Steve
The DaVinci Code is fiction. It never has nor will it ever be sold as non-fiction. It doesn't pass the smell test as anything but a good mystery thriller in my mind. It is fun to speculate about Mary Magdelane's relationship with Jesus, or anyone else for that matter. But, alas, all it can ever be is speculation. Unless..deep in the Vatican library there is a scroll...

Posted by: steve d. at May 21, 2006 02:20 PM

---

But of course, DVC is being sold as non-fiction, or at least, apologetically non-fiction (to readers: we have to call this non-fiction, although it is entirely true because we are afraid that angry Catholics will visit our house in Connecticut to protest and tread on our pansies).
A couple of years ago (I think when the book came out) there were a couple of CNN docs, one of which promoted alternative stories for Christ the other emphasizing the importance of Magdelene. Their intepretation of Mary was as a prostitute, an adultress, who was the symbol of the forgiveness of Jesus. Of course, this meant that Mary of Magdelene would have been also the "cast the first stone" Mary which she was not.
People love inventing their own versions of herstory.

Posted by: Brian Lemon at May 21, 2006 02:56 PM

---

Simon Templar wasn't ...real? Ohmygawd!

Posted by: Hank at May 21, 2006 03:46 PM

---

Amazing as it sounds, and as much as I am shocked by it,...I agree with Steve_D. Other people have taken Dan Brown's work as non-fiction. Brown himself has never made any claims to that affect.

Denouncers abound, yet on the first page of the book Brown has a list of facts. Everything else is FICTION. These religious dolts blasting The Da Vinci Code as lies should remember that. But of course, you wouldn't know that unless you've read the book. Which most of them are loathe to do because it questions their faith.

Posted by: Regis at May 21, 2006 06:47 PM

---

It sounds like you're taking it a bit too seriously. It's a piece of fiction, nothing more. It's Christians who are turning it into a bigger deal than it should be. It's almost like they're afraid.

I'm not saying the story is true: elements of it are plausible, but other parts are just fantasy. The Vatican used to be a pretty violent organization, I could see them killing to keep a secret, hundreds of years ago. Over 2,000 years details can be muddied, so it's possible the Christ was married.

I just laugh at all the Christians - and I am one - who are going absolutely crazy over a book turned into a movie. Get over it people. The world isn't going to collapse because someone's questioning Jesus.

Posted by: sean at May 21, 2006 07:06 PM

---

IT IS ENTERTAINMENT...thats it.

However, if that was a movie about another monotheist religon and its founder then there would be blood in the streets.

Go see the movie, or dont your choice, it is a free society and thats how it should remain. One where movies and books and cartoons are able to riff on religous stories and symbols. The fact that they, the symbols and stories, are sacred is what makes it an interesting story....

Article in the Star today about the failure of the mullahocracy in Iran, there is hope yet, while we have Haroon Siddiqui taking the side of those who would banish Ms Ali out of the Netherlands because she dared raise criticisms of islamic culture. What a day of contradictions.

Posted by: Stephen at May 21, 2006 07:53 PM

---

My God! I grew up with Leslie Charteris and I'm seventy three. Its good to hear from another fan. Answer one question, what was the full name of the Saints occasional side kick Hoppy.

Posted by: ronrob at May 21, 2006 08:34 PM

---

I just finished re-reading the DiVinci Code before going to see the movie to see how the movie captures or not the book.

It has been several years since I had read the book, and had forgotten what a GREAT fast paced thriller it is. Since all of the hubbub and arguments about the accuracy of a work of fiction. Go figure. Every time another debunking show comes on TV, Dan Brown sells many more books and loads the Brinks Truck up with loot to take off to the bank.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Dan Brown is behind all the criticism of the DiVinci Code. It's a great scam.

If you can read the book and not recognize it as fiction, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: at May 21, 2006 08:38 PM

---

I just finished re-reading the DiVinci Code before going to see the movie to see how the movie captures or not the book.

