Customer Reviews

Da Vinci Code Decoded

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

First, this book isn't neutral (as a reviewer below claims). On page 3, there is this very biased statement that sets the tone for the entire book: "The Church has depended upon the faith of its followers for 2000 years and conveniently for them faith is belief without evidence. Christianity has been unable to provide any convincing proof of much of what wants its followers to believe and for more than the last century has had to defend itself in the face of a variety of scientific discoveries that it wishes would just go away." Not only is this biased, it is also ignorant and/or dishonest. Volumes have been published from the early years of church history to the present day defending the historicity and logic of the Christian faith that have succeeded in convincing millions. Further, many staunch atheists have been convinced by the evidence that Lunn claims is not there. To name a few:
1) Sir William Ramsey, one of the most acclaimed archeologists in history set out to disprove the Bible by exposing the book of Acts as unhistorical. After years of research, the evidence converted him to faith in Christ. He concluded that Luke (the author of Acts and Luke) was an historian of the first order and that the book of Acts is historically accurate to the smallest detail.
2) Simon Greenleaf, the greatest authority on legal evidences in history. He was an unbeliever until a student of his convinced him to examine the evidence. After doing so, he converted to Christianity.
3) Lew Wallace, author of Ben-Hur, set out to debunk the Bible. After all of his extensive research, he became a Christian and wrote his very Christian book.
4) Josh McDowell, a contemporary Christian scholar. Like Ramsey and Wallace, he set out to disprove Christianity. After all of his research, he became a Christian.
These examples do not prove Christianity, but they do expose Lunn's claim as wishful thinking. The evidence available may not convince Lunn and his ilk, but it has convinced some great minds of the past and does so today. Lunn might consider that there are far more Christians than atheists, suggesting that it is proponents of atheism who have been unable to offer 'any convincing proof'.

Lunn's chapter on Constantine merely recycles Brown. Nearly everything here has been debunked in the Da Vinci Code critiques by Abanes, Welborn and others. Constantine did not create a hybrid religion by mixing Christianity, Sol Victus and Mithraism. He did not change the Christian day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (that happened in the book of Acts, in the first century). The New Testament was not "rewritten with a political spin". The four gosples and Paul's letters were considered authoritative by 130 A.D. with the full canon solidifying around 367 A.D. In short, the gospels (and Paul's letters) were 'official' long before Constantine and the canon was finalzed some 40 years AFTER the Council of Nicaea. Again, none of this proves Christianity, only that Lunn is engaging is some very bad (or very dishonest) history.

In the chapter Jesus Christ - the facts and fiction, Lunn offers more bad history, basically trotting out the old claim that Paul's Jesus is not the Jesus of history. For a thorough debunking of this contention, get Gregory Boyd's book Cynic Sage of Son of God? He also smears Paul in this chapter, charging, "Manipulative liar to the last, he [Paul] freely admitted in one of his letters that he was all things to all men: "I am a Greek to the Greek, a Jew to the Jew, a Law-Keeper to the Law-Keeper, and will do whatever I have to do to win." Not only does Lunn misquote Paul (read Paul's actual quote in context : 1 Cor. 9:19-25). Lunn twists Paul's statement entirely out of context. The context makes clear that Paul was merely stating that he accommodated himself to his hosts on matters that did not affect salvation in order to put them at ease. Who is being a manipulative liar here?

In the chapter Was Jesus Married?, Lunn simply repeats and elaborates upon Brown's work. Contrary to Brown and Lunn, Jesus did not have to be married, either by cultural mandate or legally. It was normal to be married, but there were also sects of Jews (the Essenes, including the Qumran culture, and the Elkasites) who were both celibate and respected, Lunn also ignores that John the Baptist was not married.

