Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

The Da Vinci Code

Recommended Posts

I haven't read this book, but everything I hear about it makes it sound like a bad, bad version of Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. That's a book I would highly recommend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read this book, but everything I hear about it makes it sound like a bad, bad version of Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. That's a book I would highly recommend...

Comparing Umberto Eco to Dan Brown is almost like comparing a finely aged Gouda to a cheetoh...

And I completely agree with your choice of Foucault's Pendulum. If anyone wants to read a compelling novel that delves into the history of the Knights Templar, you can't go wrong here. Eco is an author who is in love with history, and can sometimes overwhelm the casual reader with his vast knowledge... but stick with it. It's well worth it. Also good is Eco's "The Island of the Day Before", which had the most compelling first line of any novel I have ever read:

"I take pride withal in my humiliation, and as I am to this privilege condemned, almost I find joy in an abhorrent salvation; I am, I believe, alone of all our race, the only man in human memory to have been shipwrecked and cast upon a deserted ship."

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the prizes of my book collection is an autographed copy of The Island of the Day Before, which oddly enough, is the only one of Eco's novels I haven't been able to finish. It seems to really drag. But I'll do it someday...

biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant loves loves loves loves loves The Da Vinci Code and dismisses anybody who speaks ill of it.

At the core of this novel is the compelling notion that Jesus was a bit more human than we might like to think he was. Some may be offended at this heresy, but the actual threat to one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, wow.

FWIW, after MONTHS of being on the library's "hold" list, I finally got a copy of this book a couple days ago. I plan to read it on the bus to/from Cornerstone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually consider myself a fairly slow reader -- but with novels and the like, if they're not written too densely, I sometimes slip through them a little quicker cuz my eyes kind of glaze over some of the more extraneous details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious -- and dead-on -- deconstruction of The Da Vinci Code as literature

I am still trying to come up with a fully convincing account of just what it was about his very first sentence, indeed the very first word, that told me instantly that I was in for a very bad time stylistically....

A voice spoke, chillingly close. "Do not move."

On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly.

Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.

Just count the infelicities here. A voice doesn't speak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Barry's version of the "code," "A Novel Approach..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let someone else "ahem" Beth that Jeffrey already posted the Dave Barry piece in this thread on June 28th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry--I've been really busy. And out of town. I read it yesterday in my local paper from the Friday July 2 ed., laughed my head off, and only today had time to look for online version. Of course I should have known that someone would have posted it already. You guys are the best. I'm not worthy, etc. eek.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the recent CBA conference, I noticed many current or upcoming rebuttals of The Da Vinci Code from Christian authors and publishers. I think there are even a couple of projects on video that will deal with the subject. I can't begin to guess how readable or scholarly they will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian talkradio around here has milked a couple of them. Personnally I get the titles confused. A few authors I've heard interviewed sound like basic Gnosticism debunking to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read The Da Vinci Code yesterday and today (but mostly yesterday) on the last leg of my trip home from Cornerstone. I have no comments on the style, per se, but the book was definitely a page-turner -- it drops a new riddle or puzzle or plot twist on you every 20-25 pages or so, and it was enough to keep me reading, reading, reading. The fact that the entire story unfolds in a single 24-hour period (or less!) and the fact that the chapters are pretty short also gives the book a fast-paced feel.

I'll have more comments on it later, no doubt, once I've finished slogging through all the other threads on this board.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, now I'm just over a week overdue for getting this book back to the library, so I had better post some comments on it while I can ...

First, this is a very Catholic story. Perhaps anti-Catholic would be a better term. But it's basically a Catholic story in the same way that Fundamentalism is a modern movement, and not quite an anti-modern movement -- that is, the book assumes a Catholic view of history, or a Catholic set of presuppositions, and then proceeds to attack Catholicism from within that matrix. There is no reference here whatsoever to the Orthodox Church -- and, given the book's obsession with sex, the "sacred feminine" and the supposed hang-ups of the church thereof, it is perhaps significant that there is no reference to what some would consider the Eastern church's more balanced take on sexuality. (E.g., Orthodox priests can be married, whereas Catholic priests cannot, with rare exceptions.)

Second, the idea that the bones of Mary Magdalene would undo centuries of church dogma and tradition if they were ever found is ludicrous, since as far as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are concerned, THEY ALREADY HAVE HER RELICS. Indeed, my priest -- who named one of his daughters after Magdalene -- tells me he has a piece of Mary Magdalene in his home. Freaky. (I don't know about Catholics, but I know the Orthodox were amused by all the hoo-ha recently over the so-called "James ossuary" -- from their point of view, who cares about a box that MIGHT have contained the bones of James when they already have the bones of James themselves?)

