Rating: 
Summary: Only part of the story
Review: I have been reading a bunch of the critiques of Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code and until this one I have been extremely disappointed. I found this book to do what I expected, it gave what seemed like an objective analysis of some topics discussed in Dan Brown's book. The author's arguments were short and more persuasive than many other books on the same topic. I think this book is a must read after the Da Vinci Code as it gives the other side of the argument without being too preachy. In fact, the book even looks at the Gnostic Gospels in an honest way. There are times when the evidence given could go either way and although the author draws his own conclusions, he gives you enough so that you know more than before you read and can draw your own conclusions. As a quick example, when looking at the Gospel of Philip, the author concludes that although it talks about Jesus kissing Mary frequently, he concludes that it was probably a platonic kissing. But since the author does go over the text with you, you are free to conclude differently. In the end, I feel the author does a pretty good job of discussing many of the controversial topics in the Da Vinci Code and does it more objectively than the other books out there. It is short and a pretty good read.
Rating: 
Summary: Good - not too preachy
Review: I have been reading a bunch of the critiques of Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code and until this one I have been extremely disappointed. I found this book to do what I expected, it gave what seemed like an objective analysis of some topics discussed in Dan Brown's book. The author's arguments were short and more persuasive than many other books on the same topic. I think this book is a must read after the Da Vinci Code as it gives the other side of the argument without being too preachy. In fact, the book even looks at the Gnostic Gospels in an honest way. There are times when the evidence given could go either way and although the author draws his own conclusions, he gives you enough so that you know more than before you read and can draw your own conclusions. As a quick example, when looking at the Gospel of Philip, the author concludes that although it talks about Jesus kissing Mary frequently, he concludes that it was probably a platonic kissing. But since the author does go over the text with you, you are free to conclude differently. In the end, I feel the author does a pretty good job of discussing many of the controversial topics in the Da Vinci Code and does it more objectively than the other books out there. It is short and a pretty good read.
Rating:
Summary: Good facts, but falls short
Review: I have read a couple of books on the Da Vinci code, as well as the novel (a definite page turner). While the facts are correct in this book, it seems a bit rushed to press and falls short on many issues. In trying to prove Dan Brown wrong, the author commits many of the same logical errors. The Da Vinci Code is held up by a couple of pillars: 1. The Priory of Sion: Bock completely ignores the Priory in his treatise. As this is a central thread throughout Dan Brown's book, it is rather strange that a rebuttal author would ignore this material, especially when it can easily be shown that the Priory is the creation of one Pierre Plantard (1993 court testimony, 1956 incorporation documents). 2. The Nag Hammadi library: The Gnostic gospels, which have been elevated to a very high status by some theological scholars, like Crosson, Spong, Pagels and Funk. Bock does a better job here, but does not delve deep enough to present a full rebuttal argument. Although he declares a win over the code, he has really done very little to dispute the Gnostic gospels or their supporters. I agree with Bock that Dan Brown's scholarship is lacking. I also agree with Bock's major points on the subject. But, Dan Brown is a novelist, while Bock is writing a critique or an apology (depending on how you view his work). While Bock presents some very good factual material, all of it seems to fall short on truly nailing the coffin shut on the subject and often raises more questions than it answers. Of course, this seems to be the rule with Da Vinci Code critiques. While not perfect itself, I prefer "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" by Garlow and Jones over this work.
Rating: 
Summary: Breaking the code.
Review: I regret buying this book, it is like reading an elementary school book. At no point did I feel as though I learned anything
new. Save your money, if this makes it to paperback it will be a
miracle. A fringe book riding the success of another author's work.
