3/5 Short version: Page-turning fiction that thinks it's non-fiction. Read Cracking Da Vinci's Code after it.
Long version: I couldn’t put down “The Da Vinci Codeâ€, and I couldn’t stop talking about it to friends, even ones who hadn’t read it, which I’m sure they found annoying. I loved reading it, but I found some things offensive.
Books and movies like this worry me because, in the name of “fictionâ€, writers can slander a real person or organization as much as they want, and audiences believe them. It’s propaganda. Brown’s ideas seem plausible because he effectively sprinkles in occasional facts and has well-educated characters assert that they are speaking the truth. But you wouldn’t study for the bar exam by reading Grisham, so why learn theology from Brown? I did a little research and, let’s just say that it’s ironic that the book’s main theme is a courageous search for truth.
It’s completely avoided on the book flaps, but he’s obviously got an agenda
On 20/20, he said he was on a mission to bring a religious message, a new way of thinking about the origins of Christianity, to mainstream America.
On NBC’s Today Show, he was asked: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?â€
“Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.â€
That’s not “absolutely all†of the book. Those are details, not main ideas.
It’s Male Bashing
For example, the scene where Langdon refers to a Harvard lecture he gave where women nodded with understanding during his explanation of “finding divinity†during sex while the men giggled immaturely, being “still boysâ€.
His Reasoning Seems Ludicrous
The Code says, “Mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base… for obvious reasons, they had to demonize sex. Other major religions did the same.â€
I’m sure a lot of people were having sex in order to commune directly with God. ;)
He refers to Jesus’ divinity as “The greatest story ever sold.â€
He claims that “Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity.†p. 124
The world’s most famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, said, “claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.†Sociology faculty chairman Steven Goldberg writes: “Theories about a matriarchal society… failed to include a single shred of evidence that (they) had ever existed.†Women in the pagan world were not treated as well as Brown asserts. In all cultures, India, China, Greece, you name it, women were considered property with no rights. In fact, even ancient Roman pagan scholars agree that Christianity was the turning point for the freedom and dignity of womenâ€. For example, Alvin Schmidt, author of “Under the Influence†writes that ‘The influence of Christians helped to abolish China’s practice of binding women feet and India’s suttee: burning a woman to death on the funeral pyre with her dead husband, and to fight the practice of some young girls being raised to be temple prostitutes.’
Brown claims that the New Testament was put together by female-bashers.
If so, why would women have a prominent role in it? Why would women saints and martyrs be revered, or even recorded? Mother Mary is prayed to. The resurrection itself is first announced to a woman. In one gospel story, sisters Mary and Martha are hosting Jesus at their home. Mary listens to Him while Martha does the “female†things and He affirms Mary and challenges Martha. Paul declares that both genders have equal standing before God. Meanwhile, Gnostic gospels put women down: The Gospel of Thomas, saying 114, has Jesus saying, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling your males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.†Also, in the ritual Heiros Gamos, it doesn’t say how women use sex to gain knowledge, the men do that, she is only a “chalice†in the rite.
Brown accuses the Church of Murdering 5,000,000 women as witches
The publication “Malleus Maleficarumâ€, or “The Witch’s Hammer†began the idea and practice of killing witches. Brown refers to “Malleus Maleficarum†as being authored by an official of the Catholic church. Actually, the church reacted to its publication by rejecting the legal procedures suggested by the authors, and censuring them. It was secular courts, not the Church, that relied on “Malleus Maleficarumâ€. Secular courts, not Church courts, handed down the majority of capital sentences. Those found guilty of witchcraft by the Church were usually given non-lethal penalties, such as excommunication, or fasting on bread and water for a year.
Neopagan author Jenny Gibbons wrote an article that states, "Popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion." (This is what Brown means when he refers to the "brutal crusade to 'reeducate' the pagan and feminine-worshipping religions.") Gibbons continues: "Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the church was at the height of its power (llth to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." In fact, it was Christian missionaries who encouraged kingdoms and courts to pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft. These missionaries said such charges were ungrounded, as they did not believe humans possessed the power to do what witches were accused of doing. Also, the fifth century Synod of St. Patrick ruled that “A Christian who believes that there is a… witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays that reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until he revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed." And what of the estimates of the number of women killed during the Great Hunt? Brown uses the figure of five million. Most modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 percent were men.
The issue of Jesus’ divinity being something decided on by a Church Council
Code, p. 233 “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… but a man nonetheless. A mortal…. Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.â€
“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?â€
“A relatively close one at that… Establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to… the new Vatican power base.â€
- Jesus called Himself: the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, said ‘the only way to the Father is through me’, said he could forgive sin, said He would rise from the dead; the gospels say he rose from the dead, He allowed others to call him the Christ, and said He would be the ultimate judge at the end of time.
