Customer Reviews for

Cracking the Da Vinci Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Facts Behind Dan Brown's Bestselling Novel

Average Rating 3.5
( 14 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 2 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Anonymous

    Posted September 9, 2004

    Gullibility Destroys Credibility

    Cox sets out to give us 'the facts' behind Don Brown's Da Vinci Code. However, his gullibility and historical inaccuracies frequently get the better of him. Typical is the assertion that 'Solomon' derives from 'Sol' (Sun) and 'Amun' (Egyptian Sun god), thus casting doubt on the real existence of the man at all, making him only 'a symbolic reference and wordplay.' (p. 147). 'Sol' is Latin, while 'Amun' is Egyptian. Yet the name Solomon appears in Hebrew texts long before the Hebrews first had contact with the Romans, after the Maccabean Revolt (ca. 150BC). Furthermore, in Hebrew, the final -N is not even present; it was added to meet Greek language requirements (ca. 270BC). In Hebrew, he is King Sh'lomo. So it would be hard to find a more specious derivation than that offered by Cox, or by the 'many modern commentators' to whom he refers. The book is riddled with inaccuracies about Gnosticism, as well as historically false statements about the First Council of Nicaea (325). The books of the New Testament were NOT chosen by the Council. A general consensus had developed since early in the Second Century; but it was not until well after I Nicaea that we have 'finalized' lists. The motivation for finalizing them is far different than Brown or Cox allege. But the Four Gospels in particular were 'settled' before 110AD. There was no further dispute about them, except for Marcion, who tried to rewrite Luke for his own purposes. He did not succeed. Cox does not check his facts carefully enough to claim that he gives us a factual Guide to Brown's fiction. Cox's treatment of Pierre Plantard is hardly sufficient disclosure of the man's chicanery. Plantard is critical to Brown's phoney 'case.'

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 19, 2005

    You're Better Off With Historic Archives

    This 'book' (glossary) seems to be built on faith more than fact. The problem most harsh critics have with The Da Vinci Code is that it contradicts their beliefs. Worse, with the facts it used, it makes them question their beliefs. Which frightens them. Those with blind faith who read The Da Vinci Code look to Cracking the Da Vinci Code for comfort, telling themselves that it will all be all right, they're not wrong, they were always right. I think fact speaks volumes while faith has trouble scrounging up a paragraph. This 'book' proves it.

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing all of 2 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1