Thoughts on the Da Vinci Code

Remove all ads!

Due to controversial nature of this I posted this topic here rather than in Book Talk.

Although the Da Vinci Code is a fictional work it seems to me that Dan Brown considers at least some of his book to be based on fact. Much of the story undermines many of the beliefs taught in the christian and in particular the Catholic faith.
IMO there are as quite a few holes or jumps in his logic. But then again there were as many in some of things I was taught about religion as a child. But there are some things I read that seem to ring true, especially about the church's stance on women.
I was wondering what other peoples thoughts are on the contents of this book - do you think there are elements of truth - if so which parts? or is it purely sensationalist cr*p written in an attempt make a buck.

 

I have not read it, but most people that I know that have, liked it. As for myself its just fiction, so its not of interest to me.

As long as people know its fiction, there is no harm in it.

 

I haven't read it yet but I plan to. There's actually a book that was written to refute the Da Vinci Code.

 

I have read it, and liked it, which is especially odd for me as I typically don't read fictional works.

What should be noted is that while the work is fiction, many of the organizations (most notably Opus Dei) and much of the research concerning the sacred feminine and how it applies to the early days of Christianity, are based in fact. Opus Dei is as real as you and I are, and a great deal of research has been done supporting the sacred feminine.

What you are correct about is that while Brown's evidence in support of this theory is compelling, it stops well short of it being fact. There is just too much supposition and conjecture used to have anyone seriously consider that all of this has to be true. Conjecture and supposition aside though, he does make a compelling case, and while I'm open to the possibility that some parts of his views put forth may be true, I remain by and large unconvinced.

Take it for what it is - a fun read, but ultimately a work a fiction - and therefore a story, not by any means a historical account. My sole complain about the book is that the first half of the book moves rather slowly. They are in the Lourve WAY TOO LONG.

 

I have yet to read this book, but my feeling is that if Brown wanted to write seriously about the possibility that there are blood descendents of Christ, he should have done so. Instead, he wrote a fictional novel that was quite successful. There's nothing wrong with that, but I see it as crass commercialism of the worst sort that people are trying to pass off that the work is true or contains more facts than it does.

 

I'm on the same lines with Lord Keldin here. It's dangerous to mix facts with fiction and especially in this book many are confused of what exactly is fact and what is fiction. Anyway I have intended to read the book but I haven't found the time yet. I have a LOT of reading to do for studying and I can't really bother myself with anything that does not have something to do with political science.

 

There is also the page before the story begins. IMO thats just way too sensational. He is misleading people and quite a few will take that FACT page to mean that everything in the book is absolutely true.
There is some truth and some fiction in the book. And it is damn hard to determine what is what.

 

I can help a little here. Constantine, the Emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, was in fact a Pagan who was only baptized on his deathbed, very likely involuntarily, as Brown suggests. The Council of Nicea, called by Constantine to settle various church problems, and especially the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ, did indeed vote for divinity by a very close margin: a majority of 4 in a council of 300 bishops. The fact that the pagan Emperor favored the divinity option for political reasons may have carried some weight. (It is also a fact, not mentioned by Brown, that the early church was Unitarian. No theologian suggested the idea of a Trinity prior to 195 AD.)

The Sacred Feminine: True. Jehovah did indeed at an early period have a feminine consort, or consorts, who later disappeared from Judaiism. This is well established in many works on folklore and mythology. Robert Graves' "The White Goddess" is a good example.

Brown's statement that Jewish males, in Jesus's time, were expected to marry and procreate, is true, but not conclusive. The Essene sect, for example, practiced celibacy, and Jesus certainly had some familiarity with them, whether he was or wasn't actually a member. The question of Jesus actually having a bloodline, or of his marrying Mary Magdalene, is, so far as I know, a matter of mythology, not of fact.

Brown's assertions about the church suppressing early gospels at variance with the church's later positions are almost certainly true.

The Templars certainly did exist, and certainly were suppressed by the church, and it would seem that Brown's statements about their continued existence, and his list of Priors is also correct. This does not make their beliefs true.

