Dan Brown: DaVinci Code, Angels & Demons

[Mave]

Hello everyone, I finished reading "Angels and Demons" and "DaVinci Code" somewhere around last week.

I guess I would summarize both books with this: Religion vs Science, taken to a more dramatic level. Now, while the story was interesting (with all the riddle solving and ancient literature/architexture stuff etc. etc.), I was left quite troubled with the religious conspiracy ideas imbedded in the novels.

Stuff about Mary Magdelene marrying Jesus and having kids, how the church lied and deliberately tarnished the women race by saying Mary was a prostitute etc. etc. .....I must admit this stuff greatly tempted me to doubt my faith. Even if it's supposed to be fiction, I've kinda heard of this stuff from the Agnostic Gospels, which does exist, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't want to start any religious debates but perhaps the thoughts of fellow believers who have already read this could give me some encouragement
or edifying words in regards to the topics dealt by these two books.

[AsterlonKnight]

Well, Mary Magdalene *wasn't* a prostitute. She was a business woman (seller of purple I believe) who happened to be posessed by demons. Jesus cast them out and she and a group of women followed him to care for him ever after.

And the bible really was put together by Constantine and it's quite probable, a given really, that things were dropped/added/and otherwise changed in the subsequent translations it's gone through. If anything, the book coupled with some of my classes in college have made me wonder what right Constantine and his lot had to pick and choose among the various writings, but then again I also wonder what right the Catholic church had to deny people the opportunity to read the bible and make up their minds on their own. -shrug- Things like that (among others) grate on my nerves when it comes to organized religion.

I too found the puzzle solving and time racing rather nice, though at some points I wondered if the author was creating a severely anti-christian rant under the veneer of a story.

As far as encouragement...know for yourself. Read your bible and pray and make up your mind for yourself. I personally don't think that Christians should close their ears and eyes to the opinions of others and of the history of their religion, nor do I think that they should accept everything that the preacher/pastor/priest/vicar says or the church they attend purports (most have particular little details the focus on) as the absolute undisputable truth. Know for yourself. And, if you're lucky enough to have a Christian friend you feel comfortable talking with, go to him/her with your questions. And above all, DON'T accept what they tell you, not even me, just because they're Christian. Know for yourself.

[SwordSkill]

I actually felt that Angels and Demons was a defence for religion against the too-cool objectivity and doubt that many scientists have. I can't remember what chapter it was, but there was that rather rhetorical speech about looking at the universe and consequently the impossibility of doubting that there can be a God. If there is an "attack" going in Angels and Demons, I'm of the opinion that it would be against institutionalized religion than religion itself. Which wouldn't bother Protestants too much, but I do believe it certainly would strike a very touchy nerve for Catholics.

The Da Vinci Code was certainly very interesting and I understand where the sentiments of unbelievers who might see Christianity as a mere farce are coming from; you don't have to read the book to know that the history of the Christian church doesn't have a very clean track record. The Spanish Inquisition, the bloody feud between the Catholics and the Protestants in Europe in the early days, the pagan roots of Easter/Eostre and Christmas/Saturnalia that were "Christianized" to make available for the masses...lots of fodder to be thrown at Christianity's face, lots of meat for religious conspiracies, and one heck of a source to stoke the readers' interests and to cash in, since discrediting Christianity seems to be the trend nowadays.

But it's crucial to remember that many (if not all) of Brown's expositions of the "additional" blots of Christianity in The Da Vinci Code are underpinned by interpretations of European works of visual and literary arts (Brown's an art professor in Harvard after all). The whole book is chock full of them, which is how the character of Langdon can solve the riddles - if there were no interpretations, then there wouldn't be meaning in the art pieces that fundamentally compose the Da Vinci Code book, and there wouldn't be a plot. And as scholarly and as logically sound as these interpretations are, they are still heavily dependent on the personal worldview of the critic. I'm a literature major myself; I interpret works of literary art every single day in the university, and I know how easy it is to make a convincing analysis of a piece of art towards a conclusion that can be entirely personal. It's quite safe to say that there's no such thing as a purely objective critical analysis; the critic usually already has a pre-conceived notion about the artistic work - in fact, it is imperative that the critic should have such a notion or else s/he won't be able to limit his or her bibliographic sources and choose which literary theory would best suit as his or her framework, which means no thesis. Brown's interpretations are just that - interpretations. They could be right, but they could be just as easily wrong (which is what I find paradoxically so fun and so frustrating about studying literature).

The book does make a very intriguing page-turning thriller and there's nothing bad about re-examining your faith deeper, but I wouldn't put much objective worth on The Da Vinci Code as an "exposition," considering that the movement of the book rests on Brown's artistic interpretations (too much, even, I think). Good plot, though. But the entire Langdon-and-Sophia pairing was so contrived. :/ (What about Vittoria, for heaven's sake?!)

