Fraud" is a strong word.

Fudged? Faked? Finagled? I think that our near cultural obsession with conspiracy theories and our receptivity to obvious liars such as Michael Moore and other fact-forgers is indicative of a culture that has been taught that there is no such thing as objective truth. Everything is relative.

At some point we get to the fuzzy line between fact and interpretation.

I agree. We must not get caught up in literalism for works that are inherently artistic. But I fear what often happens is that works, or parts of works, that ought to adhere to the literal truth are now simply lying under the convenient cover of "artistic license." You can�t have it both ways, at least not if one wishes to preserve one�s integrity.

Had Mel Gibson said that Jesus� middle name was Horatio and that he was a free mason then I would have said that his movie was more an example of junk culture than an artistic interpretation of the passion of Christ.

<< I'll check out my dust flaps for hidden messages. Can you provide a riddle to help us out? >>

I happened to notice, when the book was on the table a few feet from me, that there were little darker spots scattered in the dust jacket flap text, after the red dropcap W. A closer look showed that individual letters here and there are in bold. String them together (both flaps) to find the message.

Markle

OK, here's Brown from his page before the Prologue. I'll type a few key exchanges and you all can see if you agree with me that Brown is spinning propaganda.

FACT:

. . . All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

Note that he's listing documents here.

Fast-forward to p. 233 (hardback), where Teabing (Oxford scholar, knighted gentleman) is ranting about the Council of Nicea:

"At this gatering," Teabing said, "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon--the date of Easter, the role of bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus. . . until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet--a great and powerful man, but a man nontheless. A mortal."

"Not the Son of God?" (Sophie inquires)

"Right," Teabing said, "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."

"Hold on. You're saying Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?"

"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added, "Nonetheless, establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base. . . "

Ummm . . . NO to most of that, especially the part about Christians viewing Jesus as only a mortal prophet. That's not why it split off from Judaism, nor why hundreds of Christians died from persecution by Jews and Romans. This dishonors them and their martyrdom.

Sophie glanced at Langdon, and he gave her a soft nod of concurrence.

. . .

The twist is this, "Teabing said, talking faster now. "Because Constantine upgraded Jesus; status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling his life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history." Teabing paused, eyeing Sophie. "Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of human traits and embellished those gospes that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up and burned."

"And interesting note," Langdon added. "Anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine's version was deemed a heretic . . .

Nauseous b.s. The canon of New Testament Scriptures had begun to take shape long before, and was based on the texts the communities valued and the authority behind them. This is deliberate distortion by Brown! Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that the New Testament was altered by Constantine at Nicea, nor later.

"Fortunately for historians," Teabing said, '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, (emphasis mine) tried very hard to suppress the release of these scrolls. And why wouldn't they? The scrolls highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was complied and edited by men who possessed a political agenda--to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base."

Aside from the fact that pretty much everything in that paragraph is wrong (the existing Gospels give a portrayal the human Jesus; the Dead Sea scrolls did NOT show discrepancies with existing Scriptures; the Church did NOT try to suppress their study), it's pretty clear that Brown, in the way he's using these documents and Nicea, is deliberately misinforming readers with anti-Catholic propaganda.

If you don't get it by now, Teabing will beat you over the head with a sledge.

What I mean," Teabing countered, "is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is *false*. As are the stories about the Holy Grail.

I could care less about the stories of the Grail, but Christ?

The indoctrination of Sophie and Brown's readers into this wonderful world of honesty and clear vision goes on and on, finally consummating in reflection on the story of Adam and Eve (p. 238).

"I should add," Teabing chimed, "that this concept of woman as life-bringer was the foundation of ancient religion. Childbirth was mystical and powerful. Sadly, Christian philosophy decided to embezzle the female's creative power by ignoring biological truth and making man the Creator. . . .

Excuse me! What biological truth did the Church ignore? We didn't know children came from women? We also didn't know about sperm and ova until the late 19th C. No one did!

I might add, here, that Teabing conveniently forgot to mention the part about how most of those ancient religions emphasizing goddess worship generally included human/child sacrifice as well. The story of God telling Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac is significant, here, in that Yahweh is moving the Hebrews away from such a loathsome practice.

- - -

On to the Grail, which is supposedly Mary Magdalen, Jesus' lover or wife.

