First of all Ehrman D. Bart, author of Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code does an amazing job arguing about each main point in the Dan Brown's book, The Da Vinci Code. Ehrman has listed ten "factual Errors in The Da Vinci Code"; they are all interesting, but what struck me the most was this: "Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the crucifixion? That's a good one (p.255)." I will show Ehrman's view of both the strengths and weakness of Brown's assertions simple is that. Historically, Brown's evidence is ambiguous and does not appear factual; thus, his book is built on false evidence.
Ehrman knew that Dan's book was fictional. Ehrman states "as for many others, it was real page-turner". He did not like it that Brown's characters were making historical claims about Jesus, Mary, and the Gospels. The fiction was building on a historical foundation that the reader was to accept as factual, not fiction.
(xiii) He loved The Da Vinci Code Dan Brown's book as a murder mystery. Although Ehram enjoyed the book, he has opposed to historically relevance.
Let me just begin by asking this question. According to Brown's book, Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the crucifixion? Ehrman says that Brown was using information from this best selling book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which he does not admit as the primary source. What Brown's tells in his book that Mary was a follower; she was wife of Jesus and also lover and according to his book, she was pregnant at the time of crucifixion. After the crucifixion she went to Gaul, and she gave birth to a daughter named Sarah. "The companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene." "As any Armaic scholar will tell you, the word companion in those days, literally means spouse (p.246)." Teabing...