It has taken quite some time to get to the center of Brown’s theory (a theory, of course, propounded by others long before he came along), but finally we have arrived. On page 249 we read,
“Behold,” Teabing proclaimed, “the greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel. She was the chalice that bore the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. She was the womb that bore the lineage, and the vine from which the sacred fruit sprang forth!”
Of course, this kind of assertion hangs in mid-air, for we have seen that everything that came before this is refuted by history and logic, so we are dealing here with pure fantasy, no matter how matter-of-factly or passionately it may be expressed. No cover-up exists, and Brown has only fabricated the illusion he now propounds. He continues a few pages later,
The royal bloodline of Jesus Christ has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians. (253)
This assertion is followed by a listing of books proclaiming similar theories, but again, while Brown makes the assertion that “historians” have “chronicled” these things, the fact is these are not books by serious historians at all. Once again, this “fiction based on fact” theme recurs in Brown’s work. When he mentions Michael Baigent’s Holy Blood, Holy Grail,, he then introduces this dialogue:
“What was the Church’s reaction to the book?”
“Outrage, of course. But that was to be expected. After all, this was a secret the Vatican had tried to bury in the fourth century. That’s part of what the Crusades were about. Gathering and destroying information. The threat Mary Magdalene posed to the men of the early Church was potentially ruinous. Not only was she the woman to whom Jesus had assigned the task of founding the Church, but she also had physical proof that the Church’s newly proclaimed deity had spawned a mortal bloodline. The Church, in order to defend itself against the Magdalene’s power, perpetuated her image as a whore and buried evidence of Christ’s marriage to her, thereby defusing any potential claims that Christ had a surviving bloodline and was a mortal prophet.” Sophie glanced at Langdon, who nodded. “Sophie, the historical evidence supporting this is substantial.” (254)
Here we have a summary of all of the falsehoods Brown has compiled to this point. First, there was no Vatican in the fourth century. Brown once again blunders on a very basic level. Further, there is no evidence that the Crusades, which themselves were rather complex, and at times, disorganized, efforts, were running about looking for documents about Mary Magdalene. More unfounded conspiracy fodder. The simply disgusting attack upon the deity of Christ–a divine truth documented inside and outside of Scripture long before Brown’s fanciful Constantine theories—is all the more horrific in light of the massive fortune Brown has amassed because of it. But notice as well again the final line. All of those who continue to dismiss this book as mere fiction do so by simply ignoring the repeated assertions of Brown’s text itself. One wonders how much of this emphasis upon the historical nature of these assertions will make it to the screen. I have a feeling it will be very clearly portrayed, for on the very next page we read,
“The point here,” Langdon said, motioning back to the bookshelf, “is that all of these books substantiate the same historical claim.” (255)
How many times does Brown have to repeat himself? We get the message: he is claiming this is based in history. And as we have seen, he’s lying through his teeth. Evidently, the idea is, “repeat falsehood. Repeat it again. Continue to do so, often…on a big screen, if possible. Hopefully, you will be believed.” Sadly, this mechanism may well work in our modern society.
