The Da Vinci Code

branie

What would be your honest opinion on the novel and the film? Apologies if there are other threads about it.

studiorat

Well it doesn't concur with traditional christian dogma. But other books on the subject provide a compelling argument. Particularly regarding Christs celibacy his family relationships amongst other things.

If you believe the literal meanings of the Bible or not will affect your judgement on this subject. Don't forget that the modern version of the bible we all know was published some 1,600 years after "biblical times".

Also early christian groups pretty much underground sects, so it could be argued that written historical evidence of the time is scarce.

Fanny Cradock

Haven't seen it myself, but Rotten Tomatoes give it an aggregate score of 25%. Aside form that it's ex-biblical, a re-writing of Christianity based of a number of false claims.

philologos

Look at what section in your local bookshop or library it is in, that's basically what I think of it. Fiction. Nothing is to be taken from it about Christianity as being 100% legitimate.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Don't forget that the modern version of the bible we all know was published some 1,600 years after "biblical times".

A fine example of how to present a fact in a totally misleading way.

Of course 'modern versions' of the Bible were published long after the events, they wouldn't be 'modern' otherwise, would they? However, modern versions of the Bible are accurate translations of much older manuscripts.

PDN

branie wrote: »

What would be your honest opinion on the novel and the film? Apologies if there are other threads about it.

I love to read good history books. I love to read good books on theology and biblical studies. I love to read good fiction.

I hate to read bad fiction. That's why I didn't enjoy the Davinci Code.

all the stars

i thought it was a great film...

i liked the idea of jesus having a family and being human and all that - was interesting about the mad lad going round killing people to keep the secrets safe and all...
was good film.. i liked it

RayMc

I like (and wholeheartedly agree with) Stephen Fry's assessment of the book - "Complete loose-stool-water. Arse-gravy of the very worst kind"

Dave147

I really enjoyed it.. PDN doesn't like it because he thinks it's sh*tting all over his religion. It's not, it's an enjoyable story which plays around with the "facts". Dan Brown said it was fiction straight out, so treat it as such.

faceman

film was awful. Book is a work of fiction. As with similar pieces it takes selective source material and manipulates into dramatic literature.

PDN

Dave147 wrote: »

I really enjoyed it.. PDN doesn't like it because he thinks it's sh*tting all over his religion. It's not, it's an enjoyable story which plays around with the "facts". Dan Brown said it was fiction straight out, so treat it as such.

You're a crap mindreader.

I have no problem with fiction ****ting over my religion because I understand that fiction is not fact. I just hate poorly written books.

Fanny Cradock

Not a fan of Sam Harris then?

Asiaprod

I love these debates. The DaVinchi Code was a clever piece of work that played on a very well know subject. As a story if was an enjoyable read, but full of discrepancies. But it did make people question their belief. The movie was spoiled by Harrison Ford's acting, should have used Sean Connory. A far far better read is Holy Blood, Holy Grail which at least is full of facts, though it is still only a work of fiction. A more plausible book and a better read IMO is Dan Brown's Angles and Demons. That one could to some degree happen.

faceman

Asiaprod wrote: »

I love these debates. The DaVinchi Code was a clever piece of work that played on a very well know subject. As a story if was an enjoyable read, but full of discrepancies. But it did make people question their belief. The movie was spoiled by Harrison Ford's acting, should have used Sean Connory. A far far better read is Holy Blood, Holy Grail which at least is full of facts, though it is still only a work of fiction. A more plausible book and a better read IMO is Dan Brown's Angles and Demons. That one could to some degree happen.

Maybe it's just cos it's late but that is the maddest post ever, I don't know where to begin! Harry ford, who now what now?? :eek:

Btw, the writers of holy blood tried to sue brown over da Vinci code

AtomicHorror

Asiaprod wrote: »

I love these debates. The DaVinchi Code was a clever piece of work that played on a very well know subject. As a story if was an enjoyable read, but full of discrepancies. But it did make people question their belief. The movie was spoiled by Harrison Ford's acting, should have used Sean Connory. A far far better read is Holy Blood, Holy Grail which at least is full of facts, though it is still only a work of fiction. A more plausible book and a better read IMO is Dan Brown's Angles and Demons. That one could to some degree happen.

