The Da Vinci Code

[PrettyGirlJean]

Hi all,

I just finished reading this not too long ago. I'm not very familiar with religion in history so while there are certains things I can assume are incorrect, others I'm not so sure of. I'm definitely still absorbing it. I can say that I enjoyed the book, but after reading reviews it may just be that I'm too ignorant to know otherwise. Having said that though, I'm taking it as a fictional novel, I'm not so sure why some christians are so angered by it. I was baptized catholic and I just found it to be an entertaining book. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie in a couple of weeks.

So, has anyone else read it?

[DeathBeforeDenial]

I haven't read it and I don't really intend to.

I have no particular problem with the book, I look at it the same way I look at something like the "Left Behind" series. Fictional literature that too many illogical people attach themselves to. There are many individuals that I have spoken to that try and validate themselves and their beliefs with books like that. (I am not accusing you of that Jean, just making a statement regarding the reason I chose not to read it)

That's why I will for the most part do not like dystopian political literature such as 1984, Brave New World, The Handmaid's Tale or Anthem. It's a system of affirming polarizing beliefs regardless of how fictional a book is, and ridiculous the circumstances within said book are.

[JWL]

I haven't read it, but I probably know more about the controversy around it than most people who have read it.

I can't really discuss the controversy without spoiling the novel, so the following spoiler text will be in black. Also, this gets into pretty heavy theology, so avoid it if you're uncomfortable with that sort of stuff:

The main problem that Christians (especially Catholics like me) have with The Da Vinci Code is that it claims to accurately portray the Catholic Church and the Catholic organization Opus Dei. And in the book, the Catholic Church is portrayed as an evil, anti-woman, anti-truth church built upon intentional lies, while Opus Dei is portrayed as a murderous cult.

The problem is that Dan Brown is not making it clear that his novel is nothing but a fairy tale; on the contrary, the disclaimer in the front of his novel suggests that everything he says about the Church and Opus Dei is completely true. And if you visit Brown's website, he defends his points of view, which are based on the heresy of gnosticism, which the fathers of the church (in particular, St. Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons) did a lot of work fighting against about 1,800 years ago.

The gnostics wrote many false gospels, among them the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene", the "Gospel of Thomas", and the "newly discovered" "Gospel of Judas". Unlike Christians, the gnostics held that salvation comes not through the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, but rather through knowledge. They argued that Christ is not God and that the human body is evil, among other things.

In particular, Dan Brown argues that the Catholic Church has smeared Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene is in fact the "Holy Grail", the vessel holding the blood of Jesus in the form of their children. He says that the Church preaches that Mary is nothing but a prostitute.

Yet that is false. The Church preaches that while yes, Mary Magdalene was a sinner, that she repented and actually became a saint. St. Mary Magdalene, the patron saint of petitent sinners, is revered by all Catholics. She is not condemned as a prostitute. Churches have been built in her honor.

As for Mary being the Holy Grail, well, the Holy Grail is specifically called a "cup" in the three out of four Gospels it's mentioned in, and all three of these Gospels say that Jesus and his Apostles drank from this cup. Unless Jesus picked Mary Magdalene up, passed her around the table, and the Apostles somehow drank out of her, she is not the Grail.

Much of Dan Brown's 'evidence' comes from Leonardo's painting, The Last Supper, which shows a feminine looking Apostle to the right of Jesus. Yet this is John, not Mary. John is always depicted as younger and more feminine looking than the other eleven. Leonardo also painted John the Baptist in a very feminine fashion, when John the Baptist is usually depicted as a bearded wildman.

As for Opus Dei, they have some answers to the accusations made against them by Dan Brown on their own website.

Some Catholic organizations have asked for a different kind of disclaimer at the beginning of the movie than the one in the novel - a disclaimer which makes it clear that everything in the movie is false. If that were done, I would be satisfied.

[GhaleonOne]

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

That's the claim at the beginning of the book.

