Yeah, I have been; and again it's a work of fiction. Brown comes up with an interesting idea, takes some facts straight, changes others and writes a work of fiction. And some people get their knickers in a twist because he's lying or misrepresenting Christianity or whatever? Give me a break. He wrote a work of fiction, not a historical or religious treatise. A work of fiction. And if some moron or religious nut cannot discern between the two, how is Dan Brown responsible? It's a work of fiction.
Well, I suppose we could say that people should always assume responsibility for assessing all the choices but that is not what we find. In our society today we commonly hold individuals responsible for actions they take that mislead the uninformed. But I choose not to go on that sidetrack here. This is a very good point, and an accurate one. Dr McReynolds, who I cited earlier, makes a very good point that though Jesus had a view of women that was radically different from the norms of the culture in which he lived, and he uplifted the role of women in many ways. But she goes on to say that as "the church" went on into the 5th century and beyond, the role and position of women WAS suppressed and diminished. (I find it interesting that her comment was that the farther "the church" got away from the influence of Jesus and his example, the more trouble came up. Good admonition.) She also said, and I agree with her, that this fact is one of the reasons that many people, women in particular, WANT to believe Brown's version because it fit what they see in "the church" in too many cases. But this is a condemnation of the men who ran the religious organizations, not Jesus. A significant related matter that illustrates very clearly the role of women in the eyes of Jesus is the announcement of the Resurrection. Mark tells us that Peter and Mary Magdalene had gone to the tomb to anoint Jesus but found it empty. They initially thought that someone had removed the body so Peter left to investigate. As soon as Peter left, an angel appeared to Mary to tell her, not Peter, that Jesus had risen and to go spread the news to his disciples and followers. Now in the Christian world, there is no greater, more important news, than the news of the Risen Savior. And the fact that a woman was chosen to bring forth this announcement of the single most important event in human history, is an extremely significant realization. Nothing that CNN or Fox has ever put forth is even close to this single event. The New Testament record shows that Mary had been freed of 7 demons by Jesus and had showed her appreciation and respect by leading a band of women who traveled with Jesus and his disciples throughout the entire 3 years of His ministry. Not only that, they did so out of their own means. (Luke 8) Mary also demonstrated her compassion for her Savior by standing by the cross as Jesus suffered and died while all the disciples except John, ran away in their disappointment. Later she continued to honor Him by attending the tomb. For this faithfulness and commitment she was rewarded with the announcement of the Good News. I believe that women everywhere should study and realize the significance of this event. It sets a clear pattern for equality and the uplifting of women.
Would you assign the same responsibility to those who invested in Enron? Should they have been similarly responsible to Seek the Truth?
Actually, in this society we re-elect them. That's an interesting analysis. I never thought of it that way. It's a shame that the Catholic Church doesn't think that way.
Actually, my understanding is that the chalice is an form that can be chosen. I belive Ron Howard alters this in the film to a more "popular" method. He does, but it is a stretch...which is where the fiction argument comes into play. That it would, and I can't help but wonder if that is where he got his number from. He's entitled to weave his personal beliefs into the story, but that doesn't mean they're part of the factual information in the book. If he has claimed otherwise, then I would love to see the evidence backing it up. I'm curious what areas jumped out at you in this fashion. If you can remember.
I like what N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham (Church of England), had to say on this matter in his Easter 2006 sermon: "Something has happened in the renewal of creation through the death and resurrection of Jesus which has the result, as one of its multiple spin-offs, that whereas before Jesus only ever sent out men, now – now of all moments! – he sends out a woman. And though the church has often struggled – to put it mildly – with the idea of women being called to genuine apostolic ministry, the record is clear and unambiguous. And let me just say that one of the great ironies of that silly book The Da Vinci Code is that, in seeking to elevate Mary Magdalene, all it does is diminish her, to make her Jesus’ appendage, his girl-friend or even his wife, whereas she was his chosen first apostle. Here, as so often, the revisionist versions of Christianity only succeed in domesticating the utterly revolutionary message of the New Testament – not, of course, that the church has not been guilty of that as well." http://www.ntwrightpage.com/sermons/Sermon_Easter06.htm
It's a work of fiction, but Dan Brown evidently believes the theories he writes about. Or so I've heard. I've never read it. My wife read it and didn't care for it. When her (then new) coworkers learned that she has a PhD in Biblical Studies, they all wanted her to read the book so that they could ask her questions about it. Her area of expertise, however, was in a completely unrelated field.
