Breaking the DaVinci Code by Darrell L. Bock, PH.D.

Print

I would liken Bock’s critique and debunking of Dan Brown’s novel The DaVinci Code as a somewhat meatier, more scholarly rendition of Erwin Lutzer’s The DaVinci Deception. Both plow much of the same ground and both do an excellent job. For those wanting a less technical examination, turn to Lutzer. For those desiring a more detailed look at the Gnostic texts and historical factors, Bock’s your man. Don’t get me wrong, Breaking the DaVinci Code is not a stuffy tome filled with esoteric terms and incomprehensible scholarly pursuits. It is a highly readable, very interesting book of less than two hundred pages. It is also carefully researched by a New Testament seminary professor who has spent much of his life immersed in such literature. Bock is a good man to write this particular treatise.

Bock believes that Brown’s The DaVinci Code actually contains seven codes that form the heart of its conspiracy theses. Bock carefully breaks each of these codes, demonstrating their flaws and pointing the reader to biblical truth. He then provides an eighth code, “The Real Jesus Code,” which paints the true picture of Jesus and the gospel He came to provide.

Given the fact that The DaVinci Code is really a popularized propaganda tool for the Gnostic alternative to the New Testament record, Bock spends considerable time explaining Gnosticism’s theology, sources and historical role. Until recently interest in Gnosticism has been reserved largely for the academics, but Gnosticism has taken on new life since the discovery of The Nag Hammadi Library in 1945. And more recently Gnostic teachings have infiltrated the general population–The DaVinci Code is just the most successful attempt at accomplishing this. It has now become more important to know and understand Gnosticism, for its influence on our society will continue to mount. Bock’s efforts are greatly appreciated toward this end.

Bock closes his book with a handy glossary of terms, words and historical information pertinent to this discussion.

Print