Are the assertions that Brown makes about Leonardos art defensible?
Welborn: Not at all, and it’s rather shocking how blatant his mistakes are, on almost every aspect of the artist’s life and work that he attempts to discuss. I have many details in my book, but I think the place to start is with the artist’s name. Brown presents himself as some sort of devotee and expert in art history. But he also consistently refers to the artist in question as “da Vinci,” as if this were his name. It’s not. It’s the indicator of his home town. The man’s name was “Leonardo,” and that is the name by which he is called in any art book you might pick up. Anyone who claims to be an art expert and refers to the artist as “da Vinci” is as credible as a person claiming to be a Church historian who refers to Jesus as “of Nazareth.” Q: Is “The Da Vinci Code” anti-Catholic? Welborn: It is, in this sense: Dan Brown holds Catholicism guilty for supposed crimes that, if he were consistent, for which he should hold all Christianity guilty. After all, it is not only Catholicism tha
