Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everyones Asking

Ive read some of the Amazon reviews of Bocks Breaking the Da Vinci Code and Im shocked. I think they all miss the point entirely. The main point that Darrel Bock makes, (and I happen to completely agree with), is that Dan Brown has a very clear political agenda behind his famous novel The Da Vinci Code. I have no doubt of that. The great irony is that Dan Brown attacks orthodox Christianity for having an agenda, when in reality, it is Dan Brown who is distorting historical fact for a political agenda. Dan Browns theory (if one can call it thus), is utterly meaningless and unprovable unless one thing should happen: and thats if someone discovered the Holy Grail (or Sangreal). There never has been any proof that a Holy Grail exists, or if it ever did, and there isnt even any agreement on what the Holy Grail would be if it did indeed exist. Until that day comes, Dan Browns book is pure speculation at best, or revisionist history at worst. Darrell Bock explains in simple language what happened in the 1st through early 4th centuries and clearly shows where Dan Brown has his facts wrong in several cases. The flimsiest case is made by Dan Brown that the historical Jesus must have been married because he was a Jew. Read Darrell Bocks insightful book and youll agree how weak Browns argument is, and how little biblical research actually went into such claims. I found Browns claim that Constantine the Great was a sun worshipper to be completely unfounded by any knowledge we have of the man. Typically, oponents of Christianity accuse St Paul of deifying the historical Jesus of Nazereth throughout history. Now, Dan Brown claims it happened in the early 4th Century by Constantine as a political ploy, when clearly the letters of St Paul speak of Jesus as a divinity of sorts. So when was Jesus of Nazereth diefied, with St Paul or centuries later with Constantine? Clearly Dan Browns case is weak at best. Maybe Darell Bocks criticism is non-conclusive, but at least he is a scholar who understands Gnosticism and has read and studied the ancient worlds works and its many diverse religious sects, whereas I am doubtful that Dan Brown has. If Darrell Bock makes assumptions then Dan Brown makes preposterous assumptions with no basis on historical or scientific research.

Good read at great price

Anyone who has read Dan Browns novel knows that he is presenting more than just well written fiction. In fact, I believe that The Da Vinci Code may be one of the biggest attacks on modern Christianity ever. But its also one of the weakest. Dan Browns arguments are absurd beyond belief. But because he has sold over 40 million copies, evangelical Christians and even some liberal scholars (i.e. Bart Ehrman) have felt compelled to refute Dan Browns erroneous claims. When I began to look into Dan Browns claims, I went to the nearest Christian bookstore to find scholarly material that refuted his novel. I was shocked to find literally 10 books refuting The Da Vinci Code. Which was I to choose? I had already read Hanegraaffs work and was somewhat disappointed at the lack of depth presented. And some of the other authors didnt seem to have the right credentials to answer Browns claims. It was then that stumbled across Darrell Bocks masterful work, Breaking the Da Vinci Code. He had impeccable credentials as well a lot of experience in writing on these issues. First, Ill start with the good. I enjoyed each and every chapter by Dr. Bock. My favorite chapter dealt with the Gnostic Gospels. I was surprised to find that most of Bocks arguments were historical rather than theological. This was a good thing as someone reading Bocks book might suspect a bias on his part. Not so with this work. Bock examined the Gnostic works in great detail, showing how little they had to do with historic Christianity. Now with the bad. I didnt think that Bock dealt with the truly important issues. While he thoroughly refuted Browns claims on Jesus marriage, the conspiracy at the council of Nicaea, and the canon of Scripture, I dont feel that Bock refuted Brown as well as he could have. What are the important issues? 1. Is the Bible corrupt? 2. Did Christians believe in the deity of Christ before Constantine? While Bock touched on these subjects, he should have written entire chapters dealing with textual critical issues and things of that nature. Perhaps Bock wanted to focus on the main topics of the Da Vinci Code? I do not know. But if that if that is your primary concern; whether or not Jesus was married, then Bocks work is the perfect choice. But if your primary concern is Biblical inerrancy and things of that sort, then look elsewhere. Overall, I enjoyed the historical nature of Breaking the Da Vinci Code and look forward to reading more of his books in the future.