1. It would have constituted no scandal whatsoever for the early Christians to have believed that Jesus was married, and would have in no way denigrated their view of him as the Son of God.

I'm willing to ignore stuff like that, as I do in most movies and novels. Nevertheless, Sir Teabing the Gallant just can't stop himself from spouting fresh manure. On and on he goes about how the Dead Sea scrolls contain documents that contradict the Gospels (yeah, but the were written much later and were apparently rejected by the Christian communities) and how the Vatican tried to repress this. Adding a logical fallacy to the mix, he notes:

If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible's gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for his unnatural state of bachelorhood.

Don't we love trying to prove a negative?! I won't even bother countering with the obvious response, nor a little lesson on the practice of celibacy among many religious Jews during that time, including the Qumran community that Teabing views so fondly.

Teabing presses on, quoting the Gospel of Phillip (hey, I resemble that remark) as proof positive that Jesus and Mary were lovers. Somehow we are to believe, again, that this Gospel had the same degree of regard among the early Christians as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Actually, it was written much later, and wasn't widely circulated. Just because something had "Gospel" in the title didn't make it the real deal. Don't expect a scholar like Teabing to explain that, however.

Sir Teabing was still talking. "I shan't bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalen's union. That has been explored ad nauseam by modern historians.

Really? I think the world nauseam fits, but . . . well, you get it, I'm sure.

Citing some of those passages is helping to resurrect my memory, Phil. I certainly remember thinking when reading that book that it was an overt attack on Christianity, although it was done cleverly enough that I found myself constantly running to the internet and checking on stuff. I can't honestly say I know for sure even now what is fact and what is fiction. I was not aware before reading the book, and still am rather ignorant, of the facts surround the Council of Nicea and early Christian history. But I admit it *was* a fun ride playing with the what-ifs. I'm quite sure that if I had read this book ten years ago I would have been pleased as punch that the book, along with being a swell mystery, was ratifying all my negative feelings toward religion. Being in what I can only describe as a more "neutral" place right now, and a little more knowledgeable, some of this junk just came across as the ravings of your typical militant atheist (although I have no idea of Brown's true feelings on religion or his motivation for writing what he wrote).

I also got the impression that Christianity was sort of beneath contempt and not worthy of being treated fairly and with respect. Similar to the white European male, there are certain groups that the "enlightened" ones feel is perfectly okay and safe to dump on. This would not be such a big deal if this stuff wasn't presented as fact. Personally, I have big problems with Islam but I hope to base my objections on real things, not lies. The latter leads to nothing more than harmful stereotyping and scapegoating. Still, we accept this gladly as art (no matter how tacky it sometimes is) and as a healthy example of freedom of speech. But we also weren't born yesterday. We know that those who are the first to trumpet the rights of speech will be the first to squelch when their liberal or leftist Gods are attacked. Imagine a book on Jesse Jackson that put him in a murder mystery and made him, say, a child molester, drug addict, and said that he was actually Irish with a rare skin disorder that just made him look black, etc., etc.

Books such as these reflect both the attitudes of the current culture (or segments of that culture) and help to create or reinforce nascent ideas in the culture. It's the way of life. It's the way of free expression. And as it turned out in my case, 3/5 of the book or so was a joy to read.

And am I the only one how kept hearing "teabag" in my head every time I read the world "Teabing"?

I hear you, Brad. Early Christian history is hardly a matter about which only the experts need inquire, however. Most of what we know of the first generation, for example, comes from the New Testament itself. And right there, in Jn. 1, we hear of the Word, who is God, who became flesh and dwelt among us. We also hear Paul calling Jesus the Lord, and Image of the unseen God. Paul is writing between 46 and 63 A.D.; John is around 100 A.D. Also, the four Gospels have much to say about Jesus' human life and actions. As I noted, too, the process by means of which certain writings became considered canonical (sacred texts) was well-underway before Nicea. None of this is occult material; it's been thoroughly researched and investigated for decades. As w.c. noted above, even the skeptical Jesus Seminar people (a highly liberal group of scholars) and their quest for the historical Jesus will have nothing to do with what Brown is proposing here about early Christian history.