 

How much percent of this religion teached today is actually based on facts that happened 2000 years ago? Probably no one can say this with absolute truth right? That would mean that Brown is doing the same thing as the church right now only he makes much more money.

It could very well be true, if he believes in his side, it's not that different in believing nowadays religion. Both could be right, both could be wrong.

 

Come on Apeman. I saw a program dealing with the Vatican's working on Discovery recently. There is no way you can convince me that Brown gets anything close to that amount of money.

 

@Cernak: Some clarifications here just because my historical funnybone is on fire. Although his father Constantius was pagen(worshipped the sun), Constantine took to his mother's religion after the battle of Milvian Bridge(312) where he dreamed of a symbol, basically a hybrid + and P meanigng Christ(or similar), and had his soldiers deck themselves in it. They defeated Maxentius, his competition, and in 313, he and the other emperor, Licenius, signed the Edict of Milan, an obscure document allowing religious tolderance. In power, he tended to listen to the advice of his bishops, Christian bishops. He regarded himself as a sort of 13th apostle, and although he probably didnt really understand christianity, he was willing to listen. When Arius started to preach the oneness of chirst (divine not human), C consulted his bishops, but they were split. He called them all to Nicaea where he determined against the arians(thanks to the prodding of Horasius) and the Nicaian creed was drafted stating the multi-aspect of Christ. Arianism was decreed a heresy, but it had already spead to many barbarian tribes. Anyway, C held off baptism until his deathbed because he was concerned for his immortal soul what with all the political intregue and all. He had, however, fallen out with Horasius(banished) and he leaned more towards arianism, being baptised in c330 by an Arian priest. His son, in turn, adopted Arianism.

To expand a little: The Knights Templars were created as a mans of holding the holy-land for the Christian 'reclaimers'. They were a mix of milatant and monk, and were thus very devoit, and very resistant to pain. Philip the Fair targeted them during the rule of Pope Clement V, who was in Avignon and essentially a puppet. He saw in them money and land and thus had his Nogaret and his men gather 'evidence' to implicate them as such things as devil worshiping and homosexuals. Philip had them all arrested and to try to prove his claim, tortured. None, however, cracked but they were wiped out. The pope had the order disbanded and all, unless Brown's speculation has some truth in it, were lost.

Anyway, id heard that the Vatican was getting a little short on funds, what with all the massive lawsuits and all.

@Apeman: I have to agree with you about the lack of any possible consistancy between modern teachings and teachings of old. The bible serves as our major source of hard evidence (yes the bible isnt just full of religious mumbo-jumbo, it contains accurate histories), and yet one has to wonder about it. Sure the purists saw it hasnt changed via power of the holy spirit, but im much more cynical, and i even wonder about the pick and choosing of its very books. Anywhoo, Brown managed to stumble on an area of great vagueness. Its something the religious dont like to put much discussion into (what is is!) so its open to question by all of the rest of us. By thinking up some possibilities that fill in the vagueness (i think Browns work is a load of garbage... that IS entertaining...) Brown tapped the holy grail of story writting and deserves the money that comes to him.

As to the reaction to the book by the Catholic Church, i think they were stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they refused to acknowledge this book, stupid people would have replaced their bibles with it (as its a bit less dry). Yet, by contemning it, many think that there is truth to at least some of what Brown suggests and that the CC is just trying to hide it. Whether it is hiding it.. well, lets just say id give a lot to be able to browes through the Vaticans deep dark libraries and archives of undisclosed secrets

 

I think Dan Brown is a genius for courting controversy in what is otherwise a fairly ordinary thriller. Fantastic way to make more money for your book. Of course, most of what he writes about must surely be a load of rubbish so he should never have claimed its authenticity at the start of the book, mostly because even it was true, it would be impossible to prove.

 

Constantine was baptised on his deathbed as tradition at the time was that baptism cleansed away all sin; therefore, if you got baptised just before your death, you died sinless. Constantine was the one who made Christianity the Roman national religion. Admittedly, it's likely he didn't understand it, but it's not likely he would have gone against 300 years of Roman tradition and popular opinion if he didn't believe it.