Intended for our entertainment, and never intended to make a point. Everyone knows that entertainment media is devoid of any agenda. Novels, songs, movies, television shows and poems would never use the medium of entertainment to make a point or try and change, much less formulate, public opinion. Everyone knows that....... Hey does anyone know where I can get a copy of Catch 22, Apocalypse Now, The Grapes of Wrath, Bleak House or Bonfire of the Vanities? I want to be entertained.

I rarely review books unless I recommend them. However, Dr. Bocks style of religious paranoia is growing very tiresome, so comment is needed. It is certainly OK to have deeply-held religious beliefs, and Bock is entitled to his. It is also OK to defend those beliefs, and Bock clearly intends to do so. There are many wonderful people in this world who are devout Christians. On the other hand, it is intellectually shoddy to accuse people of pernicious agendas just because they believe differently than you. That is where Bock abuses the credentials of his PhD and contributes to the bad reputation of Texas-style fundamentalism. (Bock is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and past president of the Evangelical Theological Society.) To Bock, Dan Brown had sinister motives for writing The Da Vinci Code: one can spot an agenda expressed through the novels key characters. For some mysterious reason, he also feels a need to go after an unrelated author, Elaine Pagels, because she takes the Nag Hammadi documents seriously by darkly hinting about her, There is an agenda here. The only agenda these people have is a desire to express religious and historical ideas that they find interesting or compelling. Dr. Bock is quite welcome to state where he differs in opinion and why, but it is very unscholarly of him to accuse people he disagrees with of being influenced by evil motives. If you are interested in separating fact from fiction in The Da Vinci Code, a much better book is Bart Ehrmans Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code.

This book is really an essential. It covers everything from the theory of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene, to the Canonization of the Bible, to the Secret Gnostic Gospels. A must read for those who have read the Da Vinci Code

Although this book is easy to read, I was unimpressed by the lack of REAL, factual evidence. The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, and this book tries to poke the many holes in THAT dreadful work of art. But how do you refute a work of fiction by using the same source? What I mean is, the Da Vinci code is basically saying the Bible does not tell the whole story. Ok, fine, but how is Bocks book going to refute Browns work by using the Bible and scriptures as its main source? The Bible is what they are arguing, so you cannot use the source of the problem as the answer. They are like two children saying Did not!, Did to!, and so on. Its just poor research. I want different proof.

I have read a couple of books on the Da Vinci code, as well as the novel (a definite page turner). While the facts are correct in this book, it seems a bit rushed to press and falls short on many issues. In trying to prove Dan Brown wrong, the author commits many of the same logical errors. The Da Vinci Code is held up by a couple of pillars: 1. The Priory of Sion: Bock completely ignores the Priory in his treatise. As this is a central thread throughout Dan Browns book, it is rather strange that a rebuttal author would ignore this material, especially when it can easily be shown that the Priory is the creation of one Pierre Plantard (1993 court testimony, 1956 incorporation documents). 2. The Nag Hammadi library: The Gnostic gospels, which have been elevated to a very high status by some theological scholars, like Crosson, Spong, Pagels and Funk. Bock does a better job here, but does not delve deep enough to present a full rebuttal argument. Although he declares a win over the code, he has really done very little to dispute the Gnostic gospels or their supporters. I agree with Bock that Dan Browns scholarship is lacking. I also agree with Bocks major points on the subject. But, Dan Brown is a novelist, while Bock is writing a critique or an apology (depending on how you view his work). While Bock presents some very good factual material, all of it seems to fall short on truly nailing the coffin shut on the subject and often raises more questions than it answers. Of course, this seems to be the rule with Da Vinci Code critiques. While not perfect itself, I prefer Cracking Da Vincis Code by Garlow and Jones over this work.