It has been several years since I had read the book, and had forgotten what a GREAT fast paced thriller it is. Since all of the hubbub and arguments about the accuracy of a work of fiction. Go figure. Every time another debunking show comes on TV, Dan Brown sells many more books and loads the Brinks Truck up with loot to take off to the bank.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Dan Brown is behind all the criticism of the DiVinci Code. It's a great scam.

If you can read the book and not recognize it as fiction, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: the Dragon at May 21, 2006 08:38 PM

---

To those who try to blame the controversy over TDaVC on Christians, I'd like to point out that that is only partly correct. The backlash from Christian groups is because so many people reading the book are forgetting that it's fiction. Even when I read the book, probably about 3-4 years ago, I remember it being an issue and wondering how or why any intelligent person would read a novel and take it for fact. Apparently, things haven't gotten any better.

I do agree, though, that some of the Christian reactions are way overboard and probably backfiring. All that free publicity has probably sold more books than anything else.

Posted by: kunoichi at May 21, 2006 08:55 PM

---

Ah yes, but what was the nickname "Peter" really standing for? A much looser translation of such, as perhaps from the Cotton Patch translation of various parts of the New Testament, renders "Peter" as "Rocky". That kinda makes a wee bit more sense with the line about "...on this rock...". That shows a more internal consistency than having to drag in Gnostic silliness.

The movie was long on exposition and got some basic history wrong. As a starting point for evangelization such as in a movie theater lobby it is a good thing. For artistic value...I simply liked the reminder of all the sights in Paris that I saw when I last visited in 1998.

Not a great movie for a librarian like me to go see. I eagerly await instead the 24 movie to be set in England. That should be neat.

Posted by: S.M.K. at May 21, 2006 09:35 PM

---

Dan Brown wants it both ways. On one hand it claims it is a work of fiction but on the first few pages it mentions the Priory and says it is a real organization (which is isn't, actually). You can't say "this is fiction...but there's a lot of truth in it"
As for being a well written book, I'd disagree. There were so many mentions of the shock the leading lady experienced when she saw her (grand?)father that by the time Brown got around to finally describing what she saw, I didn't care.
She was shocked.
She was shocked what she saw in the basement.
She was shocked what she saw in the basement with the hooded figures.
She was shocked what she saw in the basement with the hooded figures and the ancient rites.
She was shocked what she saw in the basement with the hooded figures and the ancient rites and her (grand?)father right in the middle of of the ritual
She was shocked....blah, blah, blah.
As for character development, there was none.
So why was it so immensely popular. Probably for the same reason that American Idol is so immensely popular.

Posted by: Darren at May 21, 2006 10:41 PM

---

ronrob, that would be "Hoppy Uniatz" the dimwitted but reliable thug who drank Vat69 like it was lemonade.

Posted by: Mac at May 22, 2006 12:55 AM

---

Dan Brown is a poor writer who relies on "hollywood imagery" to sell his books. I have yet to be the least bit impressed with his crappy writing.(I have read a lot, thanks to my mother in lawe who loves him:(')

Posted by: Daryl H at May 22, 2006 03:43 AM

---

It took a bit of work to get through this book. It is just bad writing with "facts" that are not facts.

The early bishops tromped on the three (Mary, Martha and Johanna), no doubt about that. Mary had a fight with Peter & Paul on one side and a few of the other Apostles on Mary's side: The fight was over her right to be a teacher/leader. That we can say with a fair bit of assurance. We can say with assurance that Mary M. was more than just another camp follower: She stood as an teacher/witness/Apostle in her own right. That's as far as we can go.

Going beyond the above is daft. Sadly, there are many who want to go far beyond "Mary got shafted by the early bishop's sexism."

I worry about people's current demand for a sacred feminine. People refuse, in the very same breath, to include the shadow side of the feminine; due to this we find ourselves in a bad situation. We cannot fully include the sacred feminine without including the shadow feminine for to do so creates a lie and a dangerous one too. Sadly, this dangerous lie IS --in every way is-- our society as it currently exists.