I have the same problem as JWL. If there wasn't a claim at the beginning of the book that suggests all the "evidence" in there was fact, it would be a different story. But the problem is, he's misleading millions (I believe some odd 20 million or so have bought the book) based on historical inaccuracies. There is quite a bit of historically accurate things in the book. I'm not saying the book is completely unfactual. But when you mix historical truth with historical inaccuracy, and make a claim that everything is correct, I've got a problem with that. I'd agree with JWL regarding the movie. If there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, I'd be fine with it.

As it stands now though, it misleads people. It's misleading my dad and his girlfriend/fiancee/whatever. They constantly harp about how great Dan Brown is, and how his books really open your eyes, and how evil these church organizations, etc. are, yet when you try to bring up some of his historical inaccuracies to discuss, they claim "it's just fiction". Well, when you state everything is accurate, as his intro page does, and you present some very unaccurate things, that makes you a liar, not a fiction writer.

[JWL]

Yeah, certainly some of the things in the novel are historically accurate. I mean, there was a person named Jesus, there was a person named Mary Magdalene, there was a Leonardo Da Vinci who painted 'The Last Supper' and there is a Catholic organization called Opus Dei. That's about where the historical accuracy ends.

I also don't like how people are being deceived by Brown and his apocryphal gospels. There has been quite a bit of nonsense about how at the Council of Nicaea, the Church arbitrarily declared the gnostic gospels to be false, when St. Irenaeus was combating gnostic heresy a hundred years prior to the Council.

Archbishop Angelo Amato from the Vatican said it best recently, saying that if "such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust they would have justly provoked a world uprising."

He also said that Brown's ideas are popular among Christians because of "the extreme cultural poverty on the part of a good number of the Christian faithful."

[PrettyGirlJean]

Edit: Just a warning that there may be some spoilers below since I was responding to a little bit from each poster so far).


I see what you guys are talking about, but again, I don't understand why some people (not to say you guys are) are taking this so literally. Even after I read the "fact" page at the beginning, I still didn't feel that the majority of the novel was fact once I read it. For me, it's a fictional novel for entertainment first, and any accurate fact comes second. If I don't know or I'm not sure if something is true then I don't assume it to be so. But, perhaps that is where the problems begin, I suppose some people who read it will take it as pure fact. My reaction to the fact page was that the Opus Dei was real, that the discriptions of the art and paintings were real (in the descriptions of them, not necessarily the meanings that they supposedly portrayed in the book). Quite honestly, and maybe this is due to a short attention span on my part, but I completely forgot about the fact page once I started reading the novel. As for the movie, I'd prefer there not to be anything said about the accuracy or inaccuracy. It's just a movie and should obviously be taken as fiction as it isn't a documentary or anything that states otherwise, again though this is just my opinion.

Perhaps it is wrong of me to say this, but I feel that the people that believe in the bible and in their religion, that have faith won't be changed by this book; I think any power this book has is given to it, rather than what it has on its own. I like that it gives the opportunity for open forums such as this to speak about the facts and inaccuracies found therein though. But as far as the negativity towards it (and I'm not saying that there shouldn't be negativity or people shouldn't voice their opinions, please don't get me wrong) I still just don't understand. Is it because I'm not a very religious person that I can't get the negativity? I'm not sure wherein the book states that it's portrayal of Opus Dei and the Catholic Church is accurate. I never got that impression. As far as the portrayal of both in the book, I can see how offense could be taken by both groups, but again it's just a fictional novel. Also, I never got the impression from this book that Christ was a bad man, just that he was a man and not divine. I can see where the contraversy comes from, but again, it's fiction. Though I found the story intriguing, I didn't just take it for fact either.

As for the respresentations of certain people in Leonardo's "Last Supper", I think that it's fair to say that it's completely up to interpretation, especially for a novel. I mean, not everything in the book is obviously going to be based on fact. I actually find the blend of fact and fiction interesting.

