The Da Vinci Code - Page 2

scaeagles · 05-10-2006, 05:00 PM

I agree, Alex, but why not spend energy on something practical, such as encouraging viewers/readers to read the debunking of what Brown has written?

That being said, how many people who go to see the Da Vinci code would ever be interested in reading up on the real historical record that Brown has altered in his story? Probably not a whole lot. So perhaps the only way various churches have to get their message out is in the media crying out about heresy.

Alex · 05-10-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Well, the Frontspiece says:

The first about the Prioir of Sion, the fact that it is a real organization and that there were some pretty renown members, including Da Vinci.

And even in such a straightforward statement he either lies or, at best, uncritically passes along untrue information.

There is no historical evidence of the existence of the Priory of Sion until 1956 when the group was founded by Pierre Plantard.

Not Afraid · 05-10-2006, 05:15 PM

Here's the exact text from the book.

Quote:

FACT:
The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

Alex · 05-10-2006, 05:23 PM

Except that the first paragraph is entirely not fact. That is the initial claim of Pierre Plantard who founded the Priory of Sion in 1956 and changed the story several times over the last decades. Every "fact" in that paragraph is widely accepted as completely false or part of a hoax. Les Dossiers Secrets have been discounted by every reputable scholar as obvious (and poorly done) fakes inserted into the library.

flippyshark · 05-10-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Well, the Frontspiece says:
The Da Vinci Code; A Novel.

He opens with 2 facts:

The first about the Prioir of Sion, the fact that it is a real organization and that there were some pretty renown members, including Da Vinci.

The second is about Opus Dei, some recent controversy within the organization and the location of the new headquarters.

The only other disclaimer is that
However, it IS a novel and therefore a work of fiction. But, fact and fiction certainly do thend to meld over time.

The first of those two facts is not very factual at all:

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles...chardson1.html

Oh, Alex, JINX (We seem to be on a similar wavelength)

Gemini Cricket · 05-10-2006, 05:57 PM

I liked Dan Brown's book. But I took it for what it was. Escapist entertainment. Some feel he's a terrible writer, but he's no doubt a very smart man to have this book be as popular as it is.

I felt empowered by it in ways. I felt the idea that Jesus could have just been a man and nothing more to be compelling. I also agree with his theory that there is a lot of misogyny in the Catholic Church and that painting (no pun intended) Mary Magdalene as a whore is a prime example. Heaven forbid that a woman could have been an apostle...

I'm looking forward to the movie. Although Tom Hanks was not my first choice to play Langdon.

Religious communities need to realize is that protesting a film only intensifies interest in it. ie. 'Last Temptation of Christ', 'Sister Act', 'Passion of the Christ' etc... They did not make a huge call for a boycott of 'Brokeback'. Doing that would have advertised the film even more (if that's possible).

flippyshark · 05-10-2006, 06:00 PM

There was protest around Sister Act? Yeesh.

Motorboat Cruiser · 05-10-2006, 06:05 PM

Ah, the book people love to hate.

Personally, I had no problem with it, thought it was a fun read, although I liked Angels and Demons much better.

Concerning the first paragraph, I think it needs to be read more carefully. It states that there was a real priory of Scion, which Flippy's link also says. It then goes on to say that a document was later found that linked a bunch of famous names to the Priory. This is also true. It conveniently leaves out the fact that that this document was found to be a hoax, but then again, it never states that the document that was found was legit, only that it was discovered.

In other words, the two sentences in the first paragraph are technically true but when they are put together, they don't say what they are appearing to say, if that makes sense. At least that's my take on it.

Prudence · 05-10-2006, 06:32 PM

It's not like the Catholic Church has helped its cause any. Frankly, many people don't have a clue about the first couple centuries of Christianity, think the New Testament gospels were written contemporaneously with Christ's life, and (particularly Protestants) are shocked to learn about apocryphal texts. (This is likely an exceptional audience.) Based on my experience with people I know, this can translate as a sense that information has deliberately been hidden from them, rather than their own failure to investigate. And gosh, if the Church is "hiding" the gospel according to Thomas, why, they might be hiding anything!

There's just enough not-actually-known, plus some not-widely-known, and maybe a pinch of deliberately-kept-unknown, that conspiracy seems, if not probable, at least possible.

Heck, even I sometimes indulge in a few "what aren't they telling me?" fantasies. That's what makes historical fiction fun.

