For cripes sake. The Davinci Code is not intended to present anything as fact, or to present the theory as credible IRL. It’s all just a premise for a novel. I don’t see why people are falling all over themselves to “debunk” a work of fiction that presents itself as fiction.
There are all kinds of novels which propose unorthodox, or even outright looney premises for historical figures and events. There is ample precedent even for doing so with Christianity. Philip Jose Farmer wrote a novel called Jesus On Mars which proposes that Jesus was an alien from outer space. Does that mean Farmer really believes that or that he needs to be “debunked” or that it’s not ok to enjoy the book as entertainment? Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer and Anthony Burgess have all written fictional takes on Jesus. Christopher Moore wrote a very funny and interesting novel called Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal which imagines all kinds of farcical things regarding Jesus and makes some goofy assertions about history but no one is rushing out to “debunk” it.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail is fair game because it presents itself as journalism. (I’m embarrassed to say that I actually bought that book many years ago as well as a sequel whose title escapes me at the moment a couple of years later. I bought them for their entertainment value as well as part of a vain hope for any stray insights or genuinely new ideas) but the DC just presents itself as a novel. I believe that Dan Brown has also written a novel about the Illuminati. He likes conspiracies and thinks they make good fiction.
None of this is intended to defend Dan Brown as a novelist, btw. I found DC to be quite bad for reasons other than the premise (my wife calls Dan Brown “Umberto Eco for stupid people”) but all the outrage about about a fictional take on Christianity is just a little bit silly, IMO.
“Gabriel Knight 3: Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned” and one game that was Templar themed whose title escapes my mind at this moment featured the same “Jesus faked his death and/or knocked up Mary Magdaline, and the Templars guarded their decendants” theory as part of the story line.
Oh, and there was that game where you controlled Jesus and had to jump over the rolling crosses while climbing up a hill to reach Mary who had been kidnapped by a giant gorilla. No, wait, that was Donkey Kong…
This will probably be my last post to this thread, which I now regret starting. I am NOT defending Brown’s book and did not expect all this vitriol for suggesting ANOTHER book that may debunk The DaVinci Code, and explains the origins of his theories. The editor of “Secrets of the Code,” Dan Burstein, brings together excerpts from books and various documents by scholars (“scholar: a learned person; a specialist in a given branch of knowledge…”), some of which were used by Brown. Many of these scholars support the idea that Mary Magdalene was the “apostle of apostles,” and had an intimate relationship with Jesus, and that the Roman Catholic church, among others, wanted to diminish women’s roles in organized Christianity. Whether Mary M. and Jesus were married or not is something they can’t fully support, but of course there is speculation based on the customs of the times. As I said before, Burstein’s book (NOT Brown’s!) attempts to separate fact from fiction. Despite your snotty comments, I find investigations into ancient religious rites, the history of Christianity, and women’s roles from Biblical to present times to be, yes, fascinating. If you don’t care to learn more about these subjects, fine; that is no reason to ridicule me or others who have a desire to learn more.
Well firstly, in his foreword Brown claims that all the documents and rituals are indeed “accurate”, which they aren’t. Secondly, a surprising number of people believe him, including two or three friends who recommended the novel to me.
Sycorax (enjoying being in that tree? ), I’m sorry your thread got diverted. I think the book you mention sounds very interesting. I have read various other books that deal with some of these issues, written long before Dan Brown wrote his novel. Maybe some people figure that a book that only deals with the dubious presentation of history in one novel isn’t a particularly good jumping-off point for such studies. But it’s a fascinating subject, whether it’s rubbish or not. If you’re interested, try the two books I mentioned earlier (neither is very good), as well as The Gnostic Gospels, and Jesus: the Evidence.
jjimm: thank you for reminding others that this thread got off into a debate about Brown’s book and not about the book to which I refer. By the way, I must point out that it was not I who was imprisoned in the pine tree; I used my powers to imprison Ariel in the tree, and Prospero released him.
I am blue-eyed but often green-eyed, depending on my moods. (I am a not a “hag.”) Now I must return to my incantations and spells in the hopes of imprisoning the barbarians residing here who have insulted me in this discussion of things about which they profess to know but know not.
Pretty much every single item presented as fact in Brown’s book is nonsense.
Therefore, saying that the book raises interesting questions about early Christianity is about the same as saying that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion raises interesting questions about Judaism, or that I Dream of Jeannie is a thoughtful examination of how NASA really works.
Indeed, some of its ideas (especially about Catholicism) come across like insidious propaganda, and could be used to engender hatred in the same kind of way as the afore-mentioned Protocols.
If you want to enjoy the book on the level of fiction, please do so. However, I don’t see how this is possible, as Brown’s prose is eye-gougingly horrible (especially for a Shakespeare fan!)
Eh, in the OP’s defense, the original computer game of Civilization awakened a love of history in me, even though the historical development of the game wasn’t what one would call “accurate” - especially when I was launching starships by 10 BC.
Regardless, the original impulse for a person wanting to learn more about a subject is nowhere near as important as the fact that a person wants to learn more about a subject. Imho, of course.