Maybe I'm altogether missing what you guys are saying? Again, maybe I'm in over my head because I'm not up on religion or much of it's history. I'm just having a really hard time understanding why people dislike it so much. I mean, people go so far as to say it's poorly written and have compared its structure to that of a romance novel. To me, that just comes off as immature. If anything people like that make me take what they have to say less seriously because they feel the need to try to not only dissect the novel but then to poke fun at it. I mean, really, it's one thing to disagree with it, but is it really necessary to call it poor writing and whatnot? Some say that the character development is poor... but as fast paced as it is... doesn't it take place over a matter of a couple/few days? How much character development can really happen? I enjoyed the characters and I felt that each had a "voice" which was also something that was refuted.

I don't know, maybe people with just think I'm ignorant, and maybe I am. I think some people (and I'm not referring to anyone here) dislike what they fear. I think this book makes people think a lot more than perhaps the church would like. I mean it is of course hard to argue with 2000 years of history, but something that I do fully agree with from the novel is that history is not only written by man, it's written by the winners and is only one side of any given event. I hope that I don't get flamed for saying this, but that's one reason I find it very hard to believe what the bible has to say (and this is before I read TDC) when not only was it written by man, but went through many translations and the men who were writing it translated their interpretations of the words.

But that is a discussion for another topic I suppose. I hope that I have not offended anyone by expressing my opinions and I hope that they have not been taken as me being sarcastic or antagonizing in any way, I have tried to chose my words with care. So, if something comes across wrong please know that I didn't mean any offense.

[Imperial Knight]

I haven't read The DaVinci Code and don't particularily intend to.

That's why I will for the most part do not like dystopian political literature such as 1984, Brave New World, The Handmaid's Tale or Anthem. It's a system of affirming polarizing beliefs regardless of how fictional a book is, and ridiculous the circumstances within said book are.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're trying to get across here. One of the major purposes of literature is to convey certain themes and ideas, and those themes are often political in nature. The purpose of writing a dystopian work of fiction is for it to serve as a warning (just as the purpose of writing a utopian work of fiction is to advocate for certain ideals). Say what you want about 1984 (personally I think it's brilliant), the point is to show the dangers of totalitarian ideology in a dramatic fashion. And after studying what life was like under the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe, I can tell you that 1984 is not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance. Now, obviously everyone won't agree with every theme presented in every work of literature, paticularily if the themes have political implications, but the debate and discussion that can come as a result of that can have value.

[Kizyr]

And after studying what life was like under the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe, I can tell you that 1984 is not as far-fetched as it might seem at first glance. Now, obviously everyone won't agree with every theme presented in every work of literature, paticularily if the themes have political implications. The debate and discussion that can come as a result of that can have value.

I gotta agree... True that staking your entire worldview on a work of fiction is misguided, but what you said could very well apply to any literature that's supposed to serve a greater purpose than just mere entertainment. I mean, besides 1984 you could just as well put all of Solzhenitsyn's novels in the same category.

The purpose isn't to polarize beliefs, so I really don't see where you're coming from on that. Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, is probably a lot like the Satanic Verses. It's supposed to provoke lots of controversy and polarize folks. KF

[PrettyGirlJean]

Da Vinci Code, on the other hand, is probably a lot like the Satanic Verses. It's supposed to provoke lots of controversy and polarize folks. KF

Sorry for the stupid question but what are the "Satanic Verses" you speak of? I have an idea, but I thought I'd still ask instead of assuming.

[GhaleonOne]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031227 ... e&n=283155

I know very little about it myself, and I'm sure Kiz can give a better explaination, but that's the Amazon entry for it.

[JWL]

PGJ, whether or not Dan Brown intended it, his novel is being taken as more than fictitious entertainment. It is, and I would use this strong word, corrupting people. This corruption would not be possible if people were properly informed, but, for whatever reason, many Christians don't seem to know much about Christianity.

The four Gospels written by disciples of Jesus Christ are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and yes, the original text has been preserved. Modern translations are done directly from copies of the original Greek text. All other gospels were written by gnostics. Arguing that there is some sort of equivalence between the two sets of gospels because Christianity more or less beat out gnosticism is kind of like saying that you can get Socrates' teachings equally from Plato as you could from someone who never met Socrates or Plato. There is no equivalence here.

