Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' and 'Angels And Demons' (merged)

[Arvedui]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

If that's how you found it, and if you think it throws important light on anything, I find that distinctly worrying!

Yes, I found it interesting. In fact: very interesting. However, I did not use the word important. What I wrote, was new light. IMO, there is a huge difference between those phrases. But I still can't help wondering: what if he is right? What if this is the truth? There is no proof to either side, which is all belief is about, I guess...

 

[Wolfshead]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

I didn't actually realise that religious discussion were banned... sorry. I've hardly been on here in the last few months - first work and now uni have kept me away. I wondered where all the religious topics went... Hopefully this'll stay reasonable, though.

Seems like you've had a pretty interesting life, Barley! Mine's much more simple - when young believed what I was told, then stopped believing, now I'm not sure. But there's plenty of time for more

I am fascinated by this obsession with a blood line for Jesus; though as far as I know it only appears in fiction - a sort of Aragorn figure to leap out of the woodwork when the world is in peril, perhaps!

The Gnostic Gospel of Philip actually says that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. There's a load about it in Martin Lunn's Da Vinci Code Decoded. I just looked that bit up - I haven't got round to reading the whole thing yet. I've generally got more important things to do It is from a Gnostic gospel, though, and they were regarded as heretical by the early church (see, I've been learning ), so their beliefs don't conform with that of the mainstream church. Note: I'm not trying to spark debate with this, just I'm just putting down a factual answer to a question.

You've got a lot on your plate, CS, with that bundle of courses. I hope you get out of them what you are looking for. The Church, of course, does not have just one history, and the rise of Christianity is like the rise of the Himalayas - many simultaneous peaks and troughs. Geography would have been easier!

I hope so too... Thanks, though. I used to do geography at school, it was easy - too much colouring in and watching Ray Mears videos Got bored of it, though. I've always preferred history, to be honest.

 

[joxy]

What I wrote, was new light.

As I understand it what the author has done is not to throw new light, but to assemble a whole lot of material, most of it of minimal value in itself and minimal relevance to anything of today, that was already known, and to bring it together in one place, exposed to one light.
As a review I have just read says:
"God knows how this book has sold as many copies as it has. It is unspeakably bad, written in a style that would make a 14-year-old squirm. The plot is ripped off from various other sources and the characters are so remarkably dull that one wonders how the author ever managed to complete the book without falling into a coma."
Another review tells us that it is:
"written in a style that I can only describe as Modern American Drivel".
I don't know enough about the content to go into any detail, but I must put in a word for the organisation Opus Dei: it is an organisation within my church to which I am not particularly attracted, but it has none of the sinister connotations that this book assigns to it.
Lunn's riposte to Brown is also notorious for its poor quality of writing, but it is a riposte, and if anyone feels compelled to read the latter they should certainly follow up by reading the former.
Better though, follow CS' example, and do the more important things that you have to do, instead of reading either.

 

[Walter]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

I don't know enough about the content to go into any detail, but I must put in a word for the organisation Opus Dei: it is an organisation within my church to which I am not particularly attracted, but it has none of the sinister connotations that this book assigns to it.

Not having read the book I have no idea what the sinister connotations are Dan Brown assigns to them, but statements like this one almost "beg" for objections, due to the highly questionable nature and practices of Opus Dei, which would quickly lead to another form of religious discussion here...

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

Not having read the book I have no idea what the sinister connotations are Dan Brown assigns to them, but statements like this one almost "beg" for objections, due to the highly questionable nature and practices of Opus Dei, which would quickly lead to another form of religious discussion here...

IF we were able to discuss religion as before (before the Divine Censors Spoke Arbitrarily from On High in their Infinite Wisdom), THEN I would refer you to http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017 — which is Opus Dei's response to the Brown book.

Barley

 

[joxy]

....the highly questionable nature and practices of Opus Dei,

"Questionable": an interesting choice of word.
Literally, ask questions about them by all means, and you'll get all the answers you want, from me, and from the organisation.
Criticise them for false allegations, and that's a different matter.
And thank you, B B, for the link.

 

[Walter]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

OED questionable: doubtful as regards truth or quality; not clearly in accordance with honesty, honour, or wisdom...