The apologist Justin Martyr mentions the idea of the Trinity in his works (c. 148). The idea took a while to form as it is not referred to specifically anywhere in the Bible, although the concept of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are there (just not often mentioned together).

 

The only true fact in this story is that whatever happened 2000 years ago in Judaia is, and most probably will remain, unknown to us. That is, because even the gospels we read or supposed we have, are filtered by the churches (all of them) to make them fit to the message they want to deliver. Even worse there are some gospels which are not allowed to come out.
But the possibillity that Christ was indeed married, i have heard it from other sources also. And in fact there were writers who implied or said it straightforward in their books and they were casted out of the church. Kazantzakis was one of them. In his book "Christ recrucified" or something like that in English, was condemned by the Greek church because he wrote what Christ might be thinking on the cross (he was thinking of the other path he could choose, marry Maria and live happily ever after)

 

This is "The last temptation of Christ". A movie based on this book was released by Martin Skortzeze under the same title in 1985.

As far as Brown is concerned, his books are just ordinary thrillers, where he adds elements from varius conspiracy theories, which exist for many years. Just read "Holy blood, holy grail" by Michael Baigent,Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. What happened is that Church bit the bait and, as everybody knows, every kind of publicity is good.

 

Celesialraven: The conversion of Constantine at the Battle of Milvian Bridge is pure myth. The ONLY source for this story is Eusebius, a historian whose opinions were always at the service of the Catholic church, and one who is not respected for his accuracy. Other contemporary historians tell different stories. (Zosimus maliciously says he converted only after murdering his eldest son.) The precise date of the conversion of Constantine is unknown, apart from his deathbed baptism. As emperor, he waffled, supporting now one side, now the other, although generally favoring Christianity. (See Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. XX.)

The Templars: This is more uncertain. It's been asserted that Brown's list of Priors of Sion is correct. If there were Priors, there were presumably followers; i.e., Templars, whether or not their beliefs accorded with Brown's depiction of them in his book. But is Brown's very specific list correct, or true?

Elm: Justin Martyr may have mentioned the Trinity, but he was no Trinitarian, which is why much of his writing was suppressed. Although sources for the Trinity may be found in the Bible, the main source for this idea is the Greek philosopher Plato, entering into the New Testament through the Gospel of John, with its assertion of the Logos. (Again, see Gibbon, Ch. XXI.) Justin Martyr considered the Gospel of John to be spurious, and opposed its inclusion in the New Testament. He also opposed the inclusion of Revelations. He admired the Jews as well, they being the brothers of Jesus, while others in the church were beginning to curse them. It's unfortunate that his views did not prevail.

 

Cernak: Justin Martyr is considered to be a church father. His work influenced many people, including Irenaeus.
Although Eusebius was very pro-church, his work (especially the records of the martyrs) is considered accurate. When have you ever seen an unbiased historian anyway?

 

Not sure who's asserted this but as far as I am aware, the idea of the Priors of Sion was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a couple of French artists. I'm fairly sure someone got around to carbon dating the supposed list of the leaders and found it to be modern.

I have not read the book, but a BBC documentary debunked just about every part to it. The contentious issues being the picture of the Last Supper, where one of the disciples does look distinctly feminine and the role that Mary Magdeline actually played. She was not a prostitute - there is evidence that this was altered by one of the popes in 11th/12th??? century. However, I think it unlikely that she was romantically linked with Jesus and there is a distinct lack of evidence. More interesting are items that can be garnered from the Nag Hammadi, the so called "Lost Books of the Bible" A fair amount of evidence to indicate these were removed from the bible when it was organised into Canon scripture as they contained information the church wanted suppressed. This includes the concept that Mary was a disciple, possibly the major disciple, of Jesus. I can easily believe that in a male dominated church this was unacceptable and quietly edited out. Women still do not have equal rights in the church today, something I still don't see how the Christian church, and predominantly the catholic church, justifies.

 

@Cernak:

Can you cite a few more of these works, please? Your suggestion of a Jewish belief in God having a feminine consort doesn't line up with what I've learned, and I'd like to look into where you're getting this idea from.

If what you're referring to is the idea of Shechinah, that's something rather different than a "consort":

From here

 

Read Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco instead; much, much better book...