The Dull Vinci Code

Well folks, I know you've been waiting for this! Here is my review of the Da Vinci Code, book and movie. You see my actual ticket stub from Friday night May 19th to prove that I actually saw it.

Let me be up front with you and tell you that I have yet to complete my reading of the book. I am thru chapter 75 or so. I need to tell you that it is labor for me to read this story. It's just not thrilling me. I literally went to the movie hoping it would fuel more interest in the story for me. So, I'll come back to the book when I actually finish reading it - the update on my opinion so far, ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.

Ah, the movie. I'll begin by telling you that director Ron Howard and actor Tom Hanks breathe a little life into the story for me. Keyword: little. Very little. Having said that, I found myself less than on the edge of my seat throughout the film, a couple of times glancing to my watch wondering how much longer until the end. There were a couple of one-liners added in the screenplay that are not in the book that caused me to smile, and mercifully the screenplay cut a few wordy parts of the book into much shorter sequences. But all in all, this is no blockbuster.

As for the theological concerns, book and movie, I saw what I expected to see. In the book Leigh Teabing proclaims "The Bible is the product of man, NOT God". His character lives in that worldview, as I am sure a majority of the world's real citizens do. There are a number of statements about Jesus that do not jive with the historical records we have outside the Bible. For instance, the story asserts that Jesus was never seen as being Divine until the Council of Nicea in the 4th Century. Quoting the book, "Until that day, he was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet." The Bible aside, this assertion flies in the face of all legitimate historical record. Jesus claims of Divinity, and His earliest followers belief in that claim stand soundly testified to in history. Lest we forget, it was His claims of deity that infuriated His opponents. Further, the story's recounting of the Council of Nicea, and more particularly the Roman Emperor Constantine's part is severely flawed against sound historical records. Constantine himself is given credit for 'upgrading Jesus' status' in the book, from mere mortal to Divinity, again, seriously at odds with history.

As for the Jesus/Mary Magdalene/marriage/child theory that is at the heart of the story, this didn't surprise me either. These theories have been around forever. The fact that there is no serious historical work to corroborate the theory is why the theory has never gained popular acceptance - not because the church has fought to cover it up, as the story depicts.

The little observations of Leonardo Da Vinci paintings that are supposed to 'reveal the truth' as the story's foundation, I found to be the most fascinating parts of the story. Looking at the famous Last Supper painting, it does appear that there is a woman present; it does appear that there is something suggested in the way the table is laid out and the people are placed; I'd even go so far as to say it is interesting that a 'chalice' shape appears in the center of the art work. Then I'd say, 'so what?' He was an artist, fascinated with Mary Magdalene, painting a picture!

In closing: I am not drawn into the story as a work of literary art. I wouldn't recommend the book or the movie, not because of any theological concerns, but just because the story doesn't grip me. I realize that's an opinion not shared by millions who've loved the book and the movie, so perhaps you will enjoy it. My dad used to assure me as a child, "Opinions are like rear ends son, everybody's got one!"

As for the theology of it all, what do you think? We can discuss it right here. Click comments and join the conversation.