Taking the Da Vinci Code Apart

0 Comment

These elements are examined below in greater detail to determine if The Da Vinci Code is grounded in historical fact. The novel traces its modus operandi on the famous mural by Leonardo Da Vinci The Last Supper where Jesus is depicted dining with his disciples. The first disciple to the right of Jesus has been claimed by the author as being Mary Magdalene or Jesus’ wife (41). Before proceeding any further it is pertinent to note that Leonardo Da Vinci was an artist, inventor, mathematician, engineer, physiologist and numerous other things but he was not a religious figure by any given means. Instead the exact opposite is true of Leonardo’s life and his association to the church or any other form of organized religion is not highly credible in terms of historical fact (Nicholl). Expecting someone such as Leonardo Da Vinci to be close enough to religious orders to know their secrets which he painted in cryptic forms is rather incredulous. This reveals poor research on the part of the author as does his treatment of Mary of Magdalene. The novel mentions Mary of Magdalene as hailing from the Tribe of Benjamin (59) though there is evidence to the contrary. Magdalene derives itself from the historical town of Magdala which is located in northern Israel. However the Tribe of Benjamin was actually located in the southern reaches of Israel (Olson and Miesel). Given also that Israel has been largely settled for the last two millennia there is no question of the Tribe of Benjamin being nomadic or mobile. Hence there is little doubt that Mary was part of the Benjamin Tribe which the author has used to trace her royal heritage (57). Instead the use of the Tribe of Benjamin for locating Mary of Magdalene’s heritage can be traced directly back to the iconic Holy Blood Holy Grail (Olson and Miesel). However the author denies any connection to the aforementioned book vehemently in interviews. The author has also remarked that a potential political union came into being through the marriage of Jesus and Mary of Magdalene (249) such that there was potential of making a legitimate claim to the throne. It is worth considering why Solomon’s kingship could be considered as carrying any meaning in today’s world to augment a conspiracy theory. Just as King Solomon is irrelevant to today’s politics, society, economics and the like, he was irrelevant to the time when Jesus roamed the streets of Jerusalem for the very same reason – he had been dead for quite a while. Expecting the Catholic Church to create a cover up story to disconnect Jesus’ offspring from the kingship of Solomon is absurd as there were and there are no connections between Jesus and the kingship of Solomon. The author has shown little respect for Arab and religious traditions from the land of Jesus. It was common and still remains common for Arab women to be identified through the names of their near male relatives such as fathers, husbands as well as children or through the names of places where they hail from. This tradition of naming is not limited to any particular region, creed or faith but instead it is part of common Arab culture and tradition. Hence it is common for such naming schemes to be found all over the Arab world whether you are Jew, Christian or Muslim. However when Mary of Magdalene’s name is examined it is apparent that she was not being