English is not my first language, hence my choice of words may not always be the best, maybe I should've said dangerous or harmful rather, would I say more, I'd be already in the middle of just another religious discussion...

For some counterbalance to the official page of Opus Dei see also: http://www.odan.org/index.htm, http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/ or http://www.phil.uni-sb.de/projekte/imprimatur/2001/imp010202.html

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

OED questionable: doubtful as regards truth or quality; not clearly in accordance with honesty, honour, or wisdom...

English is not my first language, hence my choice of words may not always be the best, maybe I should've said dangerous or harmful rather, would I say more, I'd be already in the middle of just another religious discussion...

For some counterbalance to the official page of Opus Dei see also: http://www.odan.org/index.htm, http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/ or http://www.phil.uni-sb.de/projekte/imprimatur/2001/imp010202.html

I'll be examining those sites! (Have we discovered a way around the ban on religion and politics, viz.: posting URLs?)

Barley

EDIT: After having taken a cursory look at the above links, I find that the pros and cons vis a vis Opus Dei are for me a "private fight," one in which I will take no part and about which I will make no further comment.

 

[joxy]

....my choice of words may not always be the best, maybe I should've said dangerous or harmful

That's OK; your English is fine; your use of the word "questionable" was not at all questionable in either sense of the word!
As I said, asking questions is fine, and I'd be happy to give the answers if Forum policy allowed it.
But the secondary meanings, dangerous and harmful, those are not justified, as I could show - if policy allowed it!

 

[Walter]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

Actually I'm quite content with the status quo on discussions about politics and religion and thus I, for one, would not be happy if these discussions could be sneaked in through the back-door.

"Putting in a word" - as you call it - for such a questionable and disputed organisation as the Opus Dei, is IMO not only an attempt to return to these political and religious discussions, but also quasi "begging for objections" (from those who have a critical point of view regarding this sect).

That - and nothing else - was the intention of my first post in this thread.

 

[joxy]

As I said before, "questionable" in the literal sense, yes, as all organisations must be prepared to be questioned.
But "questionable" in the additional sense you gave, is an unfair criticism.
Also, "disputed" in the literal sense may be appropriate, as all organisations must be subject to dispute, or at least to discussion.
But "disputed" with a pejorative sense is another unfair usage.
I did not attempt to return to religious discussion, nor did I invite objections. The organisation is criticised unfairly in the book which is the subject of this thread, and that could not be allowed to go unchallenged, though, again as I said before, I have no specific attraction to this organisation.
Opus Dei is not a "sect".

 

[Walter]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

But who decides what criticism is fair and what not?

Who decides which usage of words is fair?

OED sect: a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs from those of a larger group to which they belong.

 

[joxy]

What is fair, and what is not, is a matter of opinion.
The book which is the subject oif this thread offers one sort of opinion, an opinion adversely critical of the organisation.
I said I had to "put in a word" for, implying in favour of, the organisation, simply as a balancing act, without engaging in defence.
The OED has a critical addition to that definition: ""typically regarded as heretical", which does not apply to Opus Dei.
It goes on to say that the word "sect" is "frequently derogatory"; there is no justification for derogation of Opus Dei.

 

[Walter]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

Very well then, joxy...

It seems we agree that it's a matter of opinion whether or not to consider Opus Dei as dangerous and/or harmful and that it may be considered a sect by some, which would be in agreement with the basic definition of a sect given in the OED.

Whether or not there is justification for a derogation of Opus Dei (from Latin derogare which is btw. in its original meaning not far off from 'to question' and thus to the word 'questionable' I originally used) is again a matter of opinion.

Now that we have - hopefully - settled that issue, we could let the thread return to its topic and - maybe - in the future refrain from comments which might be able to provoke a return to a political and/or religious debate.

Maybe we could even dedicate some time - instead of making off-topic comments here - to making contributions in in the sections dedicated to the late Prof. Tolkien - the one who is the main focus of this board - and to the wonderful books he has written?

I'm looking forward to seeing you there...

 

[Dr. Ransom]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

I wish I had found this topic sooner...

I have read the book and enjoyed it a lot... I love detailed fast paced fiction, throw it a bit of conspiracy and I'm hooked.