We live in a culture where the feminine is upheld as the standard of good. We also live in a society where the shadow side of the feminine causes real harm, with few holding up that self same shadow for all to see. This creates real and measurable harm to all people.

In all ways Christianity has shown both the sacred and shadow masculine. We should have added the sacred and shadow feminine many centuries ago; we did not. This has lead to today's deeply problematic society.

Brown's book shows the size and scope of our problem with the feminine; that is a big part of the book's attraction. DaVinci holds the same "sacred feminine without shadow feminine" which is the heart problem of western culture.

For Canada to be a better place we must reject the heart of the DaVinci Code: We must fully include both the sacred female and the shadow female. For only by doing so may we hope to move forward as a gread land.

Posted by: jw at May 22, 2006 04:20 AM

---

JW,

Nice post. The way these yin yang/male female/duality things work is that there is duality within duality. Maleness has good and bad things and so does femaleness (sacred and shadow feminine)

At the end of the day its all about balance. Of course for the advocates on any side, when you scratch beneath the surface its all about power.

There are problems that manifest themselves today, the drop in school performance of males, the intolerance of natural "male behaviour" in boys in school. I have a son and a duaghter and there has been a swing against boys by some teachers, sad to see the effect it has on a 4 year old boy who knows no better. Fortunately there has been a teacher change and his love of school has shot up.

Anyway, nice post JW

Posted by: Stephen at May 22, 2006 05:57 AM

---

http://www.theinfozone.net is featuring AGWN as one of our featured bloggers (May 22) in a report on the blogsphere.

http://www.theinfozone.net/blogsphere.html covers past reports in this new feature.

TIZ

Posted by: TIZReporter at May 22, 2006 06:43 AM

---

Regis: The problem is that Brown's so-called facts on his first page are also partly fictional. Brown spins a good tale, and it is fiction, but it is written in such a way as to purport that it's just the story that's fictional-- all the historical details are expected to be correct. And that's where I have a problem with it. Yes, it's fiction. But it claims to be *historical* fiction--Brown has claimed this--and that, it is patently not.

Posted by: Alex at May 22, 2006 09:00 AM

---

I read it and enjoyed it. I will probably see the movie, though fear disappointment because almost always the book is better. One thing that bothers me, though, is when someone criticizes without actually reading it. Read it and criticize, but don't criticize because of what others have said.

Posted by: morison at May 22, 2006 09:39 AM

---

Brown has claimed this

Reference please. Because everytime I've ever seen Brown interviewed he has emphasized in the strongest words possible that it is a novel, and that anyone who takes it as more than such is off base.

Get over it. It is a novel.

Posted by: tim at May 22, 2006 10:42 AM

---

"Reference please. Because everytime I've ever seen Brown interviewed he has emphasized in the strongest words possible that it is a novel, and that anyone who takes it as more than such is off base."

From Dan Brown's official website:

"While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history."

That sort of thing gets repeated over and over. It's fiction, he says, so don't blame me for being offended, but everything I wrote about is historical and should be discussed as facts and not as fiction.

Can't have it both ways.

I've also seen an interview, and in it he clearly states that he researched such things as the Priory of Sion and is convinced that the documentation is authentic. He talks like a historian, but insists he's just a fiction writer when confronted by real historians.

Posted by: Steve Janke at May 22, 2006 11:57 AM

---

"It's fiction, he says, so don't blame me for being offended, but everything I wrote about is historical and should be discussed as facts and not as fiction.

Can't have it both ways."

I don't see how that is having it both ways. Historical fiction is nothing new: think of all the romance novels set in the American Civil War. There is a difference between writing nonfiction and writing fiction that incorporates actual events.

Frankly I find the idea that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene less far-fetched than, say, the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. The organizers of religion always pick and choose which myths and legends become part of the dogma and which are left out, and Christianity is no different in that respect.

Posted by: Ade at May 22, 2006 02:06 PM

---

Steve,

First, you write as if the Bible and Vatican somehow have revealed the objective truth to us, not just theological truth, but also historical truth. This is of course not correct. Your belief in the Bible, Christ etc is based on faith, not on facts. (The "the Bible is the truth because the Bible says it is the truth" argument doesn't really cut it.)