Finally, there is the Priory of Sion. Lunn regurgitates what Brown and the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail claim, though he adds a caveat at the end of the chapter admitting that 'some believe' the Priory is a hoax. He then concludes by saying that we can never really know, because it's all so murky. Not quite. The Priory is a documented hoax. Evidence uncovered by a French court in 1993 (the Pelat Affair) proved that all documents relating to Pierre Plantard's Priory of Sion, including Dossiers Secrets, are forgeries. Further, more forged documents were discovered in Plantard's home claiming he was the true King of France. Plantard was dismissed by the court as a crank and ordered to cease his subversive activity (check out www.priory-of-sion.com). The fact that Lunn is loathe to concede this is telling.
All in all, Lunn's book largely parrots Brown and Brown's sources, soft-pedals and/or ignores the numerous errors Brown makes in his book, lies about the history of the church and the New Testament, and lies about history in general. This book would be appalling coming from anyone, much less a person with a Masters degree in history (I wonder from what university).

I stress again that all of this is not to say that Christianity is true (though I believe it is), but Lunn falls far short of making a solid case against it, which is really what his book is all about.

I have read Martin Lunn's book, and will say that it is rich in content. It could be a great guidebook for those that wish to know more about what Brown's many plots were about, but lacks any real hard scholarship. He fails to provided his reader with any direct references to Primary, or reputable secondary documentation. While he claims a Masters degree in History, He would get low marks in any freshmen history class, let alone a graduate program. I am not referring to the contents interesting points, nor the informative entertainment. This books failing is in it's lack of proofs provided by Martin to establish a foundation to base his many assumptions. There is no bibliography, nor footnotes to speak of, and the references section provides only secondary sources of questionable scholarship as well. Oh, and I am a historian, and not a religious fanatic with an agenda. Expert, please. Be wary of people that declare they are experts in anything my fellow reader.

I have to admit that i have not read this book. However, seeing as many people do not know this fact, i have to inform you that the Prioty of Sion is NOT an ancient organization. It was formed in 1956 by Pierre Plantart, Philippe de Cherisey and Gerrard de Sede and only consisted of 4-5 members at most. Check it out for yourself: http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id84.html . If you really want to learn what is true and what is not about the Holy Grail - look for a BBC Channel 4 special titled The Real Da Vinci Code which in Canada was aired on History Television. I would trust BBC more than to a band of blockheads who made Unlocking Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons Revealed - yes, i have seen them both - total rubbish. That documentary looks at many issues re Holy Grail stories and largerly debunks them along the way with the help of REAL historians with PhDs in Archaeology, Templar history, Folklore, Medieaval history, Cathar History and Art - Dr. Thomas Asbridge, Dr. Juliette Wood, Dr. Helen Nicholson, Jonathan Sumption QC, Robert Cooper, Charles Nicholl, Prof. Elaine Pagels, etc. And they do talk to authors of holy blood holy grail, but those guys are out primarily to defend their own books, even though at times they have a few good points.

What a joke! This book was obviously rushed into print to capitalize on the Dan Brown phenomenon, but it is nothing more than a recap of the research presented by Brown - much of which is questionable.

Martin Lunn claims to be an historian, but he falls into the same traps as many of the "historians" on which Dan Brown relied for his own research, making wild leaps of logic and mortaring historical gaps with assumption and preconception.

For Brown, this was fine; he was writing fiction. But Lumm claims to be telling the "truth" - a truth no one can possibly know after two centuries of obfuscation. So what Lumm ACTUALLY does is recount Dan Brown's research without all of that confusing "plot" and none of those annoying "characters". If you want to know the contents of Martin Lunn's book, read Dan Brown and at least be entertained while you do it.

I love how the book has sparked such debate. On one hand we have die-hard Christians and on another we have those who doubt Christianity.

And then we have people who yell at his book for being "biased," yet clearly reveal their own.

<<Lunn might consider that there are far more Christians than atheists, suggesting that it is proponents of atheism who have been unable to offer 'any convincing proof'.>>

If that's your idea of proof, I guess in trials the burden should be on the suspect? So instead of making the prosecutor prove his case, the accused should stand before a jury and try to convince them he's NOT guilty?

That logic is in line with that of the Inquisition. Lets just burn everyone if they can't prove that something didn't happen!

Your "evidence" of some atheists turning Christian is hardly compelling. For every one that converted, there's one that researched it and didn't change his mind. Do you want a list of well-known atheist researchers who mainted their positions?

