Meet the Real Dan Brown, A Couple of things You Should Know About the Author

TFP ^ | 04.28.06 | Michael Whitcraft

[Aquinasfan]

There are those that do not accept Catholicism as Christian because of its devotion and deifying of Mary.

Evidence please.

Feel free to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This link to the Catechism provides searchability, so you can type in "Mary" and see all Catechism entries regarding Mary.

[Aquinasfan]

Ever see Davinci's "John The Baptist"? The word effeminate just ain't strong enough.

That's an understatement. Thanks for the link.

[newheart]

Frankly, I am a little puzzled by the hostility of your post. I will grant that perhaps I should have couched my earlier statement with 'in my opinion'. So if that offended you I apologize.

I will admit that there are those who feel differently, but the debate on whether or not Leonardo was gay has been raging for a long time. It certainly pre-dates the row over the Da Vinci Code. My opinion, and it is only that, is that he was gay, but I could be wrong. But it is an opinion that I do not hold alone. And apart from some sort of admission in his notebooks, which is not there, there is no way you could 'prove' that anyway.

You can weigh a number of factors. Yes, he was arrested and charged with sodomy and, as I recall spent a couple of months in prison. You are correct that the charges were dropped. He never married. His drawings show significantly more representations of male nudes over female subjects. Are those things conclusive proof? No. Are they possible indicators? Yes.

The case for him being heterosexual is, in my opinion more difficult to make. There is no record (that I know of) of romantic involvements with women. Perhaps he was just celibate with a purely academic interest in the human body. But even there, it is measurable that his 'academic' interest was weighted more toward the male form than the female form.

[ninenot]

Yah...my personal effort on this movie (and book) consisted of 1) not buying either, and 2) making web-based criticism available to my children who have expressed some curiosity.

Interesting: the most strongly-worded criticism I recall seeing was from a Prot who was NOT friendly to Rome at all. But he ripped the book top-to-bottom...

Another interesting note: the fellow who recc'd the book to me remarked that a great deal of what he read was very familiar to him because of his Masonic membership.

Now THAT tells you something!

[norton]

"That is why, as faithful Catholics, we must reject The Da Vinci Code. We must confront the growing tide of blasphemy and send a strong message that Catholics will not stand by while the Faith is dragged through the mud. We must make it clear that we will resist this attack on the Faith with the absolute certainty that the Church, our immortal Mother, will weather this storm unsullied."

Jeez...you'd think they'd published some cartoons or something....

[Aquinasfan]

The books about Jesus's life were written fifth and sixth hand, centuries after His death.

This passage from a letter from Saint Paul to the Corinthians (Ch. 11) was probably written within two decades of Jesus' death and resurrection.

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

[BooksForTheRight.com]

It's fiction. True. But the left is doing its best to promote it. They know that it will instill doubts in some people. And that's what they want.

[Aquinasfan]

Did he take a wife? Why shouldn't he have? Did God expect him to be a eunuch?

Well, He was God, and yes, He did:

Matthew 19:12

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[Aquinasfan]

Has it not gone tbrough inexact translation after inexact translation?

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

Proving Inspiration

[AmishDude]

Jesus didn't say anything in the bible.

The books about Jesus's life were written fifth and sixth hand, centuries after His death.

Your orders of magnitude are off. Three of the four were written within 100 years of Jesus' death. I think most scholars put John right about 130AD (or would you prefer 130CE?) but maybe a bit later, certainly well before 230.

[SaintDismas]

How can you possibly read that crap about Jesus and not come away offended? Just curious. You say you believe in Him and yet are willing to read made up stuff about Him? Please share your thoughts with me because I just don't get it. I'm not trying to offend you or question your worship, but for me, its a tainted piece of trash that blasphemes our Lord and I just can't imagine why you would want to read words of unbelief that would contaminate your mind.

[Texas2step]

A sexual relationship between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene? Good grief, is there anything sacred - or blasphemous - anymore?

You guys are giving Dan Brown way too much credit. Dan Brown did not invent the heresy that Jesus and Mary M married and had children. He simply wrote about a heresy that already existed and used it as a central plot theme in his book.