*cough*Tom Hanks*hack*

Mind you there was a nice touch of Indiana Jones in there. I thought the film was fun, but I didn't buy the "editing the bible in one fell swoop at the Nicene Council" bit. It clearly happened, but not in quite that simple, deliberate and cynical manner I suspect. Vast conspiracies always make me smile, they invariably fail to make sense logically but they are fun too. No idea about the novel itself though my mother, a sceptic who likes quite a wide range of fiction, said it was pretty badly written stuff.

Kold

Angels and Demons was a far better read. DVC seemed a clone with a worse story line.

Asiaprod

faceman wrote: »

Maybe it's just cos it's late but that is the maddest post ever, I don't know where to begin! Harry ford, who now what now?? :eek:

Btw, the writers of holy blood tried to sue brown over da Vinci code

Oops. sorry wrote the wrong name just fin watching Indi Jones Crystal Skull:o

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

A fine example of how to present a fact in a totally misleading way.

Of course 'modern versions' of the Bible were published long after the events, they wouldn't be 'modern' otherwise, would they? However, modern versions of the Bible are accurate translations of much older manuscripts.

Thanks,
I hope you are talking about Dan Brown.

All I said was if you believe the bible literally you probably will think the book is a load of pants! Even if you don't you could probably might think that anyway!!! Foucault's Pendulum is probably a better read of a similar story.

Fact of the matter is the older manuscripts were written in Aramaic, Ancient, Greek and Hebrew I wonder how many more? A lot of the stories are allegorical, and have parallels in older traditions.

Both Christian and Jewish holy books contain the same and different stories (old testament), as do Eastern Orthodox versions etc. Not to mention the finding various texts found after the publication of "modern" versions.

The point is that the bible has been edited and added to by certain interested factions over the years to quote:

Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:

"...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."

Agreement on theological matters I believe were as much politically motivated as they were spiritually.

The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction based around some versions of historical happenings in the developing christian world. I'm not saying the Bible is a total work of fiction, but there are other versions of that story around as well.

Oh! and Dan Brown is sh1te and propbably gonna burn in hell;)

This is an good video who wrote the bible

lugha

The Da Vinci Code was always going to take a pasting for two reasons. First, because of its perceived assault on Christianity but secondly and imo more importantly, because it was successful way beyond the level that the talents of its author merited. And for some reason and in all fields, this seems to rile us.
I read the book and enjoyed it. It might be described as a good bad book. Its not likely to be ever included in the Oxford companion for English literature but it had something which compelled millions to read it. What that "something" was is the real mystery of The Da Vinci Code!

Pompey Magnus

I thought it was a good idea but poorly carried out, some of the mistakes he made were pretty amazing. I think at one point the book claimed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were ancient Christian documents.

I suppose the one good thing about the book was that it got people reading who wouldn't normally read.

studiorat

Charco wrote: »

I thought it was a good idea but poorly carried out, some of the mistakes he made were pretty amazing. I think at one point the book claimed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were ancient Christian documents.

I suppose the one good thing about the book was that it got people reading who wouldn't normally read.

Ah ref! The dead sea scrolls contain all the works of the Hebrew Bible with the exception of one book. The Hebrew Bible is basically the Old Testament minus 7 chapters. So why on earth aren't they Christian documents? You do have biblical texts outside of the Bible you know.

People read the Bible as if it were one book, from a modern point of view, a world of literacy when in fact the bible comes from an oral world before widespread literacy. Oral tradition was passed down through the family, the pslams state this. Genesis contains many folk tales from the area stories which turn up in many near eastern cultures, flood stories abound, river floods turning into ocean deluges etc. mythmakers hands is at work here?

Fact of the matter is that people back then trusted the oral word more so than they did the written word, for instance, craftsmen of the day saw the chance of people learning their craft from a book without having to learn it from them as a serious treat.

Dei Verbum states that the Gosples were handed to the Bishops by the Apostles themselves. Personally I'd question their motives for such a statement. There are contradictions between the gospels.

I think the patronising tone of some of the posts "people reading who wouldn't normally read" etc. is dismissive of any discussion on the points that Dan Brown skims over in his book which if researched further can give a good insight to the formation of western christian civilization.

Foundation of Christendom by Judith Herrin is a good way into this too

Congratulations to DB for a fine spin job and his marketing team for the "hidden truths" gag. I think readers of both the Da Vinci Code and the Bible should take note that although there may be hard facts printed in both, they are not all connected...

philologos

studiorat, they are Jewish documents that are accepted as part of the Christian faith.

studiorat

Jakkass wrote: »

studiorat, they are Jewish documents that are accepted as part of the Christian faith.