Second, if you consider it obvious (like I do) that it is a fundamental right to publish the so called Muhammed cartoons, then it is also obvious that it is Browns fundamental right to publish a novel. What's the problem?

In fact, even if Brown claimed that his book is indeed non-fiction (e.g. a historical research paper), shouldn't you defend his right to publish it (albeit argue the facts, as necessary)? Why the hysteria?

Please, focus on something important, such as our tax & spend Conservative government, or the corrupt Liberal party.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 22, 2006 09:06 PM

---

Funnily enough, I too recall that Saint novel, but as it turns out, it *wasn't* written by Charteris. It's called *The Saint and the Templar Treasure*, and it's credited to Graham Weaver and Donne Averell.

http://www.saint.org/books.htm

Posted by: PhantomObserver at May 22, 2006 09:50 PM

---

Mac
Thanks a lot, as I recall Hoppy could spit a BB with almost deadly force

Posted by: ronrob at May 22, 2006 10:09 PM

---

"a movie that has opened to resoundingly bad reviews"
And did $74 million at the box office the first weekend.

Posted by: dmorris at May 22, 2006 10:40 PM

---

Yeah. Right. Great bit of fiction for the Mormons to spread their heresy with.

As for Peter being the "rock" Jesus spoke of, try reading it in the Bible. The Rock is Jesus Himself.

Posted by: at May 22, 2006 11:08 PM

---

Why am I not surprised that at least one commenter brought up the Mohammad cartoons and free speech crap?

Um, ok. No one said that Dan Brown couldn't or shouldn't publish DVC, or that it shouldn't be made into a movie.

We just think it's crap. And so we say so.

That's a little bit different than saying he should have his head cut off or starting riots.

Please try to focus and stay on topic, Johan i Kanada. Mixing apples and oranges, dude.

Posted by: Heather Cook at May 22, 2006 11:26 PM

---

You "just think it's crap. And so we say so."

Well, just a few days ago an editorial in my usually reasonable newspaper (NP) compared DVC to hate speech (thus illegal)...

So what is Steve's point then? Just that the DVC stuff is crap, nothing else? In that case, can he give me advice on some other literary works as well? Has he become a literary critic?

Btw, and I would really like to know, what does Steve (and other DVC critics) think about Eco's Name of the Rose?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 12:15 AM

---

Funnily enough, I too recall that Saint novel, but as it turns out, it *wasn't* written by Charteris. It's called *The Saint and the Templar Treasure*, and it's credited to Graham Weaver and Donne Averell.

Thanks! That's why I couldn't find it -- I was focusing on lists of Charteris' works. One less thing to bother me.

Posted by: Steve Janke at May 23, 2006 08:36 AM

---

Johan in K,

"First, you write as if the Bible and Vatican somehow have revealed the objective truth to us, not just theological truth, but also historical truth. This is of course not correct. Your belief in the Bible, Christ etc is based on faith, not on facts. (The "the Bible is the truth because the Bible says it is the truth" argument doesn't really cut it.)"

Biblical exegesis is a two-thousand-year-old field of study with a great deal more authenticity, research, and double-checking of facts going for it than the dashed-off pseudohistory of Brown's sources. Many of the letters of Paul, just as an example, have been independently verified and collectively agreed, by scholars both Christian and non-Christian, to be written by the actual Paul, the real Jewish scholar who can be historically proven to have travelled the ancient world preaching -- some of them have been conclusively dated from less than two decades after Christ's death.

You might be interested in the website www.earlychristianwritings.com for a good smorgasbord introduction to the earliest Christian documents, their historicity, and the studies made of them. One thing they clearly demonstrate is that virtually without exception, every official New Testament element not only predates the fragmentary documents and historical vaguenesses used as the basis of the theories of Baigent, Picknell, Pagels, et al, but explicitly contradict them in many instances.