[scottdeus12]

"Jesus didn't say anything in the bible. The books about Jesus's life were written fifth and sixth hand, centuries after His death."

Bender:
1) Yes, He did say this, and;
2) You're historical statement is incorrect.

Re-check your info and try again.

[Darkwolf377]

I found the book boring and the author full of it. When even the NYT rips you for not being accurate in a church-bashing book, you're in trouble. He doesn't even get basic art concepts correct, and supposedly his wife is an art historian.

I wouldn't be surprised if much of the book wasn't familiar to any number of odd organizations. Brown could be the next L. Ron Hubbard if he wanted to be.

[YankeeGirl]

How can you possibly read that crap about Jesus and not come away offended?

It was well-written and entertaining.

I love science fiction, but don't take it as a given there is extra-terrestial intelligence out there. I loved Ayn Rand's books, even though I'm a god-fearing Christian and she's an atheist.

I didn't take it as blasphemous, but just what you said, a made up story, mixed with enough references to actual historical places and people to make it interesting.

I read a lot of different things, from classics to junk. (I've even been known to stock up on the Enquirer & Star while on vacation where I wouldn't run into anyone I know.) I think my mind can handle it.

[dread78645]

Re my post 25, you forgot to quote the preceding words:

Only a non-Christian or an atheist, in my opinion, would be unconcerned about the blasphemy involved here.

Which one are you?

I didn't forget to quote your opinion. I consider it another example of someone injecting their unfounded beliefs into Christology, and therefore irrelevant.
I'm a former Baptist, now agnostic.
So there you go. Your question is answered. Care to answer my question :

What, exactly, would be different in Christ's message if he was married?

And since you brought it up ...
Why, exactly, would be blasphemous to hold that Jesus was married?

[Antoninus]

There is no record (that I know of) of romantic involvements with women. Perhaps he was just celibate with a purely academic interest in the human body. But even there, it is measurable that his 'academic' interest was weighted more toward the male form than the female form.

Ergo, he must have been a sodomite.

What you have posted as "proof" is merely vague insinuation of the Kitty Kelly variety.

Sorry, I find it unseemly and vile to accuse the dead who can no longer defend themselves in this life of acts for which there is only vague circumstantial evidence they may have committed.

[Not A Snowbird]

He is very wise. He doesn't get hysterical about anything, and his teaching is straight from the Bible. Good man.

[Revolting cat!]

A sample excerpt from an Amazon.com review of this "well written book":

Crammed full of supposedly arcane revelations about
 mathematics, religion, symbolism and art - most of which 
read like verbatim downloads from Google - 
the "intellectual" content won't be dazzling or new (forget 
accurate) to anyone even slightly inquisitive about these 
topics. Worse, it's presented with a juvenile fascination 
for "connections" that would embarrass the most seasoned 
New Age charlatan. It all moves at a cracking pace, of 
course, and has enough scope and colour to hold your rapt 
attention for a few winter nights, and enough Catholic 
conspiracy theory to warm the heart of an atheist. But it's 
so devoid of literary merit, so apparently committed to the 
squandering of every opportunity to do anything interesting 
with the material - rather than just ape the narrative 
grammar of cinema - that it truly beggars belief. The 
characters are just names on the page, huge swathes of 
deadpan "I'm glad you asked"-style exposition pad out the 
clunky plot shifts, and because it's all so closely modeled 
on the rhythms of Hollywood nothing ever comes as a 
surprise - not a word, not an image, not a moment. This is 
post-literate prose at its direst, plugging directly into 
pre-fabricated scenarios, characters and images, absolving 
the reader of the need to imagine anything - which is why 
it's such a famously easy read. This is reality as a 
simulacrum of television, a copy of a copy, and about as 
convincing. It's an odd stylistic choice in a novel which 
takes as its theme the notion that great art depicts truths 
which evil empires would suppress. 

[pollyannaish]

The answer is to educate yourself and to know your God and your faith to arm yourself with the appropriate armor that renders all these attacks useless.

Needs to be repeated over and over. We spend way too much time looking for the devil behind every bush—where he will be found every single time— and not enough time seeking God.