Why do we care if this mystery novel got it’s facts right? It’s an incredibly exciting and well written mystery as Ehrman puts it! The problem; Brown asserts that the basis of the entire novel is factual. Ehrman believes that a work as popular as this and with as much influence should indeed have its fact right or not claim to be based on fact. Bart Ehrman, historian and chair of religious studies at UNC, reviews Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code from a historical background, avoiding any theology or philosophical opinions. After reading this novel, my curiosity was piqued. I did my own research, but I wish that this book had been written. It would have saved me hours. Particularly convenient is that Ehrman sums his findings up in the introduction with 10 factual errors found in the book. So if a person is interested in just one topic…it can easily be found without having to wade though the entire book. Not an unpleasant task when it comes to this clear and interesting book.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - TDavid
So what were some of the facts in dispute?
2 - geo
I didn't have to research past the beginning of the book to discover it was based on hooey (the secret papers and society were debunked as a hoax long ago). That's why I've been slamming Brown's book. I'm so happy to find Ehrman's book, which I'll ballyhoo!
3 - Gus Traupmann
After reading three of the guides, I agree that Ehrman's is the best. It is the most scholarly and least biased.
Did any of you see this page where the guy claims to be the current Grand Master of the Priory of Sion?
See:
http://www.necessaryprose.com/thegm.htm
Gus