The Bible's historical authenticity rests on a great deal more study than its own say-so. Another great book for this is Thomas Cahill's Desire of the Everlasting Hills, which is a brilliant introduction to the historical study of Jesus of Nazareth.

"Second, if you consider it obvious (like I do) that it is a fundamental right to publish the so called Muhammed cartoons, then it is also obvious that it is Browns fundamental right to publish a novel. What's the problem?"

No problem at all, as far as publishing a "novel" goes.

It's Brown's claim (which he has made in numerous places; Steve cited one above, and you can Google any interview with Brown from 2005 or before for others) that the novel's historical thesis is fundamentally accurate, or at least that there is enough verifiable historical evidence for it that it should serve as just cause for seriously questioning not only the accepted record, but the entire basis of the theology and message of the Catholic Church (and thereby virtually every single sect of Christianity in any form).

There's a term for the deliberate publication of verifiable falsehoods in an effort to damage the character, standing or status of a person or organization: it's called "libel".

Let me ask you this: How would you react to a pulp thriller novel based on the presumption that a vast religious conspiracy has effectively controlled Western civilization for 2,000 years, and whose author claimed both implicitly and explicitly that the "history" revealed in the book was true... if the conspiracy in question was that outlined in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Would you really feel utterly untroubled saying to outraged Jewish friends or colleagues, "What's the big deal? It's just a novel, get over it -- he's got the right to publish what he wants"?

Posted by: Stephen J. at May 23, 2006 09:32 AM

---

I guess an organization living in fear of having a secret scroll discovered and keeping it hidden for centuries makes a more exciting read for a fiction novel than having the original finder just destroy the scroll. Which is what I would do with a secret. Obviously if I wrote the book it would have been really short. Pretty dumb, even for fictional characters.

Posted by: Reader in Alberta at May 23, 2006 11:21 AM

---

Small point, Johan in K:

"First, you write as if the Bible and Vatican somehow have revealed the objective truth to us, not just theological truth, but also historical truth. This is of course not correct. Your belief in the Bible, Christ etc is based on faith, not on facts. (The "the Bible is the truth because the Bible says it is the truth" argument doesn't really cut it.)"

There are mounds of historical truth in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. Catholics (the "Vatican") has never claimed that the Bible claims itself as the truth - that's a Protestant formulation - Catholics believe in the Bible because those who wrote it were willing to die for the truths contained in it. The witness of the martyrs is probably the most foolish thing in the Christian world if what they wrote is false. As such, my faith in the Christ of the Bible has more to do with factual events/witness than with the interpretation itself. Why would people peacefully allow themselves to be put to death for their beliefs if they knew they had falsified them in the first place?

BTW, I have read the DVC, and may see the movie (though not until it's a rental, and Brown gets a lot less of my $$ from the process). It was an interesting read - as a teacher in a Catholic school, I figured it worthwhile to know something about it to answer my students. "Serious" questions arising from the book are easily answered to anyone not steeped in conspiracy theories. One question I have: why did Brown not include a single respected Christian source (of which there are many; both current, and historical - in response to Gnosticism, which DVC most assuredly is the latest incarnation of) throughout his 'research'?

Posted by: Shane O. at May 23, 2006 12:45 PM

---

...hey did Indiana Jones find the Holy Grail yet? Oh wait, that was a British exploratory expedition wasn't it?

...is it african or european swallow?

Posted by: tomax7 at May 23, 2006 12:49 PM

---

Lighten up everyone.
It was a movie! made in Holywood! It is fiction!
If it wasn't a movie made by Hollywood, it would be . ......a documentary on PBS

Posted by: ian at May 23, 2006 01:03 PM

---

Stephen J:

"There's a term for the deliberate publication of verifiable falsehoods in an effort to damage the character, standing or status of a person or organization: it's called "libel"."

Perhaps, but:
- First, Christianity is not based on verifiable truths. (In fact, it is a verifiable falsehood that people can walk on water or virgins become pregnant.)
- Second this is a novel, not a historical thesis.
- Third, even if it were a historical thesis, it cannot be libel to put in doubt a particular religion (or version thereof). Because, if if it were, should then all Protestants be sued for libel by the Pope? Should all Muslims be sued for libel by Christianity? Of course not.
- Fourth, isn't it my inalienable right to criticize ("damage the status") of any religion, any political party, any philosophy, even if I'm factually wrong?