The problem isn't too much thinking and knowledge, it's not enough thinking and knowledge. Dan Brown's ideas can be and have been refuted thousands of times a hundred different ways. He is saying things that are simply untrue, and you don't need to go back in time 2000 years to prove it.

It is false that Catholics are anti-woman - as I pointed out, Mary Magdalene is a Saint. We Catholics revere the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven, second only to God, and our Protestant brothers rhetorically beat us up for having such a high regard for the woman. There are numerous other female saints: St. Ann, St. Elizabeth, St. Therese, St. Joan of Arc, St. Gianna Beretta Molla, St. Faustina... the list goes on and on.

It is false that Opus Dei is a sect of murderous monks, because, first of all, there aren't any monks at all in the ranks of Opus Dei. Opus Dei is an organization of lay people and priests which seeks to promote the faith through daily life. It has nothing to do with guarding ancient secrets. As with all things, some people thought that being in Opus Dei was their vocation, but it was not, so they had very bad experiences in it. That has led some of them to call it a cult, but cults don't usually let people just leave if they want to. Like all Catholic organizations in good standing with the Vatican, Opus Dei is against murder.

Please excuse me for going on about this, but I have come to firmly believe that Christianity is facing a crisis of ignorance. That Dan Brown can win so many people over toward his way of thinking when so much of what he says is easily proven wrong, I think proves it.

I have no problem with anything you've said, PGJ, except for your suggestion that the Church does not want people to think. If only Catholics would think, and read the Bible and the Catechism, more Catholics would know what their faith is all about and would not arbitrarily throw their religion away because something flashy like Brown's ideas showed up. Catholicism is, first and foremost, about love. Specifically, Divine Love, or "agape", the Love of the Omnipotent Creator lowering Himself to become human so that He could heal us through his Passion, destroy our death through his Crucifixion, and restore us to life through his Resurrection. The name "Jesus" means "God Saves". This is what it means to be Christian.

[GhaleonOne]

Some responses... and specifically, PGJ, I certainly hope I didn't come across as attacking you for reading the book. And like JWL, I only take exception to that one comment (which he already explained in much better words than I ever could).

It is false that Catholics are anti-woman - as I pointed out, Mary Magdalene is a Saint. We Catholics revere the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Queen of Heaven, second only to God, and our Protestant brothers rhetorically beat us up for having such a high regard for the woman.

Which annoys me. As someone who's gone to a Protestant church for years, I never understood why some Protestants trashed Catholics for that point. Sad to say, I've even heard some Protestants equate Catholics with being a cult, which is ridiculous. For that matter, Martin Luther, who is largely credited with the Protestant reformation, didn't even set out to divide the Christian Church between Catholic and Protestant, but rather to reform his church, the Catholic Church. A lot of good it did for unity anyways, because Protestantism has splintered off in so many directions, it's not even funny. Not to mention, the Catholics went through their own reformation shortly after anyways. Some Protestants seem to misunderstand this, and think that Protestantism broke off and is some "true church" while Catholics have gone the opposite direction. I've even ran into Protestants who are so ignorant of their own Church's history that they think their particular denomination is the only "saved" denomination. But that's the problem with the false understanding that "going to heaven" according to Christianity means doing good as much as possible, as if humanity could ever measure up on it's own. But that's an entirely different discussion.

And as for the Virgin Mary, I never saw what the big deal was with attacking Catholics for revering her. If you believe in Christ as the Son of God (which all Christians should - whether Protestant or Catholic), you would understand that she's the mother of God, for crying out loud. Not sure what there ISN'T to revere about her.

If only Catholics would think, and read the Bible and the Catechism, more Catholics would know what their faith is all about and would not arbitrarily throw their religion away because something flashy like Brown's ideas showed up.

It's a problem in Protestantism as well. In some ways, it may be a culture thing. In some ways, blaming Brown for decieving Christian's isn't worth it, as the problem begins much more internally.

[Alunissage]

And as for the Virgin Mary, I never saw what the big deal was with attacking Catholics for revering her. If you believe in Christ as the Son of God (which all Christians should - whether Protestant or Catholic), you would understand that she's the mother of God, for crying out loud. Not sure what there ISN'T to revere about her.