- If He hadn’t really thought He was divine, why not just say so when on trial and avoid an agonizing death?
- All martyrs before the fourth century had been dying for the memory of a man? They didn’t already think He was divine?
- It got formally voted on because a man named Arius raised the issue by teaching that Jesus was mortal, was declared a heretic by a bishop, moved to Palestine and continued his teaching, sending letters to churches promoting the idea, and kept trying to gain attention until emperor Constantine finally heard about it. Constantine called together over 300 bishops, primarily from the East, (which should have helped Arius’ cause), and had them vote.
Brown blatantly lies
“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?â€
“A relatively close one at that.â€
The vote was 316 to 2.
The Priory of Sion: Brown relies on a 1982 publication, “Holy Blood, Holy Grailâ€, for his information on the Priory of Sion. Those authors relied on documents provided them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion, taking the name from a nearby mountain. Their club's "cause" was the call for more low-cost housing in France. The club dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Plantard created a series of documents "proving" the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendants of the line of Jesus and Mary. In 1993, Plantard's name came up in light of a political scandal involving a close friend of then French president Francois Mitterand. Plantard had, in one of his documented lists of the Priory of Sion, listed Roger-Patrice Pelat as a Grand Master. When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme. The court ordered a search of Plantard's house, which revealed further documents that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. The judge gave Plantard a stern warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank.
The phrase “The winners write the historyâ€
Sophie seems surprised by this concept, as if it’s new. Conspiracy theorists love this phrase. It conveniently discounts virtually all historical accounts. Also, as far as Brown’s specific claim against the Church goes, the New Testament was written well before Christians stopped being killed for their faith, so they were hardly winners at the time.
(Version I sent out:)
Hey ladies. I couldn’t put down “The Da Vinci Codeâ€, and I couldn’t stop talking about it to friends, even ones who hadn’t read it, which I’m sure they found annoying. I loved reading it, but I found some things offensive. I don’t want to talk everyone’s ear off tomorrow, so I’m sending this long-winded e-mail out now instead and I’ll try not to talk too much at the meeting. :) Take it or leave it.
Books and movies like this worry me because, in the name of “fictionâ€, writers can slander a real person or organization as much as they want, and audiences often believe them. It’s propaganda. Brown’s ideas seem plausible because he effectively sprinkles in occasional facts and has well-educated characters assert that they are speaking the truth. I'm sure we know we can't study for the bar exam by reading Grisham or learn theology from Brown, but I did a little research and, let’s just say that it’s ironic that the book’s main theme is a courageous search for truth. What I’ve learned is in normal font; the parts in italics are just my opinions. The underlined parts are the various topics I found annoying.
It’s completely avoided on the book flaps, but he’s obviously got an agenda. I would have liked a warning.
On 20/20, he said he was on a mission to bring a religious message, a new way of thinking about the origins of Christianity, to mainstream America.
He tries to make it seem real
On NBC’s Today Show, he was asked: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?â€
“Absolutely all of it. Obviously, Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies – all of that is historical fact.â€
That’s not “absolutely all†of the book. Those are details, not main ideas.
It’s Male Bashing
For example, the scene where Langdon refers to a Harvard lecture he gave where women nodded with understanding during his explanation of “finding divinity†during sex while the men giggled immaturely, being “still boysâ€.
His Reasoning Seems Ludicrous
The Code says, “Mankind’s use of sex to commune directly with God posed a serious threat to the Catholic power base… for obvious reasons, they had to demonize sex. Other major religions did the same.â€
I’m sure a lot of people were having sex in order to commune directly with God. ;)
He refers to Jesus’ divinity as “The greatest story ever sold.â€
He claims that “Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity.†p. 124
The world’s most famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, said, “claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.†Sociology faculty chairman Steven Goldberg writes: “Theories about a matriarchal society… failed to include a single shred of evidence that (they) had ever existed.†Women in the pagan world were not treated as well as Brown asserts. In all cultures, India, China, Greece, you name it, women were considered property with no rights. In fact, even ancient Roman pagan scholars agree that Christianity was the turning point for the freedom and dignity of womenâ€. For example, Alvin Schmidt, author of “Under the Influence†writes that ‘The influence of Christians helped to abolish China’s practice of binding women feet and India’s suttee: burning a woman to death on the funeral pyre with her dead husband, and to fight the practice of some young girls being raised to be temple prostitutes.’
Brown claims that the New Testament was put together by female-bashers.
If so, why would women have a prominent role in it? Why would women saints and martyrs be revered, or even recorded? Mother Mary is prayed to. The resurrection itself is first announced to a woman. In one gospel story, sisters Mary and Martha are hosting Jesus at their home. Mary listens to Him while Martha does the “female†things and He affirms Mary and challenges Martha. Paul declares that both genders have equal standing before God. Meanwhile, Gnostic gospels put women down: The Gospel of Thomas, saying 114, has Jesus saying, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling your males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.†Also, in the ritual Heiros Gamos, it doesn’t say how women use sex to gain knowledge, the men do that, she is only a “chalice†in the rite.
