Comments on: The DaVinci Code

By: craig mclaughlin

craig mclaughlin — Thu, 25 May 2006 12:30:36 +0000

Mark Steyn astutely observed, after reading the first word of the book, that Brown is “unusually partial” to the “anarthrous occupational nominal premodifier.” That just killed the book for me.

By: SGT Jeff (USAR)

SGT Jeff (USAR) — Tue, 23 May 2006 16:57:19 +0000

The problem with the DaVinci Code is that Dan Brown is stating things as “Fact” that simply aren’t true.

But not enough people know the true history to keep those who don’t from doubting…

By: GreyEagleO6

GreyEagleO6 — Mon, 22 May 2006 17:21:00 +0000

Lex, you know your heresies! As a fellow mackeral snapper, I would also like to point out a couple among the many other huge whopping factual errors on DB’s part, Opus Dei never existed until 1928 and in 325 Anno Domini, neither did the “Vatican”. My kid brother joined Opus a few years back but I can’t get him to show me the secret handshake. He told me if he did he would be on “double secret probation” .
As for the Da Vinci thing, DB and anyone connected with the film, if the main premise is an attack on the Faith of hundreds of millions (which I believe it is), that Jesus was only a man, why not trash mere facts. Bottom line: not a brass farthing from my pocket for that garbage.

By: lex

lex — Sun, 21 May 2006 15:13:27 +0000

Sim – mainline Christian churches, especially liturgical rites, tend to take their received knowledge of the church’s doctrine seriously. The main books and epistles which make up the new testament were universally approved two millenia ago, while those whose provenance could not be assured were filed as apocrypha. There was a third branch of writing – heresy – that was suppressed, for good reason.

The Gnostic heresy, upon which Brown’s book was loosely based – I say loosely, because the idea of “sacred feminine” he pushes is not found in the Gnostic texts, Gnosticism was instead ruthlessly chauvinist – was only the first in a series.

So some Christians no doubt feel mocked to have the corpus of their faith teased at by novelists who insist that their sacred texts are incomplete because they cannot be reconciled with later works written by near-pagan syncretists. All this before the author imputes murderous bad faith to Catholic religious organizations like Opus Dei in the 21st century.

As for the Jews, Gnostics confused Y-hweh with Satan, believing the Old Testament God to be a lesser, maleficient deity. Which, not being Jewish, I would imagine an off-putting interpretation.

By: Sim

Sim — Sun, 21 May 2006 08:20:49 +0000

I’ve only read the book but unless the movie is somewhat different I can’t see where they’d be ‘mocking’ Christians and Jews.

By: MMDeuce

MMDeuce — Sat, 20 May 2006 19:22:55 +0000

These books bear the same relationship to Catholic theology that Tom Clancy novels bear to military operations. They’re thrillers, you’re supposed to enjoy the who-dunit and the chase (I didn’t. Too may “meanwhile, back at the ranch” moments for my taste) and not worry too much about the frame used to support the story.

Could it be true? Sure. It could also be false. The simple fact of the matter is there’s no evidence either way. You can’t prove anything and so must rely on faith.

Novak’s primary criticism is way off. There exist truths independent of the messenger. If Jesus’ teachings are true they’re true regardless of if Jesus was the Son of God or some nut talking to the clouds.