Rating:
Summary: A dissapointment...very shallow
Review: I'm a conservative Christian and a student of early church history. I read the Da Vinci Code. As entertainment, I found it puerile (see my review); as history, I found it mostly laughable. That said, Darrell Bock's book is a surprisingly weak and shallow attempt at refutation (I hesitate even to use the word refutation, so feckless is this effort). First, Bock ignores some of the more obvious historical untruths in Dan Brown's book, such as the claim that Constantine's conversion to Christianity was at best a deathbed decision, if it occurred at all. Second, his reasoning is often amazing shallow. I found in most instances that he simply introduces his position, cites minimal evidence in support of it, and then pronounces the case closed, in his favor of course. At times, it's hard to tell whether he's agreeing or disputing some of the writers he cites in defending his positions. Talk about vacillating! This is shoddy work, and hardly that of a scholar. If you're looking for a lucid and logically constructed refutation of The DaVinci Code, look elsewhere, 'cuz this sure ain't it!
Rating: 
Summary: People Hear What They Want to Hear
Review: I've read some of the Amazon reviews of Bock's "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" and I'm shocked. I think they all miss the point entirely. The main point that Darrel Bock makes, (and I happen to completely agree with), is that Dan Brown has a very clear political agenda behind his famous novel "The Da Vinci Code". I have no doubt of that. The great irony is that Dan Brown attacks orthodox Christianity for having an agenda, when in reality, it is Dan Brown who is distorting historical fact for a political agenda. Dan Brown's "theory" (if one can call it thus), is utterly meaningless and unprovable unless one thing should happen: and that's if someone discovered the Holy Grail (or Sangreal). There never has been any proof that a Holy Grail exists, or if it ever did, and there isn't even any agreement on what the Holy Grail would be if it did indeed exist. Until that day comes, Dan Brown's book is pure speculation at best, or revisionist history at worst. Darrell Bock explains in simple language what happened in the 1st through early 4th centuries and clearly shows where Dan Brown has his "facts" wrong in several cases. The flimsiest case is made by Dan Brown that the historical Jesus must have been married because he was "a Jew". Read Darrell Bock's insightful book and you'll agree how weak Brown's argument is, and how little biblical research actually went into such claims. I found Brown's claim that Constantine the Great was a sun worshipper to be completely unfounded by any knowledge we have of the man. Typically, oponents of Christianity accuse St Paul of deifying the "historical" Jesus of Nazereth throughout history. Now, Dan Brown claims it happened in the early 4th Century by Constantine as a political ploy, when clearly the letters of St Paul speak of Jesus as a divinity of sorts. So when was Jesus of Nazereth diefied, with St Paul or centuries later with Constantine? Clearly Dan Brown's case is weak at best. Maybe Darell Bock's criticism is non-conclusive, but at least he is a scholar who understands Gnosticism and has read and studied the ancient world's works and its many diverse religious sects, whereas I am doubtful that Dan Brown has. If Darrell Bock makes assumptions then Dan Brown makes preposterous assumptions with no basis on historical or scientific research.
Rating:
Summary: People Hear What They Want to Hear
Review: I've read some of the Amazon reviews of Bock's "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" and I'm shocked. I think they all miss the point entirely. The main point that Darrel Bock makes, (and I happen to completely agree with), is that Dan Brown has a very clear political agenda behind his famous novel "The Da Vinci Code". I have no doubt of that. The great irony is that Dan Brown attacks orthodox Christianity for having an agenda, when in reality, it is Dan Brown who is distorting historical fact for a political agenda. Dan Brown's "theory" (if one can call it thus), is utterly meaningless and unprovable unless one thing should happen: and that's if someone discovered the Holy Grail (or Sangreal). There never has been any proof that a Holy Grail exists, or if it ever did, and there isn't even any agreement on what the Holy Grail would be if it did indeed exist. Until that day comes, Dan Brown's book is pure speculation at best, or revisionist history at worst. Darrell Bock explains in simple language what happened in the 1st through early 4th centuries and clearly shows where Dan Brown has his "facts" wrong in several cases. The flimsiest case is made by Dan Brown that the historical Jesus must have been married because he was "a Jew". Read Darrell Bock's insightful book and you'll agree how weak Brown's argument is, and how little biblical research actually went into such claims. I found Brown's claim that Constantine the Great was a sun worshipper to be completely unfounded by any knowledge we have of the man. Typically, oponents of Christianity accuse St Paul of deifying the "historical" Jesus of Nazereth throughout history. Now, Dan Brown claims it happened in the early 4th Century by Constantine as a political ploy, when clearly the letters of St Paul speak of Jesus as a divinity of sorts. So when was Jesus of Nazereth diefied, with St Paul or centuries later with Constantine? Clearly Dan Brown's case is weak at best. Maybe Darell Bock's criticism is non-conclusive, but at least he is a scholar who understands Gnosticism and has read and studied the ancient world's works and its many diverse religious sects, whereas I am doubtful that Dan Brown has. If Darrell Bock makes assumptions then Dan Brown makes preposterous assumptions with no basis on historical or scientific research.
