The Da Vinci Code

Thought I'd come out of hibernation real quick to make sure you're all aware of something:  Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code" is a load of ridiculous drivel.  It is not "historical ficton".  It is fiction based on lies based on fiction.

Dan Brown claims in his book that the Dead Sea scrolls are early Christian writings and invalidate the gospels in the Bible.  In actuality, the Dead Sea scrolls predate the birth of Christ and have nothing to do with the New Testament, so Dan's statement of "truth" is an outright lie.  He also claims that the Dead Sea scrolls were originally discovered in the 1950s.  Try Googling the Dead Sea Scrolls.  It is common knowledge that they were first discovered in 1947.  Did this man do ANY research?

But my favorite error in The Da Vinci Code is when one of the characters claims that a reference in the gospel of Philip proves that Mary was Jesus' wife.  The character says, "As any Aramaic scholar will tell you, the word companion, in those days, literally meant spouse".  Sorry Dan.  The gospel of Philip (which is itself a known fake) was written in Coptic, not Aramaic, and the word for "companion" in Coptic literally means "companion".

It always intrigues me to see how quickly someone who hates Christianity will latch on to any silly conspiracy theory that proposes to invalidate it.  Case in point:  Any theories about Christ having a relationship with Mary Magdalene are groundlessly extrapolated from late texts (third century or later) that are known to be bogus...that's why they're not in the Bible.  So while people discount what the Bible says about Christ -- even though most of it can be dated to within 50 years of his crucifixion and is known to be faithful to the original writing -- they'll readily accept absurd plots from texts written by kooks pretending to be Christ's contemporaries centuries later.

You have no idea how sick I am of hearing people say, "It's just a good mystery novel."  No, it's not.  It tells a fictional story while pretending to reveal the "fact" that Jesus Christ ran off to Europe and had a child with Mary Magdalene.  So at best it is "just a good mystery novel that directly attacks the deity of Christ."

Oh, I see.  No harm done, then.

I'm not really concerned that this movie will damage anyone's faith, though.  My thinking is this:  If you already think Christianity is a joke, you'll see this movie as validation of your beliefs.  If you don't often use your brain, you might like the movie and just keep living in ignorance.  And if you're a Christian, hopefully you'll just dismiss it for the nonsense it is and get on with your life.

Comments

[Patrick]

No matter the sub-categories people give it, the fact that it is a fictional story negates any argument that it can be (or is) even the slightest bit factual and/or historical.

Dan Brown simply followed the same plot-template he established with Angels and Demons. Only this time, he touched a big enough nerve to allow him to sell millions of copies.

[Jay]

I just want to see the Tomb Raider-esque fun that seems to be prevailent through out the trailer. That's what made National Treasure so much fun to me, and I think that's what I'll like about this film.

[SuperPope]

Sure thing, Jay. Why don't you just donate some money to the Church of Satan while you're at it?

Just kidding.

Seriously, though, the movie seems to be dooming itself through sheer bore power. According to http://www.rottentomatoes.com , only 18% of their 180 reviews considered the film to be marginally okay. I also heard that when it premiered at Cannes, the audience burst out laughing during the movie's climax. :)

[Jay]

Ok, I may have angered the Opus Dai, but I checked the film out tonight. I enjoyed it, but it was obviously a goofy work of fiction. None of the 'valid points' of the religious facts that they try to pass off are neither valid nor facts. Pure silly fun, that's all it was.

Although I did get to see Paul Bettany's bohiney. That was worth my admission price.

Every penny. ;-)

[Jerry Bray]

I haven't seen the movie or read the book. ( my girlfriend lent me the hardback, but i doubt i'll find the time) anyway, its just a bonehead movie put out to make a lot of money. all the bitching and complaining does is make the movie more money.which increases the chance of hollywood coming out with another bonehead movie. It would have been more interesting and a lot more historically accurate if instead of jesus and mary m. you would have had ghengis khan and martha washington moving to france and starting a royal bloodline. If you want to see a better tom hanks movie try volunteers or the man with one red shoe. anyway, hows things going in big ada?