I don't really want to get involved, but I have to point out that you're missing a crucial step in your argument. Believing that Christ is the Son of God is not the same as believing he is God. I believe the former but not the latter; therefore, Mary is not mother of God to me, but mother of God's Son.

[JWL]

It's a problem in Protestantism as well. In some ways, it may be a culture thing. In some ways, blaming Brown for decieving Christian's isn't worth it, as the problem begins much more internally.

Agreed. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the Christian faithful were informed enough to not be swayed by Brown's arguments.

I don't really want to get involved, but I have to point out that you're missing a crucial step in your argument. Believing that Christ is the Son of God is not the same as believing he is God. I believe the former but not the latter; therefore, Mary is not mother of God to me, but mother of God's Son.

Oh yeah, that's right. Non-Trinitarian Christian faiths excepted! We can't really talk as freely as this without having a clash of theology. But clashes of theology don't bother me any, so it's not a problem.

However, G1, the main reason why some Protestants disapprove of our reverence of Mary is that they believe that we Catholics worship Mary. We do not worship Mary or any of the Saints.

[PrettyGirlJean]

PGJ, whether or not Dan Brown intended it, his novel is being taken as more than fictitious entertainment. It is, and I would use this strong word, corrupting people. This corruption would not be possible if people were properly informed, but, for whatever reason, many Christians don't seem to know much about Christianity.

I am not being sarcastic when asking, but how exactly is the book corrupting? I do not see how Brown could be held accountable for people not being properly informed about their religion, which as you mention is the reason for them being corrupted by the book in the first place.

The four Gospels written by disciples of Jesus Christ are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and yes, the original text has been preserved. Modern translations are done directly from copies of the original Greek text. All other gospels were written by gnostics. Arguing that there is some sort of equivalence between the two sets of gospels because Christianity more or less beat out gnosticism is kind of like saying that you can get Socrates' teachings equally from Plato as you could from someone who never met Socrates or Plato. There is no equivalence here.

I have to look more into gnosticism, because I really haven't a clue what it is. I do however understand what you mean in your comparisons. Speaking to your reply about the texts being original... how old are these texts and how was it proven that they are the originals. I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, I'm curious. Is there a website that I should/could visit for this information?

The problem isn't too much thinking and knowledge, it's not enough thinking and knowledge. Dan Brown's ideas can be and have been refuted thousands of times a hundred different ways. He is saying things that are simply untrue, and you don't need to go back in time 2000 years to prove it.

I understand what you are saying, but again, it's a fictional book. Maybe it's my ignorance keeping me from understanding the big deal about the things he's saying that are untrue. I can see how catholics could take offense to the portrayal of the church in the book, but just like any other fictional book I think it's pretty obvious what the truths and non-truths are. I can see that there are "blurrings" but that's where the intriguing ideas of mixing fact and fiction come into play. I think that just about any fictional novel could be picked apart stating fact and fiction though.

It is false that Catholics are anti-woman - as I pointed out, Mary Magdalene is a Saint. -snip-

I agree on this, but again I think this is part of the fiction in the book that is fairly obvious and I don't think that Brown was trying to pass this off as a fact.

It is false that Opus Dei is a sect of murderous monks, because, first of all, there aren't any monks at all in the ranks of Opus Dei. Opus Dei is an organization of lay people and priests which seeks to promote the faith through daily life. It has nothing to do with guarding ancient secrets. As with all things, some people thought that being in Opus Dei was their vocation, but it was not, so they had very bad experiences in it. That has led some of them to call it a cult, but cults don't usually let people just leave if they want to. Like all Catholic organizations in good standing with the Vatican, Opus Dei is against murder.