[Technomancer]

And the bible really was put together by Constantine and it's quite probable, a given really, that things were dropped/added/and otherwise changed in the subsequent translations it's gone through. If anything, the book coupled with some of my classes in college have made me wonder what right Constantine and his lot had to pick and choose among the various writings, but then again I also wonder what right the Catholic church had to deny people the opportunity to read the bible and make up their minds on their own. -shrug- Things like that (among others) grate on my nerves when it comes to organized religion.

No, Constantine did not put the bible together. Its structure was decided upon at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome all of which occured in the late 4th Century (after Constantine the Greats's death). Prior to this time there was no official canon. However, canonical lists produced as individual recommendations by church fathers also exist prior to Constantine's time and there is reasonable agreement (with some variation) to the existing canon. Earlier texts also agree well in translation with the ones currently being used, so deliberate alteration must be ruled out.

I would also recommend that people study history as written by actual historians and not some hack writer playing to popular and ill-informed prejudices (hint:avoid web sources if possible). There are very many good books on church history, or late antiquity or even on the Merovingians, which are written by responsible scholars. Jaroslav Pelikan's books for example provide a very good summary of church history and the development of theology. The Catholic church did not forbid people from reading the bible or forbid translations in the vernacular- it did however zealously guard the integrity of the translations. Moreover, most of the population couldn't read at that time anyways. Since books had to be produced by hand (no printing press), they were quite expensive and beyond the reach of most people.

While I have not read the particular books in question, I also have access to far better books on the subject. A trip to your university library's history and religion sections should answer many of your questions.

[ClosetOtaku]

I read The DaVinci Code and found it a very enjoyable work of fiction, mixing historical facts with wild conjecture, and in the end tying it up very neatly in a memorable conclusion.

The story of the Holy Grail has fascinated folks since before the tales of King Arthur were put to paper. Brown's interpretation of the Grail is not unique (see Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum for a much better modern treatment of the ancient grail legend, in my opinion), but it's refreshing. That said, it is very, very much a fable. Historically, Brown gets a lot of stuff off center, and the previous posts have done a good job in debunking some of his assertions. Then again, he doesn't footnote, what piece of fiction does?

I find the concept of secret societies running the planet's byzantine inner workings, from the Illuminati and the Gnomes of Zurich to graduates of Yale's Skull and Bones, to be intriguing, but ultimately a lot of that nonsense is wrapped up in the illusion of control. Is there a single hive mind pulling all the strings in the secular world? You bet, but he's the Prince of this World, and we're to have nothing to do with him. If it seems like we are hurtlling to some disastrous forgone conclusion, unable to wrest control from the mad conductor at the switch... it's because it's true, it's been foreseen and spoken about in Scripture, and the only details left out were the where and the when.

The mass real appeal of The DaVinci Code, like many other secular works, is that it tilts at the windmill of Christian theology, and for some reason people get a real thrill in trying to take the Big Man down. I think every generation has its notable authors who take a shot at this, and perhaps you cannot be a Respected Modern Literary Genius without doing so (Kurt Vonnegut takes a bow from the wings). Of course, Brown will never approach the writing quality of a Vonnegut, but he gets a lot more free press this way.

So... I wouldn't worry too much about it. Once you dig underneath the layers of The DaVinci Code -- and you don't have to go too far -- you'll see that Brown plays fast and loose with the facts. I can paint some pretty bleak pictures undermining Christian beliefs so long as I don't play "full disclosure". Hey, it's the oldest trick in the Book.

[Zedian]

Both I found to be very compelling reads in their own right.

Angels and Demons showed me how some scientist are those who are against religion can take things extremely overboard, as with the case of what happened to the Cardinals and such.

And Da Vinci Code, well I don't know about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married and having a child that stemmed down to a royal bloodline in France, is plausible. But I do feel Mary Magdalene did play a more important role than what was depicted, she wasn't a prostitute and was one of Jesus' favorite members of his ministry.

Most people couldn't find a positive in either book, I did. Angels and Demons showed religion and science can coexist whereas Da Vinci Code showed that women really do play a huge role in the upbringing of the church.

