OK, the reason most people end up at these pages in the first place is that they're reading The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and want to find out more about the history. That of course is why I began making these pages in the first place, because I personally wanted to look at the painting and find out more about what was going on. However, as intriguing as the story is, there are many giant holes where he could have done a better job at making the story believable, if he wanted us to buy into it. Read the General Notes on The Da Vinci Code on why people care about these errors.

Only general minor errors are listed here. Errors specific to more meaty topics such as Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion are listed on the pages dedicated to those topics. In fact, many issues which were first brought up on this page as an error developed so much discussion that I had to split the topic out into its own page :) So what do we have left as minor issues ...

The Olympics were held to honor Zeus, not Aphrodite or Venus :) Dan says the rings represented the goddess. But actually the modern Olympic 5-ring symbol was designed in 1913 by Pierre de Coubertin. They represent the "Five major continents". The first 13 Olympics back in Greece were solely foot races.

Brown says the temple "Holy of Holies" in Jerusalem was a massive underground structure. It was really a small structure on top of the mount. Next, he has the Knights Templar staying in "stables". The area they stayed in is *in modern times* misnamed as the Solomon's Stables, but they weren't actual stables, that was a modern mistake we made that is now known about. Also, he says that the Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland contains exact replicas of the famous pillars of Jachin and Boaz. Well, those famous pillars were lost a long, long time ago so nobody knows what they looked like :) So there's no way we can have exact replicas that we built. It'd be like building an exact scale model of Atlantis.

From a Visitor -
Not really on par with other people's noticing of factual errors in The Da Vinci Code, but it is agreed that in the Lion King, the letters spelt out when Simba collapses are SFX, as the dust would have been animated by the special effects department. Also, on a really nitpicking note, the villain in Sleeping Beauty is an evil fairy not "evil witch" as he calls her... I'm sure there's a substantial difference. Well researched site:D

My Response -
Yes, for an author who claims to be supportive of women and bashing the church for their anti-female language over the years, he's pretty fast and loose with the "witch" phrase :) Just to go off tangent here, because I love to explore these sorts of things, Sleeping Beauty was Disney's version of the classic short story "Brier Rose" which the Grimm Brothers collected in Germany. It was a story about a girl reaching puberty in essence, at age 15. On one hand the friendly fairies tried to "keep her a girl" while the evil fairy, Maleficient, tried to "lure her into womanhood too quickly". The girl Brier Rose went for the prick (so to speak) herself out of curiosity. This was a pretty standard symbol of menstruation / intercourse in those fairy stories. The prince gets through the thorns and rescues her from her "childhood" with a ... kiss ...and takes her into womanhood. Of course a lot of that was lost on Disney :) In any case, other websites do mistakenly call her a "witch". But all of the "non family" women involved were supposed to be fairies.

From a Visitor -
I was looking at your mistakes in the Da Vinci Code page and have a quite a few to point out.

1. Amon was NOT the male god of fertility, his name means The Hidden One, and he was the god of mystery. Brown also suggests that Amon's consort was Isis, which is not true for two reasons. Firstly, Isis did not exist until the Macedonians conquored Egypt, and was originally Aset, and she was Osiris' mate. And secondly, because Amon's mate was Amonet, and in later time, Mut.

4. While Sophie and Langdon are in Teabing's home, Brown describes one of the chairs as something from a Byzantine Temple. The Byzantine Empire did not have temples, they were a entirely christian empire and had churches, like the famous Hagia Sophia.

5. Dan Brown claims that Venus was the basis of the sacred feminine, when in fact, Venus had many predicesors, Ishtar and Innana for one.

6. The Holy Grail story is not only based on Mary Magdalene. In the Celtic religon, much before it was touched by the influence of Jesus Christ, had a sacred chalice that was a treasure from the Goddess along with a platter, a spear, and a sword.

My Response -
Great list, thanks!

From a Visitor -
Amongst all the other potty anagrams etc in the Da Vinci code, has anyone else noticed that the author used an anagram of the name of his own real life publisher, Jason Kaufman, to create the name of the hero's publisher (Jonas faukman)?

My Response -
It seems a lot of writers tend to choose names from their own past or lives, sort of a way to immortalize the people they know and either love or hate :)

From a Visitor -
I came across a logical error which is so obvious that I'm almost sure I missed something in the story. But I could not come up with any explanation. In the end (a weak end, in my opinion), Sophie meets her grand mother who still was in loose contact with grand father Jacques Saunière ("they will never give up on some of those rituals..."). Moreover, she makes a remark that implies that she knows precisely where the Holy Grail is hidden -- she does not even need all the multi-encrypted information which lays out a "paper chase" for all those Grail searchers.