Third, I am curious as to why the characters in this book make such a big deal about the bones of Mary Magdalene when it seems the book is also trying to make Jesus out to be just a regular guy who married and had kids, etc. If the bones of these historical figures matter, then where are HIS bones? And if Jesus was just a regular guy, then why bother preserving ANYBODY'S bones and making up all these weird rituals and secret societies to protect and preserve them?

Okay, those are the biggies -- now let's see what other items come up in my notes ...

Things I know for a fact are bogus:

p. 234: One character declares: "Fortunately for historians . . . some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert. And, of course, the Coptic Scrolls in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. In addition to telling the true Grail story, these documents speak of Christ's ministry in very human terms. Of course, the Vatican, in keeping with their tradition of misinformation, tried very hard to suppress the release of these scrolls." Wrong on virtually every count. Well, okay, the Nag Hammadi scrolls WERE found in 1945. But the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered sometime between the 1930s and 1947; there are NO gospels in the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Vatican has not suppressed any of these Scrolls, but rather, Catholic priests and scholars have been very involved in disseminating and interpreting them; and even these apocryphal gospels, such as the Secret Book of James, tend to depict things which allegedly happened AFTER the Resurrection, which suggests that their Jesus was not as merely human as Dan Brown's character would have us believe.

p. 244: The idea that Mary Magdalene was turned into a prostitute as part of "a smear campaign launched by the early Church" leads me to wonder exactly how Dan Brown defines "early Church." Mary Magdalene is NOT a prostitute in the Orthodox tradition, so I assume this tradition is a considerably late development, and possibly dates to some point after the Great Schism in the 11th century.

p. 245: Once again, a character refers to the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi scrolls as "the earliest Christian records" -- and I repeat, there are NO Christian documents in the DSS (and the Nag Hammadi scrolls are ALSO much later than the canonical gospels, even if they may contain earlier elements that did not make it into the canon).

p. 247: Sophie assumes that a text called "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene" must be "a gospel . . . in Mary Magdalene's words", and no one challenges her on this.

p. 256: One character claims that a treasure trove which includes the bones of Mary Magdalene and a bunch of secret documents ALSO includes "the legendary 'Q' Document -- a manuscript that even the Vatican admits they believe exists. Allegedly, it is a book of Jesus' teachings, possibly written in His own hand." Rubbish. The 'Q' hypothesis is just that -- a hypothesis, not a document -- which some scholars proposed a century or two ago to explain why, if Matthew and Luke borrowed so much of their material from Mark, they could also have so much material in common with each other that was NOT in Mark. 'Q' refers to the common source or sources which are NOT Mark. That's it.

p. 435: I believe the hexagram was adopted as an Israelite symbol not by David and Solomon but by other Jews many, many, many years later. (And let's not get started on p. 446's assertion that the hexagram represents the fusion of masculine and feminine...)

Things I strongly suspect are bogus:

p. 125: "During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women" (emphasis in the original). I suspect these numbers are heavily inflated, and what's more, I suspect a number of the witches executed were men.

p. 145: "Langdon was always surprised how few Christians who gazed upon 'the crucifix' realized their symbol's violent history was reflected in its very name: 'cross' and 'crucifix' came from the Latin verb cruciare -- to torture." Um, well, okay, maybe most Christians don't know Latin very well, but I think most Christians DO realize that a "crucifix" is an object that depicts someone being "crucified", and only an idiot would be unable to figure out that crucifixion was pretty violent. Dan Brown's point here is that there is ANOTHER cross, like the one on the Swiss flag, where the four arms are of equal length, which I guess is supposed to be less violent somehow; he says THIS cross "predated Christianity by fifteen hundred years," which may or may not be true, but I would like to know in what context, and whether those older crosses have ANY connection to the Swiss ones; and I would also point out that some basic shapes are so, well, basic that it's no surprise they come up in more than one context.

p. 232: I rather doubt it took Constantine to "shift" the Christian holy day from "the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday" to "the pagan's veneration day of the sun." Does not Pliny, or some similar early secular source, describe how Christians meet for worship on Sunday?

p. 303: How could ANY secret society consider English a "pure language" just because it was not "rooted in Latin" and therefore an arm of Vatican propaganda!?

p. 309: What is Langdon on about when he says "early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less" (emphasis in the original)? Who are these "priestesses" or "hierodules" to whom he refers? I also highly doubt that "YHWH" stems from an "androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah."

p. 390: I rather doubt the word "minstrel" reflects the idea that the original troubadors were "the traveling servants or 'ministers' of the Church of Mary Magdalene, using music to disseminate the story of the sacred feminine among the common folk."

