The Da Vinci Code Brouhaha
Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code can be considered an unripe classic on its own. The book, though
regarded by many who may well be right, to be a smear campaign on the divinity and sanctity of Christ.
Da Vinci Code tells of how a professor was able to unravel an age-long secret of the bloodline of Jesus Christ. This bloodline, supposedly carried by the tabooed Mary Magdalene, is alleged to exist till today in the royal lineage of Paris kings. The Vatican, as well as the extremely pious community of Christian throughout history as always tried to suppress the true part of such ideas by making some of the custodians or guardians of the secret influential and powerful people in the society. Even Leonardo Da Vinci himself enjoyed this priviledge during his time by living at a time in Vatican City. Such goes another historical proof of what we can name to be a bribe suppressing the uncovering of a truth.
Accepted, such a kind of unveiling could crush the Christian world. But much doubt still lurks if the early Christians had not been guilty of quenching early truths. Thanks to the role played by the Roman Catholic Church of bettering the trade of Christendom.
Da Vinci Code though is a book suggesting the truth about the real identities of some people and things; it did not do without some fictional elements- the spice of prose, which some readers or critics misunderstood to be facts. No thinking person would agree that because Mary Magdalene was denied headship of the Church, conferred on her the right to be worshiped by the Knight Templars and other cults. Would an analytical researcher agree Mary Magdalene fled for France immediately Jesus was arrested when it was stated in the Gospels that Mary Magdalene was the first Jesus appeared to after he was risen? Same doubt also stretches to the contested versatility of later writings such as the Gnostic gospels when compared to the like of the Four Gospels.
Such matters of conflict, as those conveyed in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code, falls then not on we men, but the onus rather should be on whether we really know or we do not know what we believe.