The Da Vinci Hoax: A Tour de Distortion

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | March 8, 2006 | Charles Colson

[napscoordinator]

My pridiction is that this movie will be the highest grossing movie of 2006 AND will make 2006 a higher box office than 2005. IMHO. Everywhere I go people can't wait for this movie to come out. I have not hear such excitement for a movie in awhile (maybe Star Wars, King Kong, Naria).

[bethelgrad]

I think you are missing the point. There are plenty of authors in the religion section saying the exact same thing Brown said, but without the storyline.

[Jhensy]

IIRC, the intro page of the book claims that everything contained within is based on historical fact. Anyone got a copy handy?

It's the same double standard Oliver Stone pulls with his films, particularly "JFK". Runs behind the safety of the "it's only a movie" excuse when pressed on the historical accuracy of his nonsense (i.e.: the completely made-up Donald Sutherland CIA "Mr. X" character who holds all the secrets).

But when the heat's off he pontificates about demanding the truth; in front of Congress, to gullible audiences, on TV, etc. He even has the gall to to have Kevin Costner turn to the audience at the end of the movie to say "it's up to you" to get to the real truth! After he created fictional characters and made-up scenarios that fit his theories!

You can't have it both ways.

[MineralMan]

You're right. The book was written around a number of non-fiction writings that said much the same thing. Same thing if you write a novel set during the Revolutionary War. You put some historical stuff in there for verisimilitude.

Here's the thing: The Gnostic Gospels, one of the sources for these oddball theories about Jesus, are contemporaneous with the writings that became the Christian Canon. The Gospel of Mary is especially interesting, in my opinion.

So, one set of old writings becomes "true" while the other is "false"

Oh, well. So it goes.

[Richard Axtell]

Readers who remember the early Seventies will no doubt note the content and contextural similarities between Brown's novel, and his apparent intentions with the plot of Irving Wallace's "The Word." In it, a forger misleads the church hierarchy into accepting a false "gospel" planted where a credulous and respected archaeologist can find it, in the catacombs of Rome. The forger is acting out a vendetta, a vow to "destroy" Christianity as a world religion, by undermining belief in the resurrection.

The faithful would certainly be unphased, but generations hence would forever argue and reinforce the doubt of the divinity of Christ, because of this hoax. Dan Brown is seemingly acting out this plot, which he is doubtless very familiar with. The only way to do this is to publish "fiction", with a wink and a nod, fully intending to evolve this "novel" into something more... as a new belief system, based on distrust of Christian Church traditions, the curiosity and thirst for "secret knowledge", and for the same purpose as the fictional forger portrayed in "The Word." Namely, discrediting the very basis of Christianity, the Resurrection.

What are the "Articles of Faith?" The "Virgin Birth", the "Divinity of Christ", and the "Resurrection" itself. Only one is vulnerable in any way to debunking, though many have tried to attack the concept of the Virgin Birth. Dan Brown is doing this, behind the veil of a "fictional" story, that is none the less meant to be taken seriously. If Christ actually survived the cruxifiction, then... he did not rise from the dead, and the whole basis for Christian Western Civilization dissolves at its linchpin. Any doubt that Brown is fully aware of this?

The facts that Brown cavalierly missuses and distorts are his ultimate downfall, and so his fictional belief system returns to that status after only short examination. The threat is always that Brown and others like him are fully aware of the power that ignorance can have, and so they exploit it to the maximum. Perhaps Dan Brown only meant to use this exploitation of ignorance to make a bundle for himself, and maybe there is more to it. The inevitable controversy surrounding the movie will certainly give us clues, to what will happen next.

[TAdams8591]

"The first is: Are the historical events portrayed in Brown’s story true? Brown claims to have done extensive historical research and gives his readers no reason to doubt the novel’s accuracy. Since the average person knows almost nothing about Christian history, they’re vulnerable. For example, when Brown says that Knights Templar were put to death by the Catholic Church because they knew the “true story” about Jesus, people have no basis to question it, never having heard of the Knights Templar. Or when Brown says that at the Council of Nicea, the Vatican consolidated its power, most people are unaware that the Vatican didn’t even exist in A.D. 325."