I also got the impression that Christianity was sort of beneath contempt and not worthy of being treated fairly and with respect. Similar to the white European male, there are certain groups that the "enlightened" ones feel is perfectly okay and safe to dump on. This would not be such a big deal if this stuff wasn't presented as fact.

Exactly! It's anti-Catholic propaganda!

So . . . everyone notice I got the last word in on Markle! Rebutted that lawyer, I did!

So . . . everyone notice I got the last word in on Markle!

If only it were that easy.

Ha! I LET you have the last word because I'm a guest in your forum!!!

(Hey, my only point was "it's just a story." I'm not here to discuss early church history...which I haven't got the SLIGHTEST qualification to talk about.)

Anybody check out the dust jacket flaps like I described? If we all have the same printing of it, just find the letters in bold and put them down in the order they appear.

It's a cryptic question. Once you decipher it, maybe someone here can tell me what it means.

Markle

I've checked out my dust jacket, Markle, but didn't see anything unusual. I'll check again in better light today and see what I notice. Maybe you can tell us what question you're seeing?

Use a magnifying glass if you have to, and look for individual bold letters. I don't want to spoil the fun, but I'll get you started.

the i in "business"
the second s in "symbologist"
the t in "night"
the h in "The"
the second e in "elderly"
the r in "cipher"
the e in "gifted"

So there are the first two words. It's the dust jacket of the regular hardcover edition. I'm assuming they're all printed the same. Check it out.

Markle

I just don't see it. Where on the dust jacket?

In the text on the flaps, starting with "While in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist......"

Is it possible there were different printings of the dust jacket? I'm not pulling your leg. Although the text is on a dark background, I could try to send you an enlarged photocopy if you still can't see it. The letters are not super-bold, but they're darker than the rest of the text. Look closely. It can't be coincidental, because all of them put together in order form a coherent sentence.

Markle

Got it now. Hmm. You discovered this on your own? Not bad. I hadn't even noticed. Can't say that the message is significant, but it does relate to the story.

I was just at the right distance, at the right angle, with the right lighting, to notice little dark spots amid the gray. So I looked closer, and one thing led to another. Glad you finally saw it. I haven't heard anyone else mention it, but I'm not deep into the book, and except for a few reviews at amazon.com and this thread, I haven't followed any discussion about it.

I'm not sure how it relates to the story. Who is the w________ s_____? (Don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it for themselves.) Maybe it's just a fun subtle goody the publisher tossed in to see if anyone noticed.

I was in a local Blockbuster tonight. I saw at least 4 DVD's on the shelves on the subject of decoding or explaining or analyzing the Da Vinci Code. Maybe there were even more. Anything that makes people in our debased culture think about something more than that dumb useless skank Paris Hilton, or that blowhard Donald Trump, has some value to it.

Markle

Look at the of that post! Some people just can't tear themselves away from this forum.

If by w_________ you mean the word from the encrypted message on the jacket, well, you'll have to just wait and see.

Re. Amazon reviews -- for some reason, they won't accept mine, perhaps because it gives away too much? Hard to believe that one, as the story of the grail comes up relatively soon.

Here's a slide show from a lecture I'll be doing on this topic soon. Just FYI. I'll add the link in the opening post as well.

I definitely liked your "A Few Themes" slide. I can't think of anything you missed. Well done. And I thought the essence of your "Fatal Flaw" argument seemed quite logical. That's a take on it I have not seen before. I've read only a few of the slides and when I move to a broadband connection I think I'll take a look at the whole series.

Let me give you an outsider's view on this book. Despite the clear intention to denigrate Christianity (and seemingly Catholicism in particular) it left me more interested in both. And I do think it was a clear intention to denigrate because the author wouldn't even condescend to getting some of the major facts right. Goodness knows that if one wanted to do a hit piece on Christianity and wrap it up in the trappings of a novel that Christianity has provided ample material, in my opinion. All one need do is to do a little honest research. No need to make anything up if all you want to do is to stain it.

And one should point out that an equally compelling (if not more so) novel could have been constructed without playing so loose with the facts. Granted, a work of fiction is allowed to play with some what-ifs. I was not offended by the idea that Jesus might have been married. Seems possible, however unlikely. And one could have come up with a disreputable secret organization without using the name of one which already exists and which apparently is not so notorious at all.