In conclusion, I don't think libel comes into play in this case.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 01:29 PM

---

None of us was around during the first century, so we are free to believe whatever we like about it. But if you decide to ignore the evidence that survives as to what did happen, then you're being irrational. Jesus is one of the best documented figures of the first century. To deny that he existed is simply irrational. Every bit as irrational as holocaust denial, and for the same reason.

The DVC is a wretchedly bad book. No matter how popular it got, it wouldn't be of any interest, except for one thing: it sells to people who hate their Christian neighbours, and want to be believe something, anything, no matter how obviously false and dishonest, in order to rationalise that insane hatred. That's scary.

Posted by: ebt at May 23, 2006 01:31 PM

---

Shane O:

"Why would people peacefully allow themselves to be put to death for their beliefs if they knew they had falsified them in the first place?"

Ask a jihadist. (Although of course neither martyrs nor jihadists believe they are factually wrong, as they are/were both carried by their faith.)

Btw (and I truly would like to understand), why is Gnosticism such a bad thing? From a historical & factual perspective, is Gnosticism really less valid than Christianity?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 01:35 PM

---

I'd agree with many posters. The DVC is a badly written book. It's made up a a series of short scenes or events, each about two pages long. But, nothing happens. The writing is so bad that it took a great deal of effort to refrain from throwing it in the trash (I finally did; I couldn't handle it anymore).

There's no plot line other than Find the Grail and mutter about decoding, no decent conversations or debates, no characters or character development. A lot of statements of shock and despair. Simplistic plot, simplistic characters.

Just compare with any Harry Potter for a comparable scenario of 'searching for the whatever', be it philosopher's stone or secret or etc. Now, the Potter books are extremely well-written, but this Dan Brown book is abysmal.

Compare it with Eco's Name of the Rose. Compare it with any decent mystery writer. Brown is a terrible writer. And now, a wealthy terrible writer.

Posted by: ET at May 23, 2006 02:12 PM

---

ebt:

"it sells to people who hate their Christian neighbours, and want to be believe something, anything, no matter how obviously false and dishonest, in order to rationalise that insane hatred. That's scary"

How many readers of DVC do you know (or know of) who hate their Christian neighbors? Who are these people?

(Btw, very few denies that Jesus existed. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I know of anyone. But of course there are many who doubts Jesus' divinity etc, but that's another story.)

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 02:30 PM

---

ET:

Regarding Eco, if I'm not mistaken, 'Name of the Rose' was quite critical to the Catholic church (too). I'm curious, was there a similar debate then?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 02:35 PM

---

Steve Janke you need to read all the four gospels and compare them. I guarantee you there are serious discrepancies. There are some serious disagreements between who saw Jesus first, the angel or angels at the tomb, the visitations etc.
Evidence A: If all the disciples fled when Christ was arrested, who wrote the detail discriptions of what tok place.
Evidence B: According one of the books, the disciples fell asleep in the garden so witnessed the word of Jesus' prayer?
Evidence C: In the temptation of Christ, who was the witness to the words exchanged between Jesus and the Devil?
Just like Dan Brown, it seem those books are also figments of their author's imagination..

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at May 23, 2006 03:02 PM

---

Steve j:

I agree with you, other than Matthew 16:18. The 'rock' that Jesus referred to is in verse 17 - the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God.

Johan,

Comparing jihadists to early Christian martyrs is apples to oranges. Jihadists owe more to their spiritual ancestors - the Assassins. Besides, Christian martyrs weren't suicidal murderers, being offered 72 black eyed virgins as reward - rather, they were murdered for holding to their faith. To them (and to many Christian missionaries since then) preaching the revelation of Christ is the divine mission, even if it means giving up your life.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 23, 2006 03:12 PM

---

Citizen,

Rather than disproving the NT, these differences support it. On minor observations, people have their own POV (just ask any detective). On all major Biblical issues, the writers completely agree. Otherwise, over the course of 2000 years, especially during the 'dark' ages - don't you think somebody would have homogenized the whole thing through editing? Conspiracies abound.

