Cite, please? I’m sure you’ll have no problem producing at least one female bishop. Oh, and that there was any deliberate attempt to cover anything up. I’d absolutely love to see evidence of any of that.
I can’t speak for the theological aspects of the book, but I can tell you that the pre-Christian religion and the pre-400 CE history of The DaVinci Code made me actually yell at it. It was like he read one book written by a ‘witch’ and based all his ‘facts’ on that.
Not that I didn’t think that the book was well written, or that it said the most rediculous thing about early religions, but I have seen more then one verse giving female desiples equal footing with males. From the King James translation anitated at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/27.html
Matthew 27
27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Matthew says that the women who followed Jesus to his crucifixion watched from “afar off.” But John (19:25) says that they “stood by the cross.”
27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
Please note that this is the very same chapter that has a conflict over what the last words of that good Jewish boy gone bad were:
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?.” “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” “It is finished.”
Mt.27:46
“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Lk.23:46
“And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
Jn.19:30
“When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
Again, I don’t know enough about Jesus and his followers to say whether or not there were female disciples. But I do feel fairly confident in stating: a) there was no widespread cover-up and b) there were no female “leaders of the early churches”.
And I’m really not sure what you meant by all those quotes - are you saying that the translation is unclear?
If you look at Christianity, historically, it’s taken a fairly dim view of sexual activity. From Paul’s teachings that virginity is preferable to marriage, to the “virgin martyrs”…those women who were willing to be martyred to keep their virginity, to Augustine’s teachings about original sin, to celibacy for monks, and then, in the West, for secular priests, to the idea of the eternal virginity of Mary, up to modern preaching against premarital sex, abstinence education, and so on. Those ideas are in Christianity and have been for a while.
So, the suggestion that Jesus was sexually active is offensive to a lot of Christians.
I’m a total Trinitarian-Nicene Christian, and while a lot of C"tians are offended by a married sexually-active Jesus, I’m not. I just don’t believe He was married (and thus, definitely not sexual) because there is no indication in the Bible or history or legend or even heretical movements that he was.
What offends me about TDVC & many HOLY BLOOD proponents is the denigration of Jesus as Lord, God, Atoning Sacrifice & Risen Savior, and recasting him as New-Age Gnostic teacher & Dynastic Founder. An Eastern Orthodox critique also notes the implicit racism- who is carrying on Jesus’s legacy in this theory but a mystical society of European aristocrats who are destined to rule the world.
He’s not the only one, by any means. Before The Da Vinci Code, I was repeatedly appalled by the enduring popularity of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which was written by journalists and passed off as an historically accurate set of claims. This work is the single greatest contributor to nonsense about early Christian history and the holy grail. I don’t think bigger nonsense has been published on the topic. The basis for such execrable claims are the “Secret Dossiers”, which are mentioned in Dan Brown’s book and point to the Priory of Sion; they actually do exist, the only problem is they are a hoax.
There is so much wrong with Code that one doesn’t even know where to start debunking it. What’s even sadder is that Michael Chrichton seems to have followed Brown’s example, since his new book State of Fear is chock-full of obtuse, ignorant claims about climate change that have more to do with politics than they do with knowledge. Study the way Brown’s and Chrichton’s characters talk when engaging in clumsy historical/scientific exposition, and if it weren’t for the subject matter, you couldn’t tell the two apart. Even the various fallacies they employ to propagate falsehoods are extremely similar, with the fallacy of authority and non sequiturs topping the list, at my estimate.
It’s funny when fictional experts in a field talk about their field with almost no real knowledge of it. Then it all becomes tragic when you look around you and notice that a surprising number of people are actually taking these false claims seriously.
For those seriously interested in gripping yarns, viable scholarship in fiction, and secret societies, Brown ripped off virtually all the main elements in his bestseller from Umberto Eco’s Focault’s Pendulum (which is ALL about secret societies and even takes place largely in a museum) and The Name of The Rose (which is an excellent and well-researched whodunit).
This is what I find amazing. I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code well enough, although it’s certainly not great. Dan Brown can’t create realistic, consistent characters to save his life, his dialog is ridiculous, but the structure of the plot I found to be a page-turner, even if the details used to flesh it out were a bit, shall we say, far-fetched.
In the end, it’s no better or worse than the rest of its genre: Its a crap, pulp murder mystery. Venture to the Mystery section of your local B&N, you’ll find a million others just like it, some better, some certainly worse. I have heard criticism that all his books are more or less the same. In that field, that’s regarded as an asset. Worked for Agatha Christie.
When writing such a book, it always helps to up the stakes as much as possible, which he has done. It helps lend a sinister edge to it if you include some real-world, shadowy element that the reader may have half-heard about, such as Opus Dei.
It also helps to have a trademark, something that, were the reader to encounter a coverless copy with no author info, they could tell was one of yours (“A is for Alibi”, “The Cat Who Walked Through Walls”, etc.). Dan Brown’s trademark is half-assed semiotics and eternal worldwide Catholic conspiracies. There’s no reason to elevate him to the level of art expert or bible scholar just because that’s the sort of thing he likes to write about.
Sure, maybe he has a personal agenda (or at least a collection of personal obsessions), and maybe the success of this book has encouraged him to be more vocal about it, but in the end, he just used all those elements to try and write an exciting book that would sell. His sales figures bear out the fact of his success in that endeavor. People just plain like the book, even though it’s not exactly great literature. Like that’s something new?
