Thoughts on the Da Vinci Code

Remove all ads!

Finished it now - I was a little disappointed all in all. He didn't really go the whole hog so to speak. So it wasn't as controversial as I first thought.

 

I originally borrowed it from my mother to read and then purchased a copy for myself. I found it to be a quick entertaining read not to be taken seriously. This isn't Shakespeare after all.

As for the facts presented on the first page. The Priory of Scion did exist in France. It was not however the group Brown portrayed it to be. The creators admitted to the hoax. The documents and books Brown mentions in his book all exist and can be found. And I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll be able to find some group that performed that sex act in the basement.

And as for the rest of the "historical facts" presented inside; yes I'm sure some of it is real, while a good chunk is made up or otherwise altered to fit the story.

I realize a great deal of what he puts forth is pure fantasy. Though it does still raise some questions. Did the Catholic Church create satan merely to discredit the Knights Templar and others? What role did Mary really play? And many others.

If you really want to get a feel for Brown's (apparent) views on the Church, read Angels and Demons. It shows the lengths to which the Church will go through to keep themselves prominent (fictionally speaking of course).

All in all, if you can remember that this is a work of fiction (does stating facts in a work of fiction make them fiction as well?) and don't become absorbed by all the hype surrounding this book, you should find it an enjoyable way to kill a day or two.

 

Cernak: If you are going to rely on Gibbons' Decline and Fall, then you will never have a decent understanding of true history. Gibbons had one goal: write the "history" of the Roman Empire in such a way as to discredit Christianity. Gibbons was a polemicist, not a historian.

To all: Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Empire. He merely stopped the persecutions and allowed the Church to operate freely. It was Theodosius the Great that would supress other religions and make Christianity the state religion.

Yes, there were a number of texts floating around that claimed to be about the life and teachings of Jesus. As Christianity began growing, a number of people jumped on the bandwagon and put out their own works. Some of these works were crazy, like one that claimed to detail the childhood of Jesus. The problem was this text had Jesus as a child doing things like killing other children he did not like. The Council of Carthage set out to winnow out the obviously fraudulent from the inspired. People writing nonsense books about Christianity to get attention did not start with the Da Vinci Code.

As far as the Church and Mary goes, it is difficult to imagine that, given the Church's elevation of Mary, that anything about her was suppressed. We Catholics are still often called idolators by many Protestants who claim we worship Mary. To a Catholic, Mary is more important than any other human being, including the apostles. To try and make Mary one of the apostles would actually be to lower her status!

This nonsense about the Templars surviving their suppression is actually a Masonic myth. The Freemasons claim to have been originated by Templars, led by de Molay, who fled to Scotland during the suppression.

 

Not that Mary! The Mary being referred to in the Da Vinci Code is not Mary, the mother of Jesus, but Mary Magdaline.

 

Oops. My bad.

Well, that's even worse. If Jesus did not make His mother an apostle, then he certainly would not have made Mary Magdaline one.

 

I've always felt that there was a good logical reason why Jesus never chose any female Apostles.

The early leaders had to scatter...go underground...even deny him in order to avoid being captured and perhaps crucified beside or immediately subsequent to him. And remember, until Pentecost the male Apostles were frightened, hiding and confused. Good way to stay alive to see another day.

Such was not true with with Christ's female followers. Scripture and Tradition show them courageously following him through the last hours of his Passion. We see them pushed aside by the crowd and soldiers as they struggle to try to give him aid. They remain on Calvary, accompanied only by Saint John (who, as the youngest Apostle, was probably regarded simply as the caretaker of the Mother of the Accused), until it is finished. They see to his proper burial and return on Easter Sunday to complete what was unfinished on the eve of the Sabbath.

These women exposed themselves without self regard to persecution and recrimination. If any one of them had been identified as "one of the Messiah's Ministers" they would have been summarily arrested and likely stoned to death. The inate courage, devotion and love that Jesus' female followers had for him would have doomed them immediately if they had been an Apostle.

This is why I think that women were not specifically chosen to serve as Priests and Apostles.

Some will argue that it was really just due to the fact that societal standards would have made it impossibe for a woman to become a "rabbi"...but then again it seems impossible that a man born in the backwater of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago could become the central figure of human history.

I guess I've helped this thread drift off topic, but I had to get my thoughts in on this.

 

Khemsa: I read Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" specifically to gain some understanding of true history. It's true that he was a skeptic--an attitude that True Believers are uncomfortable with--but his documentation for everything he says is both voluminous and thorough, as you would know if you'd read him--I rather suspect you haven't. Your assertion that he was a "polemicist", not a "historian" would be met with snickers, if not jeers, by almost all professional historians. Gibbon is one of the giants, up there with Herodotus and Thucidydes. Frankly, I find it almost unbelievable that I have to defend Gibbon's credentials on this board. It's like asking a Catholic to defend Christianity. A fair assessment of Gibbon is given by R.G. Collingwood, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford: "Gibbon finds the motive force of history in human irrationality itself, and his narrative displays what he calls the triumph of barbarism and religion."--The Idea of History.

Early Gospels & "Lost Books": Certainly many--probably most--were spurious. Early church polemicists were fond of the idea of writing a brief Gospel and then quoting passages from it to support whatever argument they were making. On the other hand, the Roman church was more than fond of suppressing ruthlessly any texts that contradicted official views. (I hope I won't have to answer arguments that the Church of Rome has never tried to suppress a book or an idea.) The fragmentary nature of what remains gives many underemployed Biblical scholars much scope for argument about what is, or is not, or might be, true. Still, the Gospel of Thomas, a "sayings" gospel, has been found, and it's undoubtedly very early, and the fragment of the Gospel of Peter, with its curiously different account of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, is now thought by some scholars to predate any of the extant Gospels.

Elm: I don't think there are any unbiased historians, so choose carefully. Iraneus was indeed a follower of Justin Martyr, but he was a step down IMO. He was strongly anti-Semitic, whereas Justin encouraged good relations with the Jews, and he was one of the first supporters of the idea of the Trinity, an idea Justin never encouraged.

 

Cernak,

I have my B.A. and M.A. in history with much of my classwork on my Ph.D. finished. I only stopped since I went to law school so as to earn a living to support my family.

I have read parts of Gibbon, and am familiar with his arguments. If you have read the entirety of Decline and Fall (unabridged), then I admire your perserverance.

I hate to break this to you, but Herodotus and Thucidydes and not exactly considered accurate historians themselves by professional historians. Their works are useful starting points, but no professionals consider them accurate.

As for Gibbon, even your quote (from a philosophy professor, not a historian) demonstrates that Gibbon was trying to make a point, like a polemicist, and not provide an accurate history, like a professional historian. When people are writing a work to make a point, their scholarship should be taken with a large grain of salt because of the great temptation to cherry pick the historical record for only favorable facts.

 

I think this is probably 'PM' material...or at least 'new thread material', as it is soundly off topic and essentially comprises a discussion between two members.

...but it is fascinating, however

 

Point taken, Hack. I've posted my reply in a new thread.