I know a little about Christian history but not enough to refute the claims adequately. However, I NEVER get taken in by this kind of thing. I saw a documentary on the subject, and it was clear there was NO hard evidence to support the contentions regarding the Da Vinci Code - just a lot of suspicions and myths strung together to create the story.

[George W. Bush]

When Dan Brown went on TV and said "it's true, it's all true I say" that's when he went from serious novelist to crackpot.

Make that a wealthy crackpot.

He upped the PR ante here and will reap a lot of money from it.

Still, he could have just written a few Left Behind books and probably done much better.

[Kenny Bunk]

I read this book.

Exciting? Not exactly.

It is a monument to poor editing, lousy grammar, and just all around bad writing. When the plagiarism suit was announced, I immediately understood. This work is a ridiculous patchwork of others' ideas.

I'll give the devil his due. The advertising and publicity were brilliant. Christian-bashing crap, which is what I am going to beat out of this jackanapes should our paths ever cross.

[Ouderkirk]

Make that a wealthy crackpot.

Yep, a very wealthy crackpot indeed.

I enjoyed the DaVinci code, it was a great read and thought it would make a great Indiana Jones type movie. And I'm sure that it will be a good movie considering all the sodomite material that has been out there to compare it to. I don't understand why it was necessary for Dan Brown to prove to the world that he was a charter member of the tin-foil hat brigade.

[wizr]

Thanks for the ping. Already heard the rap sheet on "Da Code", so I decided not to read the book or see the movie.
Some may call me prudish, but I don't need to evaluate lies. My heart tells my this is better left to those that have already rejected Christ and are just looking for "proof".

[stands2reason]

I'm surprised that with that verse there's not a small contingent of "genealogists dance with the devil!!" ideologue out there...

I've never googled it myself, so there probably is.

[Vermont Lt]

I thought it was a good book, a nice fast read. I discovered Dan Brown a few years ago, when he was on the remnants pile. I laugh every time I see one of the old books sitting on a B&N bestseller rack.

The whole Holy Blood Holy Grail thing was something I read in High School. I will admit to buying into it for a while. Then the internet came along and I read more about the "for" and "against" side.

In the end it all sounded like one of those folks on Art Bell's old shows. They always said they had the proof, but the government was going to have them killed if they showed anyone...but you really needed to believe them.

It all comes down to faith. Either you believe (in the Bible) or you dont. It is not complicated at all. In fact, like most issues that seem very complicated...the answer is quite simple.

[ThePoliticalDookie]

Plenty of material to debunk what...fiction? Get a grip, do we need to debunk Winnie the Poo as well?

[ArGee]

People flock to stories like The Da Vinci Code in part because all humans are searching for the secret knowledge that answers the mysteries of life.

People flock to stories like "The Da Vinci Code" because they give an excuse for sexual licentousness. What better pick-up line can there be than, "No, really, it's a god thing!"

Shalom.

[ArGee]

I can debunk it right now. Take the book, look on the spine. It says "Fiction". There.....debunked.

Yes, and "Inherit the Wind" was a play. But you'd be surprised how many people think it's an accurate representation of the history of the trial.

Ann Rice did careful historical research when writing her novels. You could take the historical information for granted because you could trust Ann. The plots were fictional, as were the vampires, but the history was not.

Many people do not know that the history is made up unless they are told it is. People expect the period information in period pieces to be reasonably correct. They should be told when the history described in a book is wholly invented.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

But, you see, I think that much of the New Testament is fiction, too, so what do I know?

Well, you got THAT right.

Shalom.

[tet68]

Well, Foucault’s Pendulum shows us how gullible unbelieving people are.

Oh, I don't know, I can swing either way.

[ArGee]

You say some interesting things. Do you have anything, other than your desire to disbelieve, to back them up?

Jesus probably did have a child.

A lot of Christianity is committee work.

Shalom.

[Tevin]

anyone know dan brown's religious background?

[TASMANIANRED]

The other little problem with it is plagarism.

Being sued by the Authors of "Holy Blood Holy Grail".