But maybe the author's intention was not so hostile. After all, while it would have been easy to take real shots at Christianity and to debunk it and demystify it, so to speak, instead the author simply, at least in my opinion, added to the sense of mystery and grandeur. Subtle factual errors (small lies) can be the most insidious. They can chip away at integrity because a lie with an element of truth can be hard to smoke out. It can be difficult to repair the damage they cause. But the author's obvious and large factual errors hide very little and do nothing but lead one to look for the obvious truth. There is a code itself in the very motive of the author writing this novel that perhaps needs unlocking as well.

In the slide show, I decided to simply respond to the book and the message of its characters rather than make it an issue with Dan Brown. It's good if it gets people interested in Christianity, Catholicism, feminine spirituality and so forth. I think a lot of people have used it to justify themselves in negative attitudes about the Church, however.

Brown states that "the winners get to write history" on his web site, implying that what we've received is a skewed version of Christianity. I wonder what he'd recommend to have been an alternative to the consensus arrived at behind apostolic authority? Would he say that all the gnostic sects were equally correct? That their writings should all be in the canon of Scripture? Framing the matter in terms of "winners" and losers isn't exactly helpful,here, and only encourages people who see the world in terms of victims and victimizers, with the big, bad Church as an abusive force.

- - -

Edit: the slide show notes that the early Church would not have been scandalized by Jesus being married, and this would not have detracted from their view of him as both human and divine. Chalk up another straw man argument to The Da Vinci Code.

Brown states that "the winners get to write history" on his web site, implying that what we've received is a skewed version of Christianity. I wonder what he'd recommend to have been an alternative to the consensus arrived at behind apostolic authority? Would he say that all the gnostic sects were equally correct? That their writings should all be in the canon of Scripture? Framing the matter in terms of "winners" and losers isn't exactly helpful,here, and only encourages people who see the world in terms of victims and victimizers, with the big, bad Church as an abusive force.

Well that certainly gives me the flavor of it all now. Christianity is but another relative truth in the author�s eyes. The early church fathers and sisters might have grabbed, say, an entirely different set of beliefs. It�s all random. It�s all without foundation. Etc., etc.

Okay, I feel a bit stupid now for missing the obvious message of relativism and postmodernism. Granted, I don�t know much about how all this stuff was worked out and I wouldn�t be surprised if some of it was determined in a fashion that certainly looks random or the result of little more than personal preference. And it seems at some point that someone has to make a decision on what words are inspired by God and what words aren�t. That would seem to leave a lot of "wiggle" room to implement most anything. Am I wrong? As I said, I�m not that familiar with the process and gladly welcome edification if it is on topic.

It�s probably wise to stick to what the novel is saying since we can only guess as to the author�s motive for writing hit-piece fiction. Not that that will stop me...

Generally, there are 3 criteria that determined what books were to be included in what we now call the New Testament.

1. It was backed by the authority of an apostle.
2. It was used in the Christian community's liturgy and as a reference in teaching.
3. It was written before 110 A.D.

There were a lot of writings being circulated before 110 (the death of the last of Jesus' apostles, John), but only those that met all 3 criteria could be considered canonical. I should also point out that not all writings that met those criteria were included, and not all that were included are considered equally important. Some barely made the "cut."

What The Da Vinci Code is doing is questioning whether the tradition of Christianity that emerged under aposolic leadership is the only authentic Christianity. It's also saying that other traditions were repressed, and not because of issues of truth, but of power. That's so ridiculous considering the fact that the first three centuries of Christianity were often times of persecution with little opportunity for Christians to publicly profess their faith, much less accumulate any kind of power around any offices of ministry. So, ultimately, yes -- the book is advocating relativism with respect to the Christian message. Good catch.

It's also saying that other traditions were repressed, and not because of issues of truth, but of power.

I can't help thinking now that this "conspiracy theory" orientation that keeps popping up among so many people is emblematic of, and fueled by, a lack of confidence in one's own ability to judge situations and events. We've fallen out of practice. Our culture has instilled and installed gullibility -- and doubt. Given that so much of political correctness is about distrusting one's judgment (which must be prejudiced, of course, even if one isn't aware of it) and substituting it with a set of black-and-white comic-bookish rules developed by elitists and which suffer from various flawed premises, it should come as no surprise that we simply "punt" and shout "conspiracy!" It's a quick and painless way to look sophisticated while hiding one's ignorance. But at the same time, the proliferation of conspiracy theories, and peoples' interest in them, shows that we still long to know the truth.