And if the side effect is that a lot of people’s heads are knocked on their sides by some of the ideas presented therein to the extent that they are actually inspired to question or challenge notions they had never bothered themselves to question before, more power to him, I say.
Exactly. The book is fiction, and takes a lot of liberties with history, but it does serve the very valuable function of causing people to question their assumptions about the Bible and about Christianity in general. I can give one concrete example. A friend of mine, after reading this book, decided she wanted to know more about the origins of the Bible. I referred her to the excellent Straight Dope Staff Report on that subject.
So whatever bad things you may say about this book, it has set people on a path toward seeking more knowledge about the underpinnings of their faith.
And maybe that’s what really has some religious leaders worried.
So much information has been circulating for so long, of (I daresay) so much higher quality, it is distressing in itself that Brown’s works have served as the biggest catalyst for this process in recent memory. Of all the writings that could have stimulated critical thought, it had to be The DaVinci Code? It’s like saying “L. Ron Hubbard got me thinking hard about psychiatry.” Sure, people are questioning things that should be challenged, but the answers they’re likely getting are equally disturbing as their prior misconceptions.
Why question what motivates people to learn? Take the teaching opportunities where you find them, and be grateful to Dan Brown for sparking interest in the subject.
Actually, the Prior of Sion is, or was, a real organization. But everything beyond that is hazy. From the website of Dr. Steven Mizrach, Adjunct Lecturer at Florida International University, Department of Sociology/Anthropology, http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/poseur3.html:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory_of_sion:
The mystery deepens, as mysteries tend to do. 
Fnord.
The problem is that people aren’t learning. They’re assuming The DaVinci Code is fact. I’ve heard that the Louvre is having trouble with tourists who insist that a man was murdered in the museum.
I have heard an arguement made. The Jesus Seminars exist. Many scholars and preast hear about them, but the common person does not. So how does it matter at all?
Well the fact is that a large number of people have told me this indicates that "the common people have heard about it, since the common people include you and me. Ofcourse, any concept, (the catholic curch is a buncha liars, for example) is liable to be misunderstood, but hopefully, this interest and amount of publicity will lead people towards my situation, intellectual atheism, with an interest in the past.
You mean some people aren’t learning. Others are. Nearly all are made more curious by what they read in The Da Vinci Code. I prefer that situation to the status quo before the book.
Aaaaaaaaargh!!!
I find these threads frustrating, because everyone seems to want to bash Dan Brown, but nobody ever seems to agree on exactly what they’re bashing him for.
I’m not sure that you folks are all that far apart or that you are really at odds wih each other.
The question of the OP was “Why is The DaVinci Code prompting responses from scholarly critics?”
AmericanMaid’s answer seems to address that issue without calling for a ban on the book. spoke- and Scott_ would seem to be correct that the book has performed a service by prompting some people to explore history more deeply. This, of course, does not negate the need to point out the historical errors (and plot points that are legitimate in fiction but which should not be confused with historical fact).
.
Well, that is why we’ve let this sit in Great Debates rather than in Cafe Society. Bring out your facts (with citations, of course) and you can establish the ::: basso profundo ::: Truth ::: /basso profundo ::: and we’ll all profit.
Ohh, I like profit! I am sure that everyone has there own reason, but personaly, I am an athseist, raised in a house hold that knows that they were religious, and “knew” that of course, I am, but had such a loose conception of religion that it was impossible to argue against it.
That in mind I believe that the catholic church has claimed real events have happend in the past. The Jessu seminars have proven to scholars that these thing never happend, but have not captured the public’s imagination. This has.
Real scholars have been bribed by the catholic church to reclaim hegemony over the people. I am sure that their are quite a few fans of the work that have also alowed themselves to align with any newage movement that has come along, and quite a few people who think of this as an amusing what if scenario, while ignoring the books pointing out the harmfull effect of religion. I believe that the author, Dan Brown, is one of those people. I have read outher books of his, fosted one me by relitives, and have found that in each, a plot by those who want to change the world for the better, is foiled by a avalible batchlor, who seems to represent the establishment.
ps. please forgive my sp? errors. I am trying to type fast.
Cite? Names? Anything?
Cite? Well, for maintaing their hegemony, that is historical fact. They have a big ol’ empire and they would like to keep it that way. As for scholars being bribed, I could claim that I meant “bribe” as they are being paid to report what they believe, but really, that word was just a result of me of me being passonate about the subject.
At least that is for right now. I’ll bet if I can find a link to a list of those speaking at the “trial” fro the OP, that I can show a paper that goes against the ideals that they are representing at this “trial” The reson for my sureness, is that once catholics and other religous scholars stop using “faith” as a reason, and start using scholarship, they fail to find a base to their claims.
Just see below.
from
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html
So, basically, you are just making up claims based on your own prejudices? (You will note that the Catholic Church has had nothing resembling a hegemony in Western Europe in the last 480 years and that there has been no effort to reclaim that hegemony in around 200 or so years.)
.
I suspect that it is far more likely that religious scholars, even (perhaps particularly) Catholic scholars, are very much aware of how much of their beliefs (and, hence, their teachings) is rooted in faith. The notion that biblical scholars of any faith are failing to examine the historical accuracy of the scriptures is rooted in either an a priori desire to believe that claim or in a survey of biblical scholarship that is limited to a very small segment of that population who follow a particular Fundamentalist approach to scripture. (In other words, among all scholars of Christian scripture–Catholic, Protestant, non-believing, or other–there is only a very small segment who deny the historical realities and that group is generally limited to a smaller group within the Fundamentalist movement.)