I'm not sure why Brown wrote in a monk, I'd read an article abotu what you said, no monks amongst Opus Dei. Still, I think the purpose was for that thriller and suspense effect. I didn't think for one moment (having not one clue about Opus Dei except for the fact that it was real) that it was a murderous cult based in NY. I think in the end Brown showed that it was the people involved that were a part of Opus Dei that were "evil" for lack of a better word, not Opus Dei itself. As with any religion there are always people that take things too literally and do things in the name of their god (or beliefs) and go too far. This is just an example and I would hardly use the wrongs of these people to define what Opus Dei means or truly is. I am sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I think that perhaps people are taking the fact page in the book too seriously. I think it was merely saying that Opus Dei was real, that places such as the Louvre were real, but I didn't get the impression that anything beyond that was suppose to be real such as the beliefs of the characters or the symbols the perceived or how they chose to interpret history and religion.

Please excuse me for going on about this, but I have come to firmly believe that Christianity is facing a crisis of ignorance. That Dan Brown can win so many people over toward his way of thinking when so much of what he says is easily proven wrong, I think proves it.

I do not mind you posting, in fact it's very interesting reading what you have to say and I feel that it's valuable information for me to learn as much as I can. I can see what you mean about the crisis of ignorance but I don't feel that Brown is trying to win people over to his way of thinking. But then, I really feel that TDC is merely a novel, I don't see it as anything beyond that, so perhaps that is why I can't share some of your views. Perhaps instead of blaming Brown for being able to win people over, perhaps the church should take responsibility for having not having won these people over to begin with.

I have no problem with anything you've said, PGJ, except for your suggestion that the Church does not want people to think. If only Catholics would think, and read the Bible and the Catechism, more Catholics would know what their faith is all about and would not arbitrarily throw their religion away because something flashy like Brown's ideas showed up.

Please forgive my lack of articulation but I did not mean to suggest that the church is trying to suppress people's thinking. I meant to say that the church is worried that people may be thinking about the church in a different light or a different way; that people are thinking outside of the box so to speak. I think it is great that people question and think, no matter what the subject matter. I think it is silly to say that people are throwing their religion away due to a book. If they were to do that so easily than I can only assume that their faith was not that strong or true. As I said, people that a firm believe in Jesus and God are not going to be swayed by this book. Sure, they may highly disagree with it, may even hate it, I don't know, but disregarding their faith... I don't think that book has that kind of power. It's like saying video games cause violence in children. They don't, there are already underlying problems that bring about such an outcome. What those problems are is anyone's guess.

And Ghaleon, I didn't think you or anyone was attacking me. I have to apologize if I'm not explaining myself well enough though. I'm very interested by all the replies and look forward to what everyone has to say Again, I hope that I'm not coming off as sarcastic because nothing is meant to be.

[GhaleonOne]

BTW, just to go back on a post way up there by PGJ. I didn't notice this until I was skimming back a bit, but wanted to make a quick reply...

but that's one reason I find it very hard to believe what the bible has to say (and this is before I read TDC) when not only was it written by man, but went through many translations and the men who were writing it translated their interpretations of the words.

This is actually a misconception for the most part. It didn't go through many translations. They still use the original Greek to translate the New Testament. The only issue is some translations translate the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek to English. But the New Testament is just one translation, and most all of the Bible (and some external Gnostic writings) are translated, and have been checked with the earliest forms of manuscripts. For instance, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found back in the late 40's, modern translations were checked with it to see how accurate they were, and they were painstakingly accurate. This comes from the delicate nature the Jews have always treated their holy writings when copying them.

Though you do bring up a point that some things are lost in translation, but it's mainly stuff like the poetic form of much of the Old Testament. It still reads the same, but the language form doesn't look near as beatiful and poetic in English. But the meaning is still kept intact very well. The worst of the loss is usually in the Old Testament, due to such wonderful play on words. I've always wanted to learn Hebrew, but they only offered Greek at my university.

[JWL]

PGJ, I think it all comes down to this:

-The reason why Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code has been so successful is the religious aspect of it. I can't comment on how well it is written since I haven't read it, but I know that no mystery novel, no matter how well it was written, would sell so many copies without the religious, anti-Catholic aspect to it.