However, that being said, Dan Brown is a total lunitic (meh, why mince words?) I totally understand that making up crazy stuff sells books, but he has gone on the record several times claiming that The Da Vinci Code is "historical fiction". He has even claimed that had he been writing a non-fiction book on the topic, it would have changed nothing. My brother satirictally commented that "yeah, it would still be filed in the 'fiction department'" lol, cracks me up.

I just completed an 8 page paper on the historical issues in this book, and though I am more familliar with early church history than most, after I began actually researching some of the things Brown claims, I was shocked to find there is far more balony than I even imagined.

For instance, even the passage in the so called gospel of Philip (which was written as far removed from the life of Christ as the Declaration of Independance is from us) that supposedly claims Jesus and Mary were married is a huge stretch. The actual passage is broken, so we are not sure if it even refers to Jesus kissing Mary, not to mention it only refers to her as a "companion" which despite Teabing's claims in the book, does not ever mean "spouse". In fact, that is a hillarious mistake in the book. Teabing asserts that "any Aramaic scholar knows that companion means spouse". In reality, any Aramaic scholar knows that Philip isn't aramaic, it's coptic! lol

Brown even got small easy facts wrong! A simple google search will show any who are curious that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 (I knew that BEFORE reading the book!) and yet good old Teabing claims they were discovered in the '50s... what the heck?

Any who want to discuss "historical" issues that you think Brown actually got right?

 

[joxy]

Opus Dei is not "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs from those of a larger group to which they belong", which is the OED basic definition of a "sect"; it is not "typically regarded as heretical", which the OED adds to its basic definition.
I would be interested to know why anyone would believe the contrary, but of course they cannot tell us that here.
My comment, of "putting in a word" for Opus Dei, was not off-topic in this thread, of which the subject is Brown's book which contains adverse references to the organisation.
When I first found these areas which are not directly concerned with Tolkienian matters, I questioned whether they were appropriate. I was told they were, and soon came to agree, and to participate in them to a large extent.
However, my main interest does lie with the essential purpose of the whole forum, and I have enjoyed my encounters with you in the relevant areas, W, and hope to continue to do so.

Who - or what - is Teabing - or teabing?

 

[Dr. Ransom]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

Teabing is a major character in The Da Vinci Code.

One of his roles is as an expert Theologian/Historian, so it makes it far more ironic when he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about; such as the Dead Sea Scrolls being discovered in the 1950s.

 

[Walter]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

Having read the book meanwhile I'd like to add my two cents...

On the overall impression I have to second Arvedui, I too have found the book highly interesting, but I have found it amusing too. Of course Dan Brown is - as far as I can tell - not always very close to the facts regarding history or mythology, but after all this book is a work of fiction. Historical fiction only insofar as it alludes to actual history. And - as a general impression - in that he is closer to the facts as Tolkiens Lost Tales are, to name but one example.

The one major flaw I would critizise, is that Brown gives the impression as if Christianity was responsible for the decline of the female role in society, whereas in fact this was a process which began several thousands of years earlier, in the late Neolithic and Bronze-age, and which came most probably with the immigrations of the Indo-European herdsmen.

The slip about the Dead Sea Scrolls I would consider a minor one *), the first Scrolls were indeed found in 1947, but other caves were detected between 1952 and 1956 (http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm).

And what is said about Opus Dei is by and large congruent with the information purported elsewhere...

*) At least in the English edition, where it is said they were "...found in the 1950s..." whereas in the German edition this is falsely translated as "... found in the year 1950..."

 

[joxy]

....what is said about Opus Dei is by and large congruent with the information purported elsewhere....

Oh yes, there's plenty of "purporting" done in the world, about anything and everything.
That was the only reason why I "put in a word": to point out that plenty of things that are "purported" are actually total fiction.

 

[Walter]

Re: Dan Brown - 'The Da Vinci Code' & 'Angels And Demons'

Recently I got the book Der Gral (transl: The Grail) by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, and which evidently is a sequel to their 1981 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Both books claim to portray facts, but many of the facts are - of course - disputed.

The latter has been apparently the source of many of the ideas Dan Brown puts forth in his Da Vinci Code, so if anyone is interested in some more background of Brown's fiction, this would be the book to check out...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440136482/102-0985154-4935332?v=glance

-----

Edit: I just noted that Gildor in post #10 already mentions the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail...