The Da Vinci Code

[newyorkuniq]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:47pm

I'm sure many of you have already read this book. I am halfway through and am addicted. Some of the facts in the book are quite shocking and interesting. Especially that there is a woman sitting next to Jesus in the last supper painting. I looked at a photo of it and couldnt believe I had never noticed before. odd.... Anyway this book is amazing so far :)

[Ebonic_Singer]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:51pm

I heard a lot of it isn't true, but I wanna read it--once i find time that is.

[emonkeygirl]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:54pm

It's not my favorite book by any means, but as long as people are reading, it's a good thing! (As Martha would say)

[NYadgal]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:54pm

There are a number of books and articles 'de-coding' The DaVinci Code... and much of what is written is subject to wide interpretation.

That being said, I thought it was a real page-turner, and hope that Ron Howard does justice to it in film form.

[grownupgroupie]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 3:58pm

There was a great documentary (on A&E I think?) addressing a lot of the "revelations" in the book.

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:00pm

The book is not pure fact, and you must remember that. The thing that gets me are the religious zealots who are denouncing the book, and treating it as a work of Satan. The book is intersting people in looking into this topic, and I found it to be a great read.

[Jimmcf]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:00pm

I know I will most likely be stoned for saying this, but I did not like "The Da Vinci Code." I had to struggle to get through it. Thankfully, it was only a library book!

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:01pm

It's a novel - a work of fiction. Enjoy it as such. It makes you think, but I don't believe ultimately that the author has any proof of any statements. Otherwise, wouldn't he publish it as a non-fiction tome?

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:02pm

I absolutely loved it. I had to keep reminding myself that it IS fiction, though, as Jacob said. It's a very clever page turner. If you liked it, you should read Dan Brown's Angels and Demons.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:03pm

History is more objective than most people realize. When I read Angels and Demons, I saw at least one piece of history my Islamic History prof would have disagreed with right away. Anyway, I find that Brown's books are nice as smooth-running suspense novels, but ultimately they're fluff.

[Jess1483]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:16pm

I loved the book as a work of fiction. In my Christian history class, we analyzed one page of the DaVinci code though (where Teabing or whatever his name is was describing how Jesus' divinity was being decided on, supposedly) and found many, many glaring mistakes, some as basic as the date of the Council (Brown was off by 20 years or so) at Nicea, some WAY more important. It was very interesting.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:18pm

I do like the way the book slams many organized religions for their treatment of women. Makes me sick.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:31pm

I didn't like it either, but I LOVED Angels and Demons.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:35pm

Angels and Demons was such a well crafted story! LOVED it.

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:39pm

"wouldn't he publish it as a non-fiction tome?"

It was published (not by Brown) in a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"

Deception Point by Brown is also good, but Digital Fortress is definetly #4 on the list (of his books)

When I read this book a year and a half ago I knew it would become important so I aquired a first edition, first printing, signed copy.

[BroadwayDiva]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 4:39pm

I loved both books SO much. They're my favorite books. I've researched a lot of the info. mentioned in both books. Though some of it isn't true, it is based on facts. But some of the stuff that is true is-wow. I can't wait for the next Robert Langdon novel.

I love the DVC challenge on danbrown.com. I sat there for hours doing it. It's SO fun!

[Jess1483]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 5:14pm

OMG BroadwayDiva--I totally did the challenge too. Both of them actually. It was fun!

When I get a chance, I'll post some of the stuff we talked about in my Christian Tradition class, except I don't have my copy of The Davinci Code here, so i'll have to do it from the library.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 5:39pm

Very fun to read.
Read it in one sitting.

But one of my Humanistic Studies professors has apparently written several articles about the inaccuracies in it.

I don't care about that though. It's a work of fiction. It's allowed to stray from fact.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 5:52pm

Ron Howard is making the movie? Oh no.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 5:53pm

Amazing book. And I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the historical/artistic information is in fact true.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 5:57pm

no, most of it isn't true. The descriptions of paintings are true, but the historical information portrayed is generally not based on fact. It's a work of fiction.

[~FloweryFriend~]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 6:24pm

I can attest to the fact that some of the Greek mythological references are incorrect.
The art and religion things I know less about.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 6:42pm

I took a religion class which taught all about these things before the book even came out. A lot of the religion "facts" in it are actually theories placed out by groups and are not considered to be factual at all.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 7:20pm

History is all about making theoretical connections between concrete things- the actual objects and records we have. Some of those connections are...more unusual than others. And some of them just outright contradict the facts.

As for the movie- yawn. The characterization in the book was so cardboard it was laughable.

[Jess1483]

Posted: 10/18/04 at 8:02pm

Warning: long post ahead, but a pretty good way to begin to critically look at The DaVinci Code and its historical accuracy. Another warning, some of my explanations of theology are VERY basic, but it was hard to go into some of it here. I'd be happy to clarify though. I'm a religion major and this stuff fascinates me. Thanks to my little brother for typing the passage for me... My comments are in italics.

"The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book."
"Okay"
This is a point of discussion everywhere, but obviously a well-known theory. It also depends on what you mean by "a product of God," whether you mean verbal inspiration (meaning the words as they are written came directly from God) or that absolutely none of it has any connection to divine, or where most people land, somewhere in the middle. We'll call this a half-truth.
"Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen. As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus toppled kings, inspired millions, and founded new philosophies. As a descendant of the lines of King Solomon and King David, Jesus possessed a rightful claim to the throne of the King of Jews. Understandably, his life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land." Teabing paused to sip his tea and then placed the cup back on the mantel. "More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them."
"Who chose the gospels to include?" Sophie asked.
"Aha!" Teabing burst in with enthusiasm. "The fundamental irony of Christianity! The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."
Untrue, the cannon as it is known by most main-stream churches was fixed before Constantine's time. Although some of that was changed during the Protestant Reformation, but certainly that was long after Constantine's reign.
"I thought Constantine was a Christian." Sophie said.
"Hardly," Teabing scoffed "He was a lifelong pagan who was baptized on his deathbed, too weak to protest."
Mostly true, he was baptized on his deathbed.
"In Constantine's day Rome's official religion was Sun Worship-the cult of Sol Invictus, or the Invincible Sun- and Constantine was its head priest. Unfortunately for him, a growing religious turmoil was gripping Rome. Three centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, Christ's followers had multiplied exponentially. Christians and pagans began warring, and the conflict grew to such proportions that it threatened to rend Rome in two. Constantine decided something needed to be done. In 325 A.D., he decided to unify Rome under a single religion. Christianity."
First, yes, many of Constantine's actions were politically motivated and it is debatable how much he was influenced by internal religious convictions. Secondly, Constantine did not ever declare Christianity an official religion. The Edict of Toleration made Christianity just that, a tolerated religion. Third, there was political unrest, but there were no wars between pagans and Christians as all in the Empire were unified against outsiders, and didn't war amongst themselves.
Sophie was surprised. “Why would a pagan emperor choose Christianity as the official religion?”
Teabing chuckled. “Constantine was a very good businessman. He could see that Christianity was on the rise, and he simply backed the winning horse. Historians still marvel at the brilliance with which Constantine converted the sun-worshipping pagans to Christianity. By fusing pagan symbols, dates, and rituals into the growing Christian tradition, he created a kind of hybrid religion that was acceptable to both parties.”
“Transmogrification,” Langdon said. “The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable. Egyptian sun disks became the halos of Catholic saints. Pictograms of Isis nursing her miraculously conceived son Horus became the blueprint for our modern images of the Virgin Mary nursing Baby Jesus. And virtually all the elements of the Catholic ritual—the miter, the altar, the doxology, and communion, the act of “God-eating”—were taken directly from earlier pagan mystery religions.”
Teabring groaned. “Don’t get a symbologist started on Christian icons. Nothing in Christianity is original. The pre-Christian God Mithras—call the Son of God and the Light of the World—was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn Krishna was presented with gold, Frankincense, and myrrh. Even Christianity’s weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans.”
Mostly true, although a very common practice in many religions. I can't claim to know much about the specifics of this fusion though. And now I'm skipping a little...
“Indeed,” Teabing said. “Stay with me. During this fusion of religions, Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition, and held a famous ecumenical gathering known as the Council of Nicaea.”
Constantine did call the Council of Nicaea.
Sophie had heard of it only insofar as its being the birthplace of the Nicene Creed.
“At this gathering, “ Teabing said, “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon—the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus.”
“I don’t follow. His divinity?”
“My dear,” Teabing declared, “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet… a great and powerful man, by a man nonetheless. A mortal.”
“Not the Son of God?”
“Right,” Teabing said. “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.”
“Hold on. You’re saying Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”
“A relatively close vote at that,” Teabing added.
BIG problem here. There was no vote on Jesus' mortality. No one at the council believed Jesus was a mere mortal. The issue was the status of what is referred to as the Logos. It's a little difficult to explain Logos, the best way to think about it is as "The Word" but it relates to Jesus' divinity because most people thought of Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos. So the question was whether the Logos was God or Quasi-God. If the Logos was Quasi-God, then Christians were worshipping something not divine, but if the Logos was divine, then monotheism was in question. The answer was found in the Trinity, and the Nicene Creed was written.

For those of you who know theology, please forgive some of my basic explanations, but the post was long enough.

Edited because I forgot to put the I> at the beginning of a line, so some stuff was left out.

Updated On: 10/18/04 at 08:02 PM