Brown accuses the Church of Murdering 5,000,000 women as witches
The publication “Malleus Maleficarumâ€, or “The Witch’s Hammer†began the idea and practice of killing witches. Brown refers to “Malleus Maleficarum†as being authored by an official of the Catholic church. Actually, the church reacted to its publication by rejecting the legal procedures suggested by the authors, and censuring them. It was secular courts, not the Church, that relied on “Malleus Maleficarumâ€. Secular courts, not Church courts, handed down the majority of capital sentences. Those found guilty of witchcraft by the Church were usually given non-lethal penalties, such as excommunication, or fasting on bread and water for a year.
Neopagan author Jenny Gibbons wrote an article that states, "Popular writers trumpeted that the Great Hunt was not a mere panic, but a deliberate attempt to exterminate Christianity's rival religion." (This is what Brown means when he refers to the "brutal crusade to 'reeducate' the pagan and feminine-worshipping religions.") Gibbons continues: "Today, we know that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When the church was at the height of its power (llth to 14th centuries) very few witches died. Persecutions did not reach epidemic levels until after the Reformation, when the Catholic church had lost its position as Europe's indisputable moral authority." In fact, it was Christian missionaries who encouraged kingdoms and courts to pass laws protecting men and women from charges of witchcraft. These missionaries said such charges were ungrounded, as they did not believe humans possessed the power to do what witches were accused of doing. Also, the fifth century Synod of St. Patrick ruled that “A Christian who believes that there is a… witch, is to be anathematized; whoever lays that reputation upon a living being shall not be received into the Church until he revokes with his own voice the crime that he has committed." And what of the estimates of the number of women killed during the Great Hunt? Brown uses the figure of five million. Most modern estimates suggest perhaps 100,000 trials between 1450 and 1750, with something between 40,000 and 50,000 executions, of which 20 to 25 percent were men.
The issue of Jesus’ divinity being something decided on by a Church Council
Code, p. 233 “Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… but a man nonetheless. A mortal…. Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.â€
“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?â€
“A relatively close one at that… Establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to… the new Vatican power base.â€
- Jesus called Himself: the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, said ‘the only way to the Father is through me’, said he could forgive sin, said He would rise from the dead; the gospels say he rose from the dead, He allowed others to call him the Christ, and said He would be the ultimate judge at the end of time.
- If He hadn’t really thought He was divine, why not just say so when on trial and avoid an agonizing death?
- All martyrs before the fourth century had been dying for the memory of a man? They didn’t already think He was divine?
- It got formally voted on because a man named Arius raised the issue by teaching that Jesus was mortal, was declared a heretic by a bishop, moved to Palestine and continued his teaching, sending letters to churches promoting the idea, and kept trying to gain attention until emperor Constantine finally heard about it. Constantine called together over 300 bishops, primarily from the East, (which should have helped Arius’ cause), and had them vote.
Brown blatantly lies
“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?â€
“A relatively close one at that.â€
The vote was 316 to 2.
The Priory of Sion: Brown relies on a 1982 publication, “Holy Blood, Holy Grailâ€, for his information on the Priory of Sion. Those authors relied on documents provided them by Pierre Plantard, an anti-Semitic Frenchman who spent time in jail for fraud in 1953. Plantard and three other men started a small social club in 1954 called the Priory of Sion, taking the name from a nearby mountain. Their club's "cause" was the call for more low-cost housing in France. The club dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name. Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, Plantard created a series of documents "proving" the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene, through the kings of France, down to the present day to include Pierre Plantard. He began using the name Plantard de Saint-Clair, saying the Saint-Clairs were direct descendants of the line of Jesus and Mary. In 1993, Plantard's name came up in light of a political scandal involving a close friend of then French president Francois Mitterand. Plantard had, in one of his documented lists of the Priory of Sion, listed Roger-Patrice Pelat as a Grand Master. When called before the court to testify, Plantard, under oath, admitted he had made up the whole Priory scheme. The court ordered a search of Plantard's house, which revealed further documents that proclaimed Plantard to be the true king of France. The judge gave Plantard a stern warning and dismissed him as a harmless crank.
The phrase “The winners write the historyâ€
Sophie seems surprised by this concept, as if it’s new. Conspiracy theorists love this phrase. It conveniently discounts virtually all historical accounts. Also, as far as Brown’s specific claim against the Church goes, the New Testament was written well before Christians stopped being killed for their faith, so they were hardly winners at the time.
He refers to his main characters as 'Sophie and Langdon', not 'Sophie and Robert'.
I don't know why this bugs me.
That's it.
:)
hide
Yes (1) 
No (0) 