Yes he's allowed, and people are allowed to question the theories that he propogates, even if he does so in a work of fiction.
Sure, he's allowed. However, it's a little disingenuous for his fans claim that the book is a work of fiction as a shield against criticism while Dan Brown himself appears on chat shows, insisting that the book would be no different if it were classified as nonfiction. I honestly don't care either way. Oh, one thing to add from above. Unless I'm mixing this up with something else, there's apparently a scene in the book about that mentions a passage about Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus.
One question I have is, how much license do fiction writers get legally to write about organizations that exist in real life, like in this case the Catholic church and Opus Dei. For example, if I was to write a work of fiction in which I describe General Motors as an evil corrupt corporation that makes crappy cars on purpose for hidden reasons of their own, and I use the names of real life GM executives, and connect them to terrorists and all kinds of conspiracies, and I claim within the book that it is based on true facts, can they possibly sue me? Is there a line to be drawn there, or is all fair when it comes to fiction?
Unless he republishes it and it is distributed in the historical fact section of Borders, it will remain a fiction book, regardless of what he believes. Now if he publishes a new work and it is a nonfictional text that proclaims everything, then people have something to get worked up over, IMHO.
In my mind the it is a work of fiction argument has more to do with a waste of good resources and opportunity debating a work made up largely of non-truths. I'd rather see people teach what they see as the truth instead of pitching a fit* about his inaccuracies. The sad part, is that the truth is not nearly as exciting as the fiction. *Present company and contributors to this thread excluded as they're all intelligent and have discussed it likewise.
Careful with your "faith" in pre-conceived notions. Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote in his Antiquities of the Jews in 83 AD: --- Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. [book 18, ch.3] --- an Arabic manuscript version: At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders. Again, another reference of Jesus (and James the brother) [Antiquities, book 20, ch.9]: --- But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those... Tacitus, Roman historian in his Annals wrote [book 15, ch.44]: --- Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil,but even in Rome....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, up their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. These are only a few examples of historical writings outside the writings termed 'religious'. "Dwellings" and "artifacts"? If I understand you correctly... the answer is there's plenty of them in the Holy Lands and some in Europe. What else? Want to find crumbs of the bread that Jesus ate also so you can believe? You can find that in... just kidding. Let's be honest, 2000 years from now, there's a very good chance that you or any other poor man living today will be hard to prove existed by preserved writings or artifacts. Does it mean you didn't exist? How much more difficult would it be for a poor man who lived in a time when most people in the world couldn't read or write, no print or copy machines, no cameras, or any other modern means of keeping records, and then 2 milleniums of wars, destruction, deterioration, and persecution in between that destroy all things? And what's wrong with the New Testament books as a legitimate source for historical persons? Does anyone say Moses, Abraham, or even some of the Babylonian kings did not exist since we primarily trust the Old Testament as their point of reference? Quite frankly, it sounds like you think that people in the first century were sharp record keepers like the U.S. Census or The New York Times of the 21st century, and therefore you can't rely on those "unworthy" letters and books that comprise the Bible or other writings termed 'religious'. By that standard, our list of unproven-to-exist people, both secular and religious persons, would be endless. Come on, guy. True faith is inseparable from reason and rationality. In fact, it was the "new faith" that brought forth our understanding and pursue of rationality and reason, was the primary builder of Western civilization as you and I know it today, and which allowed you, a non-believer (I'm guessing), to even think of rational pursuit in the first place. But this investigation is up to you or anyone else who chooses so. Peace in Christ.