Things I want to fact-check:

p. 21: Did President Mitterand really request that the new glass pyramid outside the Louvre be made of "exactly 666 panes of glass"?

p. 24: How credible is the Opus Dei Awareness Network?

p. 45: Did Da Vinci really intend the circle around The Vitruvian Man to be "a feminine symbol of protection" and thus for that picture to be a symbol of "male and female harmony"?

pp. 159-160: There's a summary of the history of the Knights Templar which includes such claims as: (1) Pope Innocent II issued "an unprecedented papal bull that afforded the Knights Templar limitless power and declared them 'a law unto themselves'"; (2) the Templars "began extending credit to bankrupt royals and charging interest in return, thereby establishing modern banking and broadening their wealth and influence still further"; (3) Pope Clement V and France's King Philippe IV hatched a conspiracy to quash the Templars, and the Pope "issued secret sealed orders to be opened simultaneously by his soldiers all across Europe on Friday, October 13 of 1307," thus giving us "Friday the 13th"; (4) and on that single fateful day, "countless Knights" were captured, tortured, and killed.

p. 206: Did parchments called Les Dossiers Secrets really turn up in Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale in 1975, identifying Leonardo da Vinci, Botticelli, Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo and Jean Cocteau as Grand Masters of the Priory of Zion, an organization of secretive Eyes Wide Shut-style sex-ritualists founded in 1099?

p. 232: Do the haloes in Christian icons really come from the "sun disks" in pagan Egyptian symbols? Some of the claims here begin to enter wacky Tom Harpur territory.

p. 248: I don't feel the need to fact-check the idea that Mary Magdalene was of royal descent and a Benjaminite (thus making her a descendant of King Saul, just as Jesus was a descendant of King David, I guess), but I AM curious to know where this idea comes from.

p. 253: This is the ONLY page in the entire book in which Dan Brown even HINTS at what his sources might be -- and all he does is rattle off four book titles, without giving any authors' names. The fourth title, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I do recognize as genuine, but I don't know anything about The Templar Revelation, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar or The Goddess in the Gospels.

p. 266: Is the reference to a "new Pope" who would never condone assassination, and who frowns upon Opus Dei, explained in the previous Langdon novel(s)?

p. 316: Does the depiction of the Devil as horned really go back to some "horned fertility god" known as Baphomet, and the Church's efforts to depict him as evil?

p. 319: What basis is there for Dan Brown's claim that the references in Jeremiah to a city of Sheshach are actually coded references to Babel, decodable via the Atbash Cipher?

pp. 326-327: So ... how many of the names in this list of Priory of Sion Grand Masters are the names of actual people? (The ones I recognize are in bold.) And what evidence is there to link ANY of them to real people? Jean de Gisors (1188-1220), Marie de Saint-Clair (-1266), Guillaume de Gisors (-1307), Edouard de Bar (-1336), Jeanne de Bar (-1351), Jean de Saint-Clair (-1366), Blance d'Evreux (-1398), Nicolas Flamel (-1418), Rene d'Anjou (-1480), Iolande de Bar (-1483), Sandro Botticelli (-1510), Leonardo da Vinci (-1519), Connetable de Bourbon (-1527), Ferdinand de Gonzaque (-1575), Louis de Nevers (-1595), Robert Fludd (-1637), J. Valentin Andrea (-1654), Robert Boyle (-1691), Isaac Newton (-1727), Charles Radclyffe (-1746), Charles de Lorraine (-1780), Maximilian de Lorraine (-1801), Charles Nodier (-1844), Victor Hugo (-1885), Claude Debussy (-1918), Jean Cocteau (-1963). I note that some of these people appear to have had very, very long tenures. Almost improbably long, you might say -- as though someone couldn't be bothered to make up more bogus names than necessary.

p. 339: Is there really a "Temple Church" built by the Templars on "Inner Temple Lane" just off "Fleet Street" in London? And is it really round, and thus essentially "pagan"?

p. 390: Is there really a link between Wagner's Parsifal and the alleged bloodline of Jesus and Mary?

p. 434: Is there any basis for Dan Brown's assertion that Rosslyn Chapel in England was built by the Templars as "a shrine to all faiths ... to all traditions ... and, above all, to nature and the goddess"? (Let alone that Rosslyn, or "Rose Line", refers to "the ancestral lineage of Mary Magdalene"?)