Think about it.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 23, 2006 03:20 PM

---

It is troubling that many who have not read the book or seen the movie and have no intention doing so are quick to pass judgement on the author and his work.

The movie is good, not great, but it is good. The Divinci Code is a good adventure yarn. It is not high art or masterful writing. Neither is Tom Clancy, but who can put down "The Hunt for Red October"?

It is historic fiction just like the Bible. A made up story loosely based on historic places and events. If Dan Brown's work does nothing more than make people aware of the tenuos historic foundation of Christianity then it will have been a success not only as an entertaining movie and book, but as an agent for stimulating thought.

Thinking is one thing our society needs to do more of.

Posted by: Cardstonkid at May 23, 2006 03:28 PM

---

Christians, especially Catholics, have every right to be upset with Dan Brown's 'fact-based' fiction. Here's why.

Posted by: Linda at May 23, 2006 07:51 PM

---

As they had every right to be upset by Luther's 95 theses.

Watch out, here they come again...

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 08:37 PM

---

Sigh. "Who's afraid of the big bad Catholics." You just proved the point of the post I linked to, Johan.

Posted by: Linda at May 24, 2006 02:45 PM

---

Johan, to your questions,

"why is Gnosticism such a bad thing? From a historical & factual perspective, is Gnosticism really less valid than Christianity?"

The simple answer is that yes, Gnosticism is less valid, historically and factually, than Christianity.

First of all, G-ism ignores (at least downplays) the accounts of Christ's life that were written by the people who knew Christ (one of the criteria for acceptance of the 4 Gospels is that they were either written by an Apostle, or by someone who lived in the company of an Apostle - basically first-hand accounts). Instead, they wrote their own accounts many years later. Simply in the interests of reporting accurately, this makes the Gnostic accounts suspect. (As an aside - the Gnostic gospels, if it can be believed, are actually worse writing than DVC; the Jesus they contain is plastic).

The Christian reaction against Gnosticism is predicated on the confusion that unreliable accounts sow among the faithful. The Jesus of the Gnostic 'gospels' is not the Jesus the early martyrs died for.

As for the difference between jihadists and martyrs: I see a profound difference between seeking death, including the death of 'infidels' as a path to glory; and accepting a not-sought-for death by refusing to renounce what you believe to be true.

Posted by: Shane O. at May 24, 2006 09:15 PM

---

Johan, to your questions,

"why is Gnosticism such a bad thing? From a historical & factual perspective, is Gnosticism really less valid than Christianity?"

The simple answer is that yes, Gnosticism is less valid, historically and factually, than Christianity.

First of all, G-ism ignores (at least downplays) the accounts of Christ's life that were written by the people who knew Christ (one of the criteria for acceptance of the 4 Gospels is that they were either written by an Apostle, or by someone who lived in the company of an Apostle - basically first-hand accounts). Instead, they wrote their own accounts many years later. Simply in the interests of reporting accurately, this makes the Gnostic accounts suspect. (As an aside - the Gnostic gospels, if it can be believed, are actually worse writing than DVC; the Jesus they contain is plastic compared to the 4 accepted gospels).

The Christian reaction against Gnosticism is predicated on the confusion that unreliable accounts sow among the faithful. The Jesus of the Gnostic 'gospels' is not the Jesus the early martyrs died for.

As for the difference between jihadists and martyrs: I see a profound difference between seeking death, including the death of 'infidels' as a path to glory; and accepting a not-sought-for death by refusing to renounce what you believe to be true.

Posted by: Shane O. at May 24, 2006 09:15 PM

---

Oops - SJ. I don't mind if you'd like to delete this post and the first of my previous double-post.

Posted by: Shane O. at May 24, 2006 09:21 PM

---