The truth is often not so far from one's eyes.

Thanks for that explanation, Phil.

You're always good at sniffing out this stuff, Brad.

Much of what feeds conspiracy theorists is ignorance, and Brown has a wide-open field, here, when it comes to the public's knowledge of early Church history. Framing the discussion in terms of "winners-and-losers" also plays up to those who consider the plight of Native Americans, for example, or Third Worlders. History written from the vantage point of the winner is a given, but that doesn't mean that perspective is untrue -- it's only incomplete. So it's easy for people immersed in this kind of criticism to imagine that Teabing is giving the the real scoop, the perspective of the maligned and suppressed Gnostics. The problem with the 2nd C. Gnostics, however, is that their perspective was at odds with historical fact -- at least as understood by those who knew Jesus personally. Perspectives based on distortions of fact are . . . what shall we say? Brown / Teabing suffers from the same problem that plagued the early Gnostics, then.

(also published in today's Daily Spiritual Seed, Weekend Edition)

- Da Vinci Code author really does believe Jesus was "married, with children."

See http://www.sundayherald.com/50846

quote:

"I began as a sceptic," he says. "As I started researching Da Vinci Code I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer."

So much for the notion that Brown was just presenting his premise as a fictional ploy. Of course, he now has a problem, as do Ron Howard, Tom Hanks and others responsible for next year's movie -- namely, the absence of reputable historians or theologians to back his claim.

quote:

The stuff that's being put up as evidence [by Brown] is just hopeless. If an undergraduate put this kind of theory into a first year essay, you would be wondering how you were going to sort them out.- (John Haldane, professor of philosophy at St. Andrew's University)

Why is this important?

quote:

"Forbes magazine rate Brown as the 12th most powerful celebrity in the world, estimating that between June 2004 to June 2005 he earned $76.5 million in publishing royalties."

And, of course, because it's just plain wrong!

"Forbes magazine rate Brown as the 12th most powerful celebrity in the world, estimating that between June 2004 to June 2005 he earned $76.5 million in publishing royalties."

Wow. Such is the power and attraction of Jesus even now. People are still fascinated by him. This all fits in with the general counter-culture phenomenon in which the heroes (especially the comic books ones over the last 20 years, if anyone has been keeping track) have been made dark, brooding, hardly heroic figures instead of the bastions of all that is right and good. So let�s do a little postmodern hatchet job on Jesus as well. He�s one of the lone remaining figures of unqualified goodness.

Even though revisionism such as this is usually done under the banner of correcting past wrongs, I think the real motivation is sort of a "whistling past the graveyard of all things important, meaningful, and serious". If we can just let the air out of anything that would tend to cast our lives as more than just a materialistic, narcissistic joy ride then we can all breathe a sigh of relief and ignore those persistent voices in our head that are saying "You ought to�you should�you must".

You guys are back on this??

We wouldn't have any fiction at all if every detail of the historical context was examined with a microscope for every little flaw. ("The author said Cynthia took the 8:17 train from London to Liverpool. There IS NO train from London to LIverpool until 8:23! HA!!!")

But I guess if it touches on religion, everyone is a lot more sensitive. Shouldn't the faith be strong and confident enough not to get in an uproar and "fight back" just because a story-teller goes outside of the box for a concept?

It's common knowledge, but it hasn't been mentioned here, so for the record I'll note that Brown lifted the entire premise for the Da Vinci Code from the 1983 book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail:"
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail"
(This link is to a re-print.)

Authors get their ideas from wherever they can, and there's no historical review board they have to pass muster with in Western society.

Markle

P.S.
<< So let�s do a little postmodern hatchet job on Jesus as well. He�s one of the lone remaining figures of unqualified goodness. >>

It is not a "hatchet job" to conjecture that Jesus was married. Does someone lose his "unqualified goodness" by being married? That's the most puzzling part to me--the idea that it's somehow being hostile to Jesus to inquire if he was married. Sure, it's out of synch with official dogma, but there's nothing negative about it.