Odd things in general:

p. 126: A reference to the Hopi word "koyanisquatsi"? And a link between this word and the idea that the "obliteration of the sacred feminine in modern life" was responsible for "an unstable situation marked by testosterone-fueled wars, a plethora of misogynistic societies, and a growing disrespect for Mother Earth"? Huh? Respect for Mother Earth is on the increase, last I checked, and some of the most misogynistic societies out there could hardly be called "modern". The reference here to "koyaanisqatsi" (as the word is spelled in one of my offical five favorite movies of all time), along with his references to The Last Temptation of Christ and so on, smells to me like a lame attempt on the writer's part to drag as many pop-culture references as he can to validate his shaky thesis.

p. 163: Langdon's book editor says to him: "You're a Harvard historian, for God's sake, not a pop schlockmeister looking for a quick buck. Where could you possibly find enough credible evidence to support a theory like this?" Is Dan Brown anticipating his critics?

pp. 262-263: Gadzooks, Dan Brown even brings Disney cartoons like Sleeping Beauty (the Princess is code-named "Rose"! ooh! aah!) and The Little Mermaid into the picture. ("Langdon held up his Mickey Mouse watch and told her that Walt Disney had made it his quiet life's work to pass on the Grail story to future generations. . . . When Langdon had first seen The Little Mermaid, he had actually gasped aloud when he noticed that the painting in Ariel's underwater home was none other than seventeenth-century Georges de la Tour's The Penitent Magdalene -- a famous homage to the banished Mary Magdalene -- fitting decor considering the movie turned out to be a ninety-minute collage of blatant symbolic references to the lost sanctity of Isis, Eve, Pisces the fish goddess, and, repeatedly, Mary Magdalene. The Little Mermaid's name, Ariel, was synonymous with 'the Holy City besieged.' Of course, the Little Mermaid's flowing red hair was certainly no coincidence either.")

p. 310: Why is it only the men who have to regard sex as a "mystical, spiritual act"? Isn't the very notion of a "sacred feminine" somehow ITSELF sexist, since it is basically a form of religion that defines femininity from a male point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And therein lies my problem.  It's too simple.  This book is such an easy read, that I'm betting it  doesn't provoke much thought from the average reader once they've put it down.  And it is because of its simplicity that I don't believe the average reader is going to feel compelled to do much research into the history that inspired this story.

Peter, I hope you don't define yourself as an "average reader"... because your last post completely dispels my previous thoughts about this book and those who have read it. tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baal_T'shuvah wrote:

: Peter, I hope you don't define yourself as an "average reader" . . .

Nah, I'm a Bible history geek -- nothing "average" about that. smile.gif

I'm also a religion-and-pop-culture reporter of sorts, so when a novel comes along that makes waves like this one has, I kind of feel obliged to check out its claims.

I haven't gone back and re-read my post, but I suspect you'll find most of the things I'm SURE are bogus in this book relate to the first century or three of church history, whereas all the medieval and modern stuff I am not so sure about.

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, I'm sure you know, but there are a number of books out now that take The Da Vinci Code and go through it chapter by chapter debunking its claims. I'm sure any one of them will have answers to the questions left unanswered for you.

I haven't read any of them, but one is by Darrel Bock, and another is by Ben Witherington III, both of whom are excellent scholars by anyone's lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm aware that there's a veritable sub-genre of Da Vinci-bunking books out there now -- I just wanted to get my own reactions jotted down before I started looking at anyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great write-up, Peter!

I am curious as to why the characters in this book make such a big deal about the bones of Mary Magdalene when it seems the book is also trying to make Jesus out to be just a regular guy who married and had kids, etc.  If the bones of these historical figures matter, then where are HIS bones?  And if Jesus was just a regular guy, then why bother preserving ANYBODY'S bones and making up all these weird rituals and secret societies to protect and preserve them?

Yes, I had wondered about this myself. If Jesus was just a regular guy who taught some great things, why all this drive to "kneel before the bones of" his wife? Should we not then be kneeling before the bones of the wives of other great men of history?

p. 232: I rather doubt it took Constantine to "shift" the Christian holy day from "the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday" to "the pagan's veneration day of the sun."  Does not Pliny, or some similar early secular source, describe how Christians meet for worship on Sunday?