However, the Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a reputation for transparency right now, so I can see where they'd worry that this would increase mistrust and skepticism.

katiesue · 05-10-2006, 06:33 PM

I liked the book. It is in the fiction section of the bookstore and libraries so umm perhaps it's fiction? It was just an interesting fun read. I don't think most of the people who read it take it as fact - I'm sure some do but I'd guess not most.

I've always thought that the whole bible is fact stuff was a bit silly. It's been translated and transcribed how many times? And history is always re-written by the victors.

And please please Tom Hanks is in no way shape or from "Harrison Ford in tweed". And what is up with his hair?

05-10-2006, 05:00 PM	#11
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I agree, Alex, but why not spend energy on something practical, such as encouraging viewers/readers to read the debunking of what Brown has written? That being said, how many people who go to see the Da Vinci code would ever be interested in reading up on the real historical record that Brown has altered in his story? Probably not a whole lot. So perhaps the only way various churches have to get their message out is in the media crying out about heresy.
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2006, 05:23 PM	#14
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Except that the first paragraph is entirely not fact. That is the initial claim of Pierre Plantard who founded the Priory of Sion in 1956 and changed the story several times over the last decades. Every "fact" in that paragraph is widely accepted as completely false or part of a hoax. Les Dossiers Secrets have been discounted by every reputable scholar as obvious (and poorly done) fakes inserted into the library.
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2006, 05:57 PM	#16
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I liked Dan Brown's book. But I took it for what it was. Escapist entertainment. Some feel he's a terrible writer, but he's no doubt a very smart man to have this book be as popular as it is. I felt empowered by it in ways. I felt the idea that Jesus could have just been a man and nothing more to be compelling. I also agree with his theory that there is a lot of misogyny in the Catholic Church and that painting (no pun intended) Mary Magdalene as a whore is a prime example. Heaven forbid that a woman could have been an apostle... I'm looking forward to the movie. Although Tom Hanks was not my first choice to play Langdon. Religious communities need to realize is that protesting a film only intensifies interest in it. ie. 'Last Temptation of Christ', 'Sister Act', 'Passion of the Christ' etc... They did not make a huge call for a boycott of 'Brokeback'. Doing that would have advertised the film even more (if that's possible).
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2006, 06:00 PM	#17
flippyshark Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 2,852	There was protest around Sister Act? Yeesh.
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2006, 06:05 PM	#18
Motorboat Cruiser Cruiser of Motorboats Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 3,665	Ah, the book people love to hate. Personally, I had no problem with it, thought it was a fun read, although I liked Angels and Demons much better. Concerning the first paragraph, I think it needs to be read more carefully. It states that there was a real priory of Scion, which Flippy's link also says. It then goes on to say that a document was later found that linked a bunch of famous names to the Priory. This is also true. It conveniently leaves out the fact that that this document was found to be a hoax, but then again, it never states that the document that was found was legit, only that it was discovered. In other words, the two sentences in the first paragraph are technically true but when they are put together, they don't say what they are appearing to say, if that makes sense. At least that's my take on it.
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2006, 06:32 PM	#19
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	It's not like the Catholic Church has helped its cause any. Frankly, many people don't have a clue about the first couple centuries of Christianity, think the New Testament gospels were written contemporaneously with Christ's life, and (particularly Protestants) are shocked to learn about apocryphal texts. (This is likely an exceptional audience.) Based on my experience with people I know, this can translate as a sense that information has deliberately been hidden from them, rather than their own failure to investigate. And gosh, if the Church is "hiding" the gospel according to Thomas, why, they might be hiding anything! There's just enough not-actually-known, plus some not-widely-known, and maybe a pinch of deliberately-kept-unknown, that conspiracy seems, if not probable, at least possible. Heck, even I sometimes indulge in a few "what aren't they telling me?" fantasies. That's what makes historical fiction fun. However, the Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a reputation for transparency right now, so I can see where they'd worry that this would increase mistrust and skepticism. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2006, 06:33 PM	#20
katiesue Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,678	I liked the book. It is in the fiction section of the bookstore and libraries so umm perhaps it's fiction? It was just an interesting fun read. I don't think most of the people who read it take it as fact - I'm sure some do but I'd guess not most. I've always thought that the whole bible is fact stuff was a bit silly. It's been translated and transcribed how many times? And history is always re-written by the victors. And please please Tom Hanks is in no way shape or from "Harrison Ford in tweed". And what is up with his hair?
	Submit to Quotes