And to criticize atheists because there are LESS is truly pathetic. Christianity makes it clear that parents are to teach their children the ways of God. Children usually develop their religious belief system from their parents. So you're going to tell me that the large number of Christians means there are less atheists because there was no proof of Christianity being false? You're really sad, then. It has more to do with families raising their ilk to believe as they do. I'd really like to see the religious percentages if all parents simply said "research the religions and choose with your heart." I bet it'd be a lot different than it is now.

Stop criticizing a book on YOUR own bias. You are not objective and are thus not any more fit to critique this book than those you claim are "biased." Hypocrisy runs ramapant in the minds of some Christians.

I think that the Bible contains flaws and injustices, maybe even more than most religious books, but the real injustice is the people who read it and spend their life terrorizing others because of it. I'm not fond of the Bible, but I feel sorry for it, because a book alone does not create injustice. What creates injustice is those who read it and live their life based on it, and only it. Christianity is not inherently malicious.. it's those who distort it that create the malice. I am an agnostic who has not yet decided on the existence of any God, and perhaps never will.

But one thing that IS clear to me is that neither a Christian, nor someone who had deep hatred for Christianity (sorry, your average atheist does not harbor such hatred) has any objectivity in this matter.

This book, like any other, expresses a viewpoint. It expresses a viewpoint as Mr. "I'm not biased but this book is evil" does. I recommend everyone check to see how he rated the OTHER Da Vinci Code analyses. Bet you anything he rated the pro-Christian ones higher.

Trots out all the same half-truths and tenuous connections that Dan Brown's DaVinci Code does. Nothing about Brown's novel is really elucidated, just more 'details' are given to pad the fiction. I enjoyed Brown's novel, knowing full well that the so-called facts behind the drama were mostly not facts.

Some of the trivia in both books are indeed historical fact, but the connections between the facts -- the conspiracy parts -- is completely flimsy.

I agree 100% with another Amazon reader who asked where are the citations? Where are the primary sources? This is not history at all, just more mumbo jumbo. I can dig mumbo jumbo in fiction, hey I'm a big Star Trek fan. But disguised as history it's not enjoyable at all.

There are a lot of choices of "Da Vinci Code" guides right now to buy. Some take a secular approach like this one does. What I think distinguishes "Da Vinci Code Decoded" is provocative manner it parallels the events of the Dan Brown novel with enlightening historical events. It's one of the best companion guides I have read, and I have many of them.

I've taken the time to read the guides published by religious zealots who are just looking to trash Dan Brown and any critical eye that is shed upon their beliefs. Fortunately, in America, everyone has a right to choose what he or she believes. And it would be great if more people were tolerant of others' beliefs and viewpoints, particularly when they disagree with their own.

If you are interested in a non-dogmatic, critical view on the history and religion you may (or may not) be familiar with, this book is for you.

Short on facts and long on credulous supposition, this book is a celebration of specious reasoning that would make Lyndon Larouche blush. I bought it on impulse after finishing the Da Vinci Code (a book I greatly enjoyed), and regretted it after one chapter. The "facts" in this book are strictly for the gullible, copied directly out of the mouths of hoaxsters like Pierre Plantard - the "Priory of Sion" is apparently the least secret organization that ever existed, given the willingness of its supposed grandmaster to fork over information about it. Save your 10 dollars, or read a couple of chapters before you buy, so you can find out what you're getting into.

I loved Dan Brown's book and wanted to know more so I picked this up because it was the only one of the Davinci Code related books that was under $10 and had lots of photos. What a value! It hits everything I was curious about with lots of detail: the history of the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar (loved the fact that Friday 13th comes from the execution of the Templars), Mary Magdalene and Jesus' relationship and their possible bloodline, where the Holy Grail might be (Valencia in SPain), lots of detail on all the buildings and paintings in the novel, what it's really like to be in Opus Dei, etc etc.

Buy it - you won't be disappointed - and it's amazingly cheap considering all the photos.

The ultra-Christian 'Da Vinci Code' debunkers have been giving this book several 1 star ratings... Is that because they are seriously reviewing this book or is it because they are pushing an agenda?

This is the only book I've found that offers a fair and reasonable assesment of the facts in Brown's novel without a Christian debunking bias.