I don't know of any secular sources, but I believe there are some first or second century Christian sources that mention Sunday worship (I believe Justin Martyr does--and possibly the Didache.) Of course, Dan Brown might assert that the Christian sources are not to be trusted, but then I would have to ask why trust the Nag Hammadi texts (which do not altogether support Brown's hypothesis) but not other extra-biblical sources. What makes the Nag Hammadi texts intrinsically more trustworthy?

p. 309: What is Langdon on about when he says "early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex. In the Temple, no less" (emphasis in the original)?  Who are these "priestesses" or "hierodules" to whom he refers? 

I don't know who or what Brown is referring to here, but there is certainly Biblcial evidence in Kings and Chronicles that the Jews did at times stray from proper worship of God. Whether it went as far as what Brown describes is not clear.

I also highly doubt that "YHWH" stems from an "androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-Hebraic name for Eve, Havah."

Me, too. His contention is made weaker by his assertion that Jah+Havah=Jehovah, a term that he says is supplanted later by YHWH. MMMMkay--well, Jehovah is a much more recent name than YHWH, and the name Jehovah actually springs from the name YHWH. But concern ourselves with historical facts when we can make wild assertions?

p. 253: This is the ONLY page in the entire book in which Dan Brown even HINTS at what his sources might be -- and all he does is rattle off four book titles, without giving any authors' names.  The fourth title, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I do recognize as genuine, but I don't know anything about The Templar Revelation, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar or The Goddess in the Gospels.

What I gathered from Amazon.com is that they are very much in the same vein as Holy Blood, Holy Grail. One comment I've frequently made about Dan Brown is that he did excellent research--except for the fact that he used resources that were themselves poorly researched blink.gif

p. 310: Why is it only the men who have to regard sex as a "mystical, spiritual act"?  Isn't the very notion of a "sacred feminine" somehow ITSELF sexist, since it is basically a form of religion that defines femininity from a male point of view?

Indeed, the idea of "sacred feminine" as depicted in DVC is inherently sexist. Women are the means by which men have the sexual experience that draws them into the presences of God. A woman is revered as the vessel of Jesus's child. Women are little more than instruments of men, really (though there is some discussion of how Jesus tapped Mary Magdelene to lead the church).

Some of the other resources on the sacred feminine are more empowering for women than that, but they have other problems in that they tend to treat YWHH as a masculine God and posit the existence of a greater, older, more powerful Goddess. So DVC is not even a good introduction to the sacred feminine!

-Teresa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

teresakayep wrote:

: What makes the Nag Hammadi texts intrinsically more trustworthy?

I suspect Brown would say those texts are earlier than the Christian gospels -- but I believe most scholars would agree that the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi date to some point after Constantine's reign, which would thus open up the possibility that they, themselves, may have been influenced by anything that Constantine might have done.

BTW, given all the hubbub in this book over the "sacred feminine" and the centrality of Mary Magdalene and her descendants, it is remarkable that, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, a Nag Hammadi text, includes one saying which declares that Heaven and Earth were made for the sake of JAMES, and another which says that Mary must become MALE in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

: I don't know who or what Brown is referring to here, but there is certainly Biblcial

: evidence in Kings and Chronicles that the Jews did at times stray from proper

: worship of God.

Definitely. But Brown seems to be suggesting that this ritualistic sex was somehow intrinsic to Jewish faith from the beginning, and was not a later, intermittent addition to it.

: Indeed, the idea of "sacred feminine" as depicted in DVC is inherently sexist.

: Women are the means by which men have the sexual experience that draws

: them into the presences of God.

Yeah, well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, given all the hubbub in this book over the "sacred feminine" and the centrality of Mary Magdalene and her descendants, it is remarkable that, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, a Nag Hammadi text, includes one saying which declares that Heaven and Earth were made for the sake of JAMES, and another which says that Mary must become MALE in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yeah, I find that quite interesting. I've not done much reading on the Nag Hammadi texts, but the little bit I've done makes it clear to me that Brown (and/or the sources he consulted) pick and choose from those texts to support the ideas they like. Taken as a whole, these texts do not uniformly point to some egalitarian early church that's all about woman-power.

But Brown seems to be suggesting that this ritualistic sex was somehow intrinsic to Jewish faith from the beginning, and was not a later, intermittent addition to it.

Yep. Just because something happened at one time--or some Jews believed something--doesn't make it central to their faith. Brown seems to give unusual, intermittent occurences significance they just don't have.

--Teresa

Edited by teresakayep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...