As far as I can see, this remark on one of the very last pages of the book questions the entire basis for the story: Why should Jacques Saunière create such a fuss about secretely bequeathing the "sacred ancient secret" to his grand daughter, if he can rest assured that his own wife is well informed and in a safe place? In the opposite to the way the story is laid out in the beginning, it appears that he is not the last man on earth who knows that secret, and the he knows it.

I would be interested in any explanation, but maybe I'd better ask the author himself. Don't bother with taking the time to reply, if the answer is clear to you. In any case, you have a great website and the way you present all those comments and your answers is intriguing. I'd like to read all of this... Do you have a printable version of your DaVinci Code site?

My Response -
I have to agree, and obviously that pyramid construction is both new and controversial. The Louvre is in fact still under construction. Why would they put one of the most sacred relics in the world into a construction site? Given some of the recent well known thefts from art museums, it would have made much more sense for the work to BE in that Scottish chapel vs in a French art museum. If I was a part of that family I'd want it somewhere quiet and where people went to seek answers - not where people tramped by bored while guides pointed at man-made artworks.

It's intriguing, many people have asked me to write a book with all of this information. But the whole point of my site is that I do NOT want to make money or make people give money to me (or to anyone else) for knowledge. I think that content should be free. People visit my site for free, and I provide free links to information on the Bible and other content. Part of what upsets me about this whole book situation is that Dan Brown rehashed information that many other scholars poured significant time and energy into - that he did so in a slipshod manner that did not involve real research (as evidenced by his many glaring errors) and is now making millions because he went around telling everyone "It is all true". Believe me, other books that are much better written on the exact same topic did not sell millions, because their authors did not make that (false) claim. So for me to make money trying to set the record straight would be immoral. I have it all online, and you can read it all for free. And do NOT believe my words. Just look at the situations I've questioned (and the hundreds of writers in to this site have questioned) and then go research it for yourself. Any library will have all of the source material you need - for free.

From a Visitor -
The grandmother did NOT know the location of the Grail when Langdon and Sophie arrived; she only knew that it was no longer at Rosslyn. She figured out where the Grail was located the same way Langdon did, only faster...by reading the poem from the keystone.

"She unrolled the papyrus and read the poem aloud in a deliberate tone...... When she finished, she was still for several seconds until a knowing smile crossed her lips."

It was during those several seconds that she was deciphering her late husband's poetic message - the discovery of which was the premise for the book.

My Response -
I think his point was that she just glanced at that one poem and had the solution :)

From a Visitor -
First, many thanks for your very interesting website! While reading The Da Vinci Code, I've encountered two small mistakes i've not found on your site :

- page 210, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu purchase two train tickets to Lille in the "Gare St Lazare" ; but it's impossible : the trains to Lille only depart from the "Gare du Nord", which is not the same at all.

- page 389, Teabing's plane is supposed to be a "Hawker 731". This bizjet has at least two crew members (Captain & First Officer), but we are only told about "the pilot" on the following of the book.

My Response -
Thanks for the notes! Maybe the second crewmember was hiding in a corner and was never mentioned :)

From a Visitor -
in the book he refers to the ^ (up pointing arrow) symbol as referring to the male gender, the example given being military uniforms. In fact only US uniforms are that way up, and that was to distinguish yours from ours during that little independece fracas we had (no hard feelings), no other reason.

My Response -
To be honest, the chevron is a term coming from architecture referring to the roof, which means its point is normally up. It was used in heraldry since the rather early days of heraldry, and was used for "supporters" or knights. So it was point up then and was used for a loyal follower. It did then become up and down over the years. So Dan Brown would have done better to refer to its heraldric roots in that sense.

Just to add a side note, there is no such thing as a family crest! Coats of arms were assigned to individual people for valor on the field or other reasons. They could then pass that crest down to their children only. So in order to use a coat of arms, you need to genealogically trace your ancestry to the person who earned that coat of arms, not just assume that "he was a Smith so therefore all Smiths in the world can lay claim to that coat of arms".

From a Visitor -
Someone as erudite as Robert is supposed to be should know that there never was a violin maker named Stradivarius. The man's name was Stradivari. The violin is a Stradivarius.

My Response -
Good catch, thanks!