I know (herbrew bible).
DVC refers to them as the "earliest christian records", wrong! Jesus isn't mentioned in them either (afaik).

Sorry for stating the obvious, but the stories were 'written' before Christianity existed. My point was that they are still part of the old testament as used by the catholic church, who for their own preservation chose which passages to call truth and hersey.

In relation to the churches foundation in Rome, replacing loyalty to the imperial state with a spiritual loyalty...

"by transforming the historical figure of Jesus into a member of the hierarchy of divine, and by substituting the ideal of the deliverance of the soul from the contamination of the material world for the Christian ideals of the redemption of the body and the realisation of the Kingdom of God became social and historical reality."

The Da Vinci Code is a bit of fun messing with conspiracy theories.

I'll leave it here...

The Mad Hatter

My opinion in brief: my new euphamism for diahorrea is 'writing The DaVinci Code'.

Poorly researched, poorly constructed, poorly written, this 'book' has absolutely no redeeming characteristics whatsoever.

Soul Winner

branie wrote: »

What would be your honest opinion on the novel and the film? Apologies if there are other threads about it.

Dan Brown is probably a great Art Historian, second to none even, but he knows absolute beans about church history as is clearly shown in this (I have to say) very poorly written novel. How it became so popular is a mystery, the world seems to crave this sort of tripe for some weird reason. It was greeted with messianic applause by those who thought it held the undoing of the Christian faith. In any case it was a complete rip off from "The Holy Blood Holy Grail" which was written with the help of a real historian at least. Thought the film was awful too btw.

Is it me or does Dan Brown look like Richard Dawkins Hhhmmm troubling this is, meditate on it I will!!! :rolleyes:

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

My opinion in brief: my new euphamism for diahorrea is 'writing The DaVinci Code'.

Poorly researched, poorly constructed, poorly written, this 'book' has absolutely no redeeming characteristics whatsoever.

I largely agree with you, but from my perspective the book had one redeeming characteristic. It got people talking about stuff like the formation of Scripture and why gnosticism failed etc. That opened the door for Christians to explain things and to present the Gospel.

Of course some Christian were so dumb that they wasted the opportunity and chose to protest about the book and the movie instead - but, as the Tayto advert says, "There's always one!"

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I largely agree with you, but from my perspective the book had one redeeming characteristic. It got people talking about stuff like the formation of Scripture and why gnosticism failed etc. That opened the door for Christians to explain things and to present the Gospel.

Of course some Christian were so dumb that they wasted the opportunity and chose to protest about the book and the movie instead - but, as the Tayto advert says, "There's always one!"

Thats an excellent outlook. I hate when I see these 'zealots' protesting such things, Life of Brian was another one. Never actually thought of the positive aspect of the contoversy, i.e. the subject is brought up, and one can comfortably preach the gospel.

the more I think about it, the more I think, yeah, its actually done more good. People, who never had a faith, but would adhere to the traditions of catholocism, while being completely ignorant of what Christianity was were saying to me things like 'Yeah, see Jesus had a son etc etc' in places like the pub etc. It was a hot topic, and gave a great opportunity for talking about the Good News.

santing

PDN wrote: »

I largely agree with you, but from my perspective the book had one redeeming characteristic. It got people talking about stuff like the formation of Scripture and why gnosticism failed etc. That opened the door for Christians to explain things and to present the Gospel.

Of course some Christian were so dumb that they wasted the opportunity and chose to protest about the book and the movie instead - but, as the Tayto advert says, "There's always one!"

I agree, there was too much hype about this book. For those who want to know the validity of the historical reseacrh see Dan's successive book: Angels and Demons. I liked reading that book, but the historical value was nill.

Dog Fan

Agreement with PDN. the one good thing is that it got people talking, discussing.

Read the book, didn't really like it. The writing style is very basic. My wife's second language is english, and she found the writing too basic to keep her interested!

Angels and demons was pretty much more of the same.
Not a Dan Brown fan!

I'm not against the DVC because of what it says about Christianity, if that were the case I wouldn't have enjoyed the life of brian!

Ooops. Am I in trouble now? *whimper*