What's all this about "The DaVinci Code"?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
Has anyone here read the DaVinci Code? What is it about (I don't have the time or inclination to read it myself, mainly because someone told me it is anti-Catholic). What about the books written like "Breaking the Davinci Code"? The subject matter is obviously controversial. My sister told me that even though it is a novel, it is all based on real evidence. Of course shortly after that at the library, she handed me some book about the Nazi pope or something like that, so I'm not sure she is a totally objective reviewer. LB
-- Lydia Byrd (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 08, 2004
The Da Vinci Code is a FICTIONAL story about a symbologist who discovers a trail of symbols from medieval times hidden in Christian art and literature that reveals that Jesus was married to Mary Magdeline and had one or more offspring, and that the divine bloodiline lasted until modern times. The ideas behind the book have a small basis in fact, but the author takes GREAT liberties with these facts. It makes for a great read, and it's a great story, as long as you accept that it is just that: a story.
The idea of Jesus having children by Mary Magdeline is not new; there have been several non-fiction books examining the subject. If you want a good, OBJECTIVE look at the topic, read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln. They examine it quite fairly and don't make the kinds of wild claims that Dan Brown made in the DVC. They did a very good job of presenting both sides of the case and allowing the reader to make up his own mind. It's one of the few truly objective works on the subject, and it allows the reader to get a variety of different things out of it. It contains a lot of detail about the Middle Ages, which I really enjoyed (I'm a huge history buff) and it also makes a lot of good philosophical points about Jesus and his mission. A great book that examines the subject in full without succumbing the anti-christian bias that many others do.
The book on the Nazi Pope you're probably referring to is "Hitler's Pope", a book about the collaboration between Pope Pius (I'm not sure of the exact number) and the Nazi's. Again, based on a few facts and takes a LOT of liberties.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.
Read Sandra Miesel at Crisis. Or you can read any of the protestant reviews here:
Darrell Bock at Beliefnet, Al Mohler at Crosswalk, Margaret Mitchell at Sightings, and Collin Hansen at Christianity Today.
-- Bill Nelson (email@example.com), July 08, 2004.
Antibush is all over the map and still neglects to say that both the pop novel ''The Da Vinci Code'' and bogus non-fictional, yet fictitious work, ''Hitler's Pope'' are just crude attacks on the Catholic faith. Neither the novel nor the ''Hitler's Pope'' myth are true. Absolutely false on all counts.
It isn't anti-bush's bailiwick to support or disprove what is true or false. The unfortunate truth is, he/she is in this forum mainly as a political agitator and/or devil's advocate. Asking anti-bush for a clue is something like asking a forest fire about where the picnic should be held.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 08, 2004.
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln still is not respected by any scholastic researchers or historians. Basically it echoes a bunch of Gnostic theories and throws out a lot of hypotheticals, without any solid evidence. So I would NOT recommend that book either.
The purpose of the book seems to be that the "Holy Blood" (the bloodline of the descendents of Jesus Christ) began with the marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene (the "Holy Grail") at Cana, and the subsequent birth of their child. However they don't present any solid evidence that Jesus, in fact, married Mary Magdalene in Cana or anywhere else.
Yours in Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (email@example.com), July 09, 2004.
That's very true, but they don't claim to have any solid evidence. They say "here is what we do know, we don't have any solid proof, we don't know what happened, you make your own conclusions". They never claimed to have all the answers.
I just denounced the Da Vinci Code in my post above. Do you actualy read things before you make up your mind?
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.
Yes, that is true. But we could also claim all kinds of things by reading between lines in the Bible and imagining things. The fact that they don't know what happened should have stopped them from extrapolating all kinds of theories that may or may not be true. It is not historical analysis and it is not scholastic it is fantasy.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.
Dude...have you ever read the book? They presented their case very respectfully, and they never claimed that any of their theories were fact. They presented them exactly as they are: hypotheses. They are intriguing, and, while probably not true, they do present some interesting questions. Valid questions. Questions they have every right to explore. They shouldn't just ignore important historical questions simply because they may undermine someone else's beleifs (and if you read the "portents for the future" chapter in the back, they talk about how the ideas presented in the book relate to Christianity, and how they could actualy strengthen it). You should at least read the book before you rant and rail against it. I criticise Sean Hannity's book, but I've read it.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 10, 2004.
I have read the Da Vini Code, and critisisie it on several gorunds, oen of which is that if this was not a Book that related to Christainty, it woudl nto be interesting. Indeed, the storytellign is bad, often incoherent, and illogical.
Likewise, the theory is held togather with straw, its not just that their is no proof, its that oen has ot ignore the proof agaisnt such things.
The way it villifies the Cahtilic Chruhc is also offencive simpley because if they had vllified Islamic beleifs, or else VVillified Hinduism, it owudl be ourtageous, yet we are expected to sit here and accept Christainity's largest denomination to endeure such villification? I mean, this isn't just one small group of Priests or Bishops, its the whole instetution that's the villain i this book.
This also isn't even Left Behind, which presents the good Cahtolics as gone after the Rapture ( I know, wont happen in Cahtolic theology, speaking of a book here) and replacing the Pope wiht someone evil, at leats they can justfy it by sayign the Real cahtolic chruhc is gone off with Jesus at the rapture.
