Maybe the "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate" line falls under the "Fiction" umbrella covering the book?

If anything, telling people to ban/boycott something will only make it more popular! Back in March of this year Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, archbishop of Genoa and Vatican representative, said:

"Don't buy and don't read that novel. There's a big anti-Catholic prejudice. It aims to discredit the church and its history through gross and absurd manipulations."

Ok, first... the Catholic church is doing a great job on its own discrediting itself and its history, Brown's book should be the LEAST of their worries right now.

Second... I don't have the stats but if history is a good indicator then Dan Brown should be thankful for the comments by the Cardinal because, and I would be willing to money on this, I think he BOOSTED the sale of Brown's book with that call to action.

Still, I get a chuckle every time I find someone point out inaccuracies in a piece of fiction...

#2 is especially well-put. Most of those additional books make Revelations look like Matthew.

That said, I've heard The Shepherd of Hermas is a good devotional read, and I always have liked the Gospel of Thomas.

If its a secret ritual, how does he know if his desrciption is accurate?

Mike's right about the Church's priorities. But this wouldn't be the first time they got those backwards.

I must admit, tho': that book got a rise out of me. I don't like that it did. I'd like to think that, knowing how ridiculous every in it was, I wouldn't care. But I did. So I can understand how devout and concerned Catholics, not to mention Christians in general, could feel the book is a serious attack on their faith.

But I agree with Matt and Joshua - let it go. If the Church can't tell the difference between a homosexual and a sexual predator, they hardly need to go worrying about Beach Bait.

Besides, does anyone really think the faith of millions of Christians will be shaken by Tom Hanks?

Mike. I agree that it is often laughable to point out inaccuracies in fiction but let's keep something in mind too... historical fiction aims at reporting a certain amount of accurate history. For instance, take Frederick Buechner's Son of Laughter; while its story of Jacob is fictional, it creates a very authentic portrait of the ancient world in which it is set. So, my point is that simply because something is a work of fiction doesn't always mean it is isn't worthwhile to point out its inaccuracies.

"Besides, does anyone really think the faith of millions of Christians will be shaken by Tom Hanks?"

People might have said the same about Mad Max.

I read the Da Vinci Code and I absoutely LOVED it! I am not religious, nor anti-religious. Having read this book, I am not swayed in either direction.

It was purely entertainment. I look forward to the movie.

I don't understand what the big deal is? Believe what you want. Afterall, God's greatest gift to man was free will...wasn't it?

For the record, I also read the Left Behind series and LOVED it too. Again, what's the big deal people? Can't we spend our time on more important things like helping feed the hungry, providing shelter for the homeless and basically just concentrate on being a decent HUMAN BEING. Why does religion always have to force people to take sides?

I think that is why I am benign about religion, and I am happier for it.

Melissa =)

Melissa,

It is I think a little more than "just a story". "The DaVinci Code" follows in the wake of liberal attacks on Christianity such as the Jesus Seminar. For example, liberal protestants have made statements to the effect that Paul was gay, Mary Magdalene was Jesus lover, etc. with not a shred of evidence.

Moreover, Dan Brown has himself claimed that the nonsense in the DaVinci code was real - such as the "real" sacrament of ritual sex - on Oprah among other shows, I believe. In other words, the disclaimer at the beginning was not part of the fiction, but Dan Brown's sincere (and ahistorical) beliefs.

In short, this sort of slander has been going on a long time, and informed Christians are quite wary of it.

Jacob said: "'The DaVinci Code' follows in the wake of liberal attacks on Christianity such as the Jesus Seminar. For example, liberal protestants have made statements to the effect that Paul was gay, Mary Magdalene was Jesus lover, etc. with not a shred of evidence."

But Melissa had said: "Why does religion always have to force people to take sides?"

Because, Melissa, the nature of the beast is such that in the mind of most believers if they are right then of course all of the others must be wrong, at the least. The first sentence that I quoted from Jacob's post is an example of it. The Jesus Seminar is a quest for truth from those whose faith can admit that in the hands of men the Bible perhaps hasn't stayed as pure as it could have. They think that some of the words attributed to Jesus were really his but that others were added later in attempts to embellish or clarify. They can admit to things like the flooding of the entire world and a boat that held two of every species might not be literally true. Many Christians take the view of Biblical inerrancy and tend to consider anything else as being anywhere from being "less" Christian to an attack on Christianity. They will often refer to any disagreement with their view of the world as some kind of purposeful attack on Christianity, apparently refusing to admit that people who might not be young earth creationists, for example, can even be Christians. And so, sides are chosen by some and assigned by others.

Jim: I will certainly agree that the Bible, being recorded by men, is not absolutely factually accurate. I'm not a "young earth creationist." However, I do believe that Christ was bodily resurrected, which the historical-critical method would claim is wrong. As I recall, one of the conclusions of the Jesus seminar is that Christ was not bodily resurrected - correct me if I'm wrong. If that is true, then essentially the whole new testament is crap. So tell me - if I am right, how are they not wrong? How was Jesus bodily resurrected, but also not?