[Arnobius]

The main problem with the DaVinci code is that there is nobody in the story to question the assertions of the main characters which are very non-historical.
Some off the top of my head:
1) The gnostic "gospels" were written about 150-300 years after the real gospels. So for Brown to say they were contemporary of the real gospels is like saying that Abraham Lincoln and George W Bush were living at the same time.
2) Gnosticism was not Christian, and could be considered anti-Christian in message. Christianity says Christ came to save all people, while gnosticism claimed to have secret knowledge that was only available to the enlightened few.
3) The claims of the feminine and masculine also show gross misunderstanding of pagan religion in the times of the roman empire. The official Roman religion was a masculine pantheon of deities that was largely based on the Greek myths. The main competitor to Christianity was Mitraism (alternately spelled Mithraism), which was apparantly an offshoot of Zoarostianism. This religion was even more masculinly oriented than what Dan Brown misportrays Christianity to be.
4) Mary Magdeline was never supressed by the Church. Indeed, she was considered one of the major saints, recognised for being one of the women at the foot of the cross.
5) Neither the Church nor the Biblical canon was not created by Constantine. Christianity had been in existence for over 300 years at that point, with the scriptures already known.
This book is not dangerous to people who realize that the Christian faith has much deeper and stronger roots than what Dan Brown misportrayed. But it is dangerous to people who don't know the history of the truth and believe that "They wouldn't be allowed to print it if it weren't true."

There are many serious rebuttals to the false allegations made in the book. My favorite is "The Da Vinci Hoax" by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel which can be seen Here. Others exist. These are serious books that point out the numerous errors in the book and explain what the REAL Christianity holds against Brown's misrepresentations.

[shooraijin]

Mod note: so far the discussion has remained very lucid and extremely interesting, and most importantly civil. Just a note that the thread is being observed, and the decorum appreciated.

[Mave]

Oops... I made a mistake with Mary Magdelene? Sorry if I did, I must admit I still have much to learn about the Marys and other biblical personalities.

Everyone's input has been very helpful and informative. I really have limited knowledge on DaVinci himself and Christian history (so do bear with me ^_^; ). Perhaps that's why the ideas in the book somewhat distressed me.

Just a quick question for now, The Last Supper reference: I had a look (more of a squinting look lol)at the painting: Was the person next to Jesus really a woman in that pic? And what does it matter? Perhaps ppl are taking Leonardo so seriously that they assume that everything -he- hints in his works (rather than the Bible) is the 'truth' that the church has been trying to suppress? Perhaps they are neglecting the fact that Leonardo is also human and vulnerable to human error/corruption as well? <--- Just some random thoughts

[Kawaiikneko]

I haven't read the book, but my mom has. She thought the book was well written, but she said it was very very off. She gets these little pamphlets on the book that explains the differences between truth and stuff... so maybe you could find one of those.

I'll probably never read the book though... ^__^;;

[Arnobius]

Just a quick question for now, The Last Supper reference: I had a look (more of a squinting look lol)at the painting: Was the person next to Jesus really a woman in that pic? And what does it matter? Perhaps ppl are taking Leonardo so seriously that they assume that everything -he- hints in his works (rather than the Bible) is the 'truth' that the church has been trying to suppress? Perhaps they are neglecting the fact that Leonardo is also human and vulnerable to human error/corruption as well? <--- Just some random thoughts

I believe that is supposed to be the Apostle John (the Beloved Disciple [see John 13:23]). It is doubtful that Da Vinci was secretly hinting at anything, but if he was, your point is a good one.

[jeezus_fureek]

if you would like your doubts to decrease even more, read "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" by Darrell L. Bock, Ph. D. this guy wrote it DUE to the fact that many speculations has been caused by this book. plus it's short, so you won't think it's a huge lecture going..blah blah blah. it will definitely answer many questions going through your head while you read Brown's book. also remember that there were SEVERAL marys in the bible and to be careful not to confuse the marys. so good luck and sayonara!

p.s.
da vincy wasn't the most holy man on earth ^^
he had his views on religion and let's just say it wasn't his "thing"

[Mave]

Alright, thanks so much, everyone. I rest my case on these books for the time being. I just might check out that book by Bock when I'm ready for it.

[Ingemar]

Since books had to be produced by hand (no printing press), they were quite expensive and beyond the reach of most people.

To clarify, even the clergy had members that were illiterate. This is understandable. Not only were books hand copied, there was no paper in Europe at the time (that was a later development), the Moslems having control of the trade routes to Asia and Egypt. Books were made out of parchment, which is made out of animal skins. I believe all of the skin of one sheep was only enough to make eight pages, so you can imagine how many sheep it would take to create a book. In fact, books were so expensive that you could trade one for a house. For this reason, they were zealously guarded.

[Nate]

Though this may be common knowledge by now, there is a movie being made out of "The Da Vinci Code," which will be relased sometime next year I believe.

That said, many non-believers are going to have the "Is this true?" questions, and as such people should read the already suggested book "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" to more readily defend their faith.

In fact, I think I'll be checking out that book m'self...*zooms off*