Jeez, this is getting tiresome. Lambchops, have you read any of my previous posts? How many times do I have to say it: I am NOT promoting Brown’s book or saying his ideas are “facts.” I am suggesting that those who were intrigued by it might be interested in Burstein’s book which is a compilation of excerpts from scholarly works. We are NOT dealing in “facts” here, but educated suppositions and speculations about Mary M. and Jesus, some of which are based on historical documents and scholarly research. Brown’s book is a novel and therefore I am not presuming that the ideas presented are “facts.” It does raise some interesting questions that I thought were worth investigating, and Burstein’s book is an attempt to debunk or support Brown’s theories. Perhaps the title of Bursteins’ book is misleading and implies some kind of “proof” for Brown’s theories – not so. Burstein’s book attempts to provide objective documentation for or against Brown’s theories. There is no attempt on my part or that of Burstein to engender “hatred” towards Catholicism, but rather to document the history of Christianity and attempts of various religions to eliminate women from having any significant role in the establishment of and contemporary practice of Christianity.
I understand what you’re saying, Sycorax. I understand that you’re not endorsing Brown’s book as fact.
But my point is that it is ridiculously out of the realm of fact. If you mean that you read it and think, “You know, early Christian history would be interesting”, then maybe it’s done something for you. But saying that it raises interesting questions is like saying the TimeCube guy raises serious questions about time and space.
It’s a pile of crap which doesn’t deserve lengthy introspection.
It’s not as if Burstein’s book is the only one to have jumped on the Da Vinci Code bandwaggon. There is an ever-growing slew of such books. Publishers will soon be running out of suitably punning titles.
Some of them, such as Martin Lunn’s Da Vinci Code Decoded and Simon Cox’s Cracking the Da Vinci Code, also think that the various theories used by Brown are valid. But others, including Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel’s The Da Vinci Hoax, Richard Abanes’s The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, James L. Garlow and Peter Jones’s Cracking Da Vinci’s Code, Steve Kellmeyer’s Fact and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Amy Welborn’s De-Coding Da Vinci and Ben Withrington’s The Gospel Code, think that they’re all just bullshit. They too contain ‘educated suppositions and speculations about Mary M. and Jesus, some of which are based on historical documents and scholarly research’. Take your pick.
By all means read Burstein, but there is really no excuse not to read the other side of the argument as well. Bear in mind that most of those ‘scholars’ anthologised by Burstein represent an extreme minority view, even among those writers critical of mainstream ecclesiastical history.
Good God, no kidding. Every bookstore seems to have an entire section devoted just to the Knights Templar now. And it’s not historical tomes, either - the titles are things like, The Secret History of the Knights Templar, or, How the Knights Templar and the Masons Control the World, etc.
I thoroughly recommend Abanes’ The Truth About the DaVinci Code. It’s a thorough point-by-point refutation of the factual errors. While it is written from a Christian viewpoint, it’s much heavier on the factual inaccuracies than on the theological aberrations. Plus, it’s very short & pithy. Not a comprehensive tome the size of the actual DVC.
From what I’ve read about this book on the SDMB, everything in Illuminatus! is done better. But the whole Jesus thing doesn’t play into it. Wilson does devote a couple of chapters to the Knights Templar and the Priory of Sion in the Cosmic Trigger books.
Wow, are you guys ever negative. I’m sure it’s not the greatest literary achievement ever, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. And it does raise some questions that any curious person would want to know the answer to. The DaVinci Code refers to real works of art, real people, and real organizations. This isn’t about Gandalf the wizard casting spells; it’s not completely made up out of whole-cloth. And a lot of people just don’t happen to be experts on the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and might happen to be curious as to which elements of the novel are real and which are made up. What on Earth is wrong with that? It seems pretty natural that when someone describes a known painting, and points out elements of the painting that supposedly represent something, one would be curious enough to look at that painting and see if those elements really are there, or if he’s just making it up. One can realize that it’s fiction, yet still be curious as to how many elements of the novel are based on real things. You folks need to relax a little.
Sycorax, it seems like you have yet to learn a lesson I think every Doper goes through. I know I had a hard time with it, but listen:
The OP doesn’t own the thread.
It’s sorta like when smart kids go to college and discover that there really are smarter people out there. It’s a shock. Likewise, when you compose and post a new thread, you put it out there for everyone to comment on - this is a discussion board. And a lot of the time, people will disagree with you. Vehemently. If you want to argue with what is said, that’s fine, but whining because the thread didn’t go the way you wanted it to is just being a poor sport. Nobody has insulted you, in talking about the book. You are not your post.
Besides which, a mod is clearly following and replying to this thread. If the discussion had become a train wreck that would be a different matter, and surely CK would call it and probably lock the thread, so it’s no use getting your hackles up and saying people are missing the point of the thread when all they’re doing is voicing dissenting opinion on the topic at hand.
Anyway, how did you expect to open a discussion about a book on the validity of Brown’s theories without discussing the validity of Brown’s theories?
), I’m sorry your thread got diverted. I think the book you mention sounds very interesting. I have read various other books that deal with some of these issues, written long before Dan Brown wrote his novel. Maybe some people figure that a book that only deals with the dubious presentation of history in one novel isn’t a particularly good jumping-off point for such studies. But it’s a fascinating subject, whether it’s rubbish or not. If you’re interested, try the two books I mentioned earlier (neither is very good), as well as The Gnostic Gospels, and Jesus: the Evidence.