-If you visit Dan Brown's website, you find out that he is a student of gnosticism. Gnosticism, which existed before Jesus was even born and thus is obviously not an early form of Christianity, tried to swallow up the young Christian faith with its philosophies. Gnostics are always seeking 'divine knowledge' as the means of salvation, and really couldn't give a darn about Jesus' Passion, Death, and Resurrection, which is the root of Christianity. Rather, the gnostics are interested in the 'divine knowledge' which Jesus possessed. Christianity is all about love, brotherhood and peace while gnosticism is all about looking out for number one and being more enlightened than the rest of the world.

-I have recently had a 'nice' little talk with a modern gnostic, who pretty much said that all Christian faiths lead to Hell. The gnostic way of personal knowledge is the way to Heaven! Yeah, OK. That explains why Brown depicts monks as murderers, anyway.

-One thing I think I should make clear - you have to understand, that even if this were accepted as a completely fictitious novel, Brown is depicting a monk as a murderer. This is not a rogue monk, but rather a monk who is supported by the Vatican itself. And furthermore, the Vatican is supporting murder because it is defending the lie which it created - a lie which invalidates THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC FAITH. You know the importance of the cup from which Jesus and his Apostles drank for Catholics. If that wasn't a cup at all, but really was Mary Magdalene, you can clearly see how scandalous this all is.

-If another novel made similar claims about Jewish people, it would rightly have the wrath of the world brought down upon it. Yet since Christianity is everyone's favorite punching bag, there's no problem with saying whatever you want about it.

-However, ultimately, Brown's evangelization would not be having such an effect if people were informed. It's the fault of the Church for not ensuring the people know what the truth is. And in the wake of The Da Vinci Code, the Church should be teaching people the truth so that they can reject the glamour of gnosticism, which is suspiciously similar to Satanism. It reminds me greatly of the temptation of Adam & Eve in the garden, where the serpent told them that if only they would eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would be like God Himself. Perhaps it is, then, also not surprising that some gnostics say that God Himself is evil.

[Aquaignis]

Lay it all on the line! I really enjoyed reading your post JWL.
Unfortunatly, I have not read The Da Vinci Code and, unless school forces me to, I seriously don't want to. I would watch it on the Discovery Channel, however.

[lucia24]

i dont know much about it, but maybe i will someday..

[keele864]

Perhaps it is, then, also not surprising that some gnostics say that God Himself is evil.

I know that one Gnostic belief was that the Old Testament God was actually a demon, while the New Testament God was in fact God. It was the best way they could come up with to reconcile the two very different images of God.

You know the importance of the cup from which Jesus and his Apostles drank for Catholics. If that wasn't a cup at all, but really was Mary Magdalene, you can clearly see how scandalous this all is.

The idea of the Holy Grail as a sacred relic originates with the French author Chretien de Troyes, who wrote a chivalric romance featuring one of Arthur's knights (Percival, I think) questing for the Grail. Chretien died, however, before he could finish writing the story. Nonetheless, the Grail endured in legend and myth. While a cup is mentioned in the Bible, as far as I know, it's never called the "Holy Grail" until Chretien began writing

Unfortunatly, I have not read The Da Vinci Code and, unless school forces me to, I seriously don't want to.

Same here (though I doubt I'll have to read it for school). My dad and I have considered reading it just so we can criticize it properly, but I don't want to waste my time when there are so many better books around.

Though you do bring up a point that some things are lost in translation, but it's mainly stuff like the poetic form of much of the Old Testament. It still reads the same, but the language form doesn't look near as beatiful and poetic in English. But the meaning is still kept intact very well. The worst of the loss is usually in the Old Testament, due to such wonderful play on words. I've always wanted to learn Hebrew, but they only offered Greek at my university.

St. Augustine says that he was initially really disappointed with the Bible (which he read in a poor Latin translation) because of the simplicity of the language. That's a random digression, perhaps, but I thought it rather funny.

And, if anyone is curious, I'm writing this post from a Catholic perspective.


EDIT: A good link with some info on the Grail Romances, etc.: http://www.smu.edu/arthuriana/

The link is to website of the scholarly journal Arthuriana, which deals with Arthurian legend (and hence the Grail). As you'll see, some Arthurian scholars aren't too big on Dan Brown/