Rating:
Summary: The problem with this book..
Review: Is that the title is misleading. Several of the questions that "everyone is asking" are not even addressed in this book. The art issues are virtually ignored...Rosslyn Chapel... In addition, the perspective is distinctly evangelical, so, for example, in regard to issues of the "spiritual feminine," Bock, presumably in order not to anger his evangelical audience (and CBA booksellers who are touchy about such things) misses the chance to drill Brown's deliberate ignoring of the place of the Virgin Mary in Christian history, devotion and spirituality.
Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly . . . Inadequate
Review: It constantly amazes me how people as educated as Bock can think that all they need to do to refute someone is simply say, "So and So is worng because THE BIBLE says . . . etc. etc etc" or the alternative "So and so is wrong because THE BIBLE does NOT say . . . etc. etc. etc." I give you a few examples. 1. In response to the question about whether or not Jesus was married, as alleged by The Da Vinci Code, Bock simply says the Bible does not mention a wife, therefore, there was no wife. Wow, and it took a scholar to come up with that??! What Bock doesn't really get into, however, is Brown's actual remarks that supposedly do indeed prove Jesus was married. 2. Specifically regarding Mary Magdalene possibly being romantically involved with Jesus, Bock appeals to John 20:11-18 and Rom. 16:16. That's all well and good for Christians who believe the Bible, but exactly what in the world is someone who does not even believe in the Bible supposed to do with these passages?? Here's an idea -- lets actually talk about what Brown says, and his sources, and deal with them historically. This is just a sample of how Bock seems to think he is refuting Dan Brown's assertions. But really, Bock is just confirming evangelical Christian teachings within a biblical paradigm. He is not thinking "outside the box" to consider what non-believers or nominal believers are thinking or feeling, or how they may need to be approached when dealing with The Da Vinci Code. Speaking of the "Da Vinci" code, perhaps the most glaring, and I do mean glaring, flaw in this book is that Bock does not discuss Da Vinci's art!!! My question is: Who at the publishing house let this thing get released with such an embarrassing omission?? Again, we have a prime example of people in a particular religion (in this case, Christians) not going outside their own little world to think beyond what they already know and believe. Bock clearly did no research on this subject, but seems to have simply read The Da Vinci Code through his biblical worldview eyes, then sought to point out where/how Brown contradicts the Bible. That's great, I suppose, for firm believers. But a more engaging approach would have been to deal with the issues in a broader fashion. Kellmeyer's book does the same thing, except even more narrowly focused, by writing not just from the broad category of a Christian, but from a Roman Catholic mindset. I recommend the book by Lunn (secular scholar) or Abanes (another evangelical, but a journalist, and therefore, less blatantly "Christian" than Bock).
Rating:
Summary: Exposes the emperor
Review: It's amazing to me how The Da Vinci Code has swept across America to confuse so many people. Apparently Dan Brown thinks that his information supersedes all of the historical research that clearly denies his incredible theories. Thanks to the media, his out-there theories have somehow become quasi-factual. In Breaking the Code, Bock--a New Testament theologian--definitively exposes Dan Brown for what he really is: naked with nothing to cover up his backside. There are so many readers, though, who are so ignorant on accurate ancient history and the truth that they are becoming confused about the Bible and whether or not Christianity is true. My advice is to pick up Bock's book and catch yourself up with the facts. Then you will be able to see what The Da Vinci Code is all about: a fictional work with no resemblance to truth.
| 
