospels, which Brown depicts as later revisions, were actually written in the 1st century---three of them fairly soon after the death of Christ. The Nag Hammadi gospels, which Brown refers to as the ''earlier gospels,'' were written hundreds of years later and obviously lack the historical integrity of the NT gospels. Check them out for yourself.

Brown claims that the Nicene Council voted on the deity of Christ. They actually voted to determine whether Arius was a heretic. Arius was teaching that Christ was God, but not in the same way that the Father was God. Out of over 300 bishops, only 2 supported Arius. Brown refers to this as a ''relatively close vote.''

As I read this book, I began to compile a list of the author's blatant inaccuracies. It quickly became dizzying. Practically every historical claim either contains inaccuracies or is outright false. Dan Brown is either completely ignorant regarding the history of which he writes, or he is counting on the ignorance of his readers. I find it difficult to believe that his research was really this shoddy. To produce even a work of fiction that uses such blatantly inaccurate claims of historical fact is arrogant and dishonest. That this book is being hailed the way it is should be a concern to all who love and seek truth