This book asusmes the whoel Cahtolic Chruch is evil, in much the same vein as Jack Chick.
That makes it hate speach
Likewise, reades are SWAYED SINCE THE AUHTOR NOW ADVOCATES THIS THEORY AS THOGUH ITS VALID EVEN THOUGH THEIR IS NO REAL EVIDENE FOR IT.I have to agree it was not a book worth reading.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 10, 2004.
Anti-bush, No one said they didn't have the right to speculate. But that doesn't make it anything more than a theory. There are a lot of theories out there, listen to late night talk radio. History is not speculation based on what amounts to no real facts.
take care, Dude :) bill
-- Bill Nelson (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 10, 2004.
sorry I didn't answer your question. Yes, I have read both Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The DeVinci Code
-- Bill Nelson (email@example.com), July 10, 2004.
some trivia for you:
Back during the primaries, Edwards appeared on Hardball and was asked by the nominally Catholic Chris Matthews what his favourite book was. He replied "The DaVinci Code."
-- Bill Nelson (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 10, 2004.
Yes, I did read your post. You denounced what? You said a book was fictional --and yet based on some fact. Fact with which the author ''takes liberties?''
It isn't based on anything but false historical premises. You say youre a histoy buff. The only clear history upon which an authentic life of Christ can be based is Holy Scripture and the Sacred Tradition entrusted to his Church. All other so-called ''facts'' are outright invention. Even what this author claims to see in the Da Vinci fresco of the Last Supper is bogus. It has no basis in art history, nor was Leonardo involved in any ''code''. It's altogether pop fiction with no bibliographical or historical validity.
--Did you tell Lydia this? No-- You maintain some evidence is presented for either view, for or against, with documented sources; and the reader should ''decide for himself.'' That's no logical recourse for finding what's factual. There is ONE source of unimpeachable truth, regarding Jesus, or Mary Magdalene or the Last Supper. It's the Church Christ founded and from whom our Holy Bible takes authority. That was Our Lord's own provision for all of us.
Dan Brown is shown to be an opponent of this true and final authority. He spins a tale of conspiracy around the very Church given mankind by the Son of God. Why didn't you really denounce him? Because; it doesn't affect you in the least to see the Catholic Church bashed. You were doing Lydia Byrd (I love the name) no favors; which is why I interfered. --Sorry!
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), July 10, 2004.
Da Vinci Code / Dick Tracey
In my opinion, the Da Vinci Code is yet another attempt to diminsh the true meaning and authority of the Bible and of Jesus Christ. The Da Vinci Code is not the first and won't be the last attempt to do so. Hint: the Bible is not the equivalent of a Dick Tracey decoder ring.
-- Gabo Gaviria (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 23, 2004.
I don't know enough about the area to know who accurate the DaVinci Code is. However, I have examined 'The Last Supper' and what the author says is completely accurate.
-- A Reader (email@example.com), July 26, 2004.
Yes, in the same sense that what Protestants say about the Bible is "completely accurate". What they quote - or what Mr. Brown describes in the painting - is really there. It's just their fanciful interpretations of what is there that drifts far from the truth.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 26, 2004.
A Reader examined the painting and saw what the book told him as ''accurate.'' About Leonardo's depiction of the Last Supper?
The conclusion reached by this author is NOT accurate. The art-work does not sustain any aspect of Dan Brown's own frivolous interpretations. Why should it?
Merely because a 20th century writer concludes the Catholic Church has concealed the truth; and he discovered it looking at the painting?
In fairness to Dan brown, he sold his novel as a work of fiction, not non-fiction. But Christ is not a fictional character as Brown has Him. Nor is Christ dependent on Leonardo Da Vinci in any way for the truthful account of His life and times. MUCH LESS dependent on a concoction of primitive mythological caprices.
The Church is not a caprice accidentally brought about by pagan customs and myths. Christ founded the Church to lead us to the truth; Gospel Truth. Not to fiction or discredited idolatries. Dan Brown is selling idolatry and confusion. Leonardo didn't do that.
He counted the men at table with our Savior. The twelve. Mary Magdalene never sat at the Last Supper. We know this because the Holy Bible does not place her there. It places the twelve apostles at that table. One of whom was Saint John the evangelist. That same beloved apostle who is seen with Jesus in Leonardo's painting.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 26, 2004.
Actually Brown is wrong. He claism their is no Chalice in the Last supper painting, indeed, situated before Jesus and all the Apostles are cups. Their small, but their there...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 26, 2004.
“In fairness to Dan brown, he sold his novel as a work of fiction” – but in the same breath he tells everyone that he believes all the “historical” material in the book is true.
I only got as far as the title before I realised Brown has no idea what he’s talking about. The painter’s name is Leonardo and he came from a town called Vinci. To call him “Da Vinci” is absurd and meaningless. It would be like writing a book about Joan of Arc and calling it “The Of Arc Code”.
It's obvious Brown wrote the book because he saw he could make a tidy profit by providing ammunition for those who want to throw mud at the Church (and to some extent all christian churches) so they can rationalise their own failings as regard the demands of Chritianity, by claiming that the Church is based on a myth.
-- Steve (email@example.com), July 26, 2004.