In Breaking the Da Vinci Code, New Testament scholar Darrell Bock describes and refutes the codes behind The Da Vinci Code, which could better be understood to be the presuppositions of author Dan Brown, and those who subscribe to his Gnostic view of Christianity. Sadly, in our day and age, very few Christians, much less the general population, have any knowledge of the literature of the Early Church, except perhaps for the New Testament itself. It is because of this general ignorance that so many seem to readily buy into Dan Browns code behind the code. As I read The Da Vinci Code nearly a year ago, I was totally engrossed in the mystery, but as the story progressed, I was increasingly appalled at the history. As an amateur student of Church history, I couldnt help but wish for a single volume I could recommend to help counteract the erroneous views of Christian development that Brown promotes. Breaking the Da Vinci Code is one such volume. While each code could have a scholarly work written about it (and indeed many have been), Bock does a good job of addressing popular misconceptions about Mary Magdalene, whether or not Jesus was married, the Gnostic gospels, the development of the New Testament, and other related issues. It is significant that this book is endorsed by well respected Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian scholars. Personally, as an Orthodox Christian, I found Bocks statements to be, for the most part, thoroughly orthodox (small o), in the sense of C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity (another book I would also heartily recommend). For further reading, I would strongly urge readers to take a look at Ecclesiastical History (also published as Church History), written by Eusebius in the 4th century. As I stated in my Amazon review of this work, it should be required reading for all thinking Christians. Other Early Church writings should be considered, such as The Apostolic Fathers, edited by Jack Sparks; or any of the volumes in Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers set of 38 volumes, edited by Philip Schaff; or many of the volumes in the Ancient Christian Writers series from Paulist Press. I listened to the audio recording of Breaking the Da Vinci Code, read by Chris Fabry, as I followed along in the book. While Fabry has a clear, pleasant and convincing voice for this work, I noticed that his mispronunciation of the occasional word slightly shifted the meaning of the authors intent. Not a big deal, but worthy of note. An advantage of the book over the recording is the inclusion of a selected bibliography and a helpful, simple glossary.

It constantly amazes me how people as educated as Bock can think that all they need to do to refute someone is simply say, So and So is worng because THE BIBLE says . . . etc. etc etc or the alternative So and so is wrong because THE BIBLE does NOT say . . . etc. etc. etc. I give you a few examples. 1. In response to the question about whether or not Jesus was married, as alleged by The Da Vinci Code, Bock simply says the Bible does not mention a wife, therefore, there was no wife. Wow, and it took a scholar to come up with that??! What Bock doesnt really get into, however, is Browns actual remarks that supposedly do indeed prove Jesus was married. 2. Specifically regarding Mary Magdalene possibly being romantically involved with Jesus, Bock appeals to John 20:11-18 and Rom. 16:16. Thats all well and good for Christians who believe the Bible, but exactly what in the world is someone who does not even believe in the Bible supposed to do with these passages?? Heres an idea -- lets actually talk about what Brown says, and his sources, and deal with them historically. This is just a sample of how Bock seems to think he is refuting Dan Browns assertions. But really, Bock is just confirming evangelical Christian teachings within a biblical paradigm. He is not thinking outside the box to consider what non-believers or nominal believers are thinking or feeling, or how they may need to be approached when dealing with The Da Vinci Code. Speaking of the Da Vinci code, perhaps the most glaring, and I do mean glaring, flaw in this book is that Bock does not discuss Da Vincis art!!! My question is: Who at the publishing house let this thing get released with such an embarrassing omission?? Again, we have a prime example of people in a particular religion (in this case, Christians) not going outside their own little world to think beyond what they already know and believe. Bock clearly did no research on this subject, but seems to have simply read The Da Vinci Code through his biblical worldview eyes, then sought to point out where/how Brown contradicts the Bible. Thats great, I suppose, for firm believers. But a more engaging approach would have been to deal with the issues in a broader fashion. Kellmeyers book does the same thing, except even more narrowly focused, by writing not just from the broad category of a Christian, but from a Roman Catholic mindset. I recommend the book by Lunn (secular scholar) or Abanes (another evangelical, but a journalist, and therefore, less blatantly Christian than Bock).