I don't believe the bible is accessible to historical analysis in the same way as other documents, because I don't think the Christian bible is 'just another document'. Trying to understand the history of the bible is a worthy subject of scholarship - I believe that literary analysis, as the historical critical method uses, is not. The results are subjective, which serious disciplines regard as a flaw. If you want a skeptical take on the Jesus seminar, read Luke Timothy Johnson's "The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels". If on the other hand you think the truth of the Bible is best determined by queer theory analysis, then Robert Funk is probably right up your alley

It is worth noting, that when a liberal wants to validate something that they do or believe in, they always pick a prominant traditionalist or conservative to share in their act or belief. Thus, Jesus had a lover and Paul was gay. If it was true, then if would some how validate the liberal support of homosexuals and a "free sex" lifesyle.
It is just like what Clinton did when he said his sexcapades with Luinski "was not sex", now we see our young adults saying the same thing about oral and anal sex. If it isn't straight reproductive sex, it is not as bad or it doesnt count. The liberal lifestyle and thought process is a deviant one to say the least. It corrupts young lives into thinking there is no need for accountability and someone else will do it. It is embarrassing.

I agree with Alan, he has the liberals pegged. I also think that to find Jesus, you must first accept Jesus. That is the first step. Once accepted, belief and faith are all you need. Remember this, SPAM tastes good, but dont look to close at the contents, you may doubt yourself.

Alan: "The liberal lifestyle and thought process is a deviant one to say the least. It corrupts young lives into thinking there is no need for accountability and someone else will do it. It is embarrassing."

You've got to be kidding me. Did you really type that? If you really believe that, then you need to get out of the house more and meet some of the fine family men and women I know from my work with the Democratic Party. Not to mention the clergy—one of the most pious women I know is a liberation theologian. Geez. That was a mind-bogglingly ignorant thing to say, not to mention insulting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my full time work tempting people. We're having a team meeting with Lucifer later today, and then we have to put together a new mission statement. Apparently, the word from down below is that the last mission statement's unclear description of our goals was reducing our synergistic efficiency and preventing us from maximizing our integrated supply-chains.* Geez. Is Christian bureaucracy this bad, too?


Phrase courtesy of the web b.s. generator

"now we see our young adults saying the same thing about oral and anal sex. If it isn't straight reproductive sex, it is not as bad or it doesnt count."

Yea, about as deviant as wearing two types of fabric in your clothing, or not having a beard, or planting two types of crops next to each other, or eating bacon, etc. Where do you draw the line on what's right and wrong 'sexually'? No hugs or kisses? Those are pleasurable too. Heavy petting allowed?

A Steve, I just heard that Mammon's going to be a little late to the meeting this afternoon, but I should be there on time, right after my clean-shaven orgy with bacon wrapped beauties wearing cotton blended sweaters. If you're in the neighborhood, we'll be at the path between the corn field and the wheat field...

Gah... The level of these errors makes my brain hurt. If only textual criticism were as sexy and exciting as Dan Brown makes it out to be... There's a reason that Greek and Latin textual criticism is done by German academics with a neurotic attention to detail and not by international man of mystery detectives.

OTOH, I do have a wee nitpick with one of the errors attributed to Brown. Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, so it ought to be noted that the Essenes and Therapeutae (another ascetic Jewish sect) were rather outside of the Jewish mainstream, reflecting a degree of Greek influence.

Anyone else notice the strangeness of Alan and Joanne's email address similarities? I think we have a troll.

Jacob, you may be right about that, but I've seen other couples using the same e-mail address. They may just be a troll team, though.

I thought Dan Brown wrote a good mystery, although the rather imaginative "historical" points he threw in do grate a little. I was more peeved about the medieval references than the Biblical ones. The idea that Godfrey of Buillion established a secret society in the short time he served as Defender of the Holy Sepulchre (never King of Jerusalem), or that such a group would have continued through the reign of his brother Baldwin (who actually was king), is highly unlikely, and grossly out of character for both men. Dan's contention that the Pope compelled Phillip of France to suppress the Templers is laughable - It was most certainly the other way around. The idea that the extent Jesus' divinity was set at Nicaea and never questioned thereafter by "the Church" completely overlooks the part that this theological issue played in the split between the Greek and Latin Churches in the 11th Cent. His theory that the Roman Catholic Church deemphasized everything feminine somehow manages to overlook the officially sanctioned Marionology that became very strong in the Middle Ages. Any student of medieval history would have a hard time accepting many of Dan Brown's "facts" dealing with the Grail legend.

Again, I really enjoyed the 'Da Vinci Code" as a good story, but it is fiction, even in many of the "historical" references.

Hey it's me again. Jacob, I'll take your advice and read the book you suggested. Holy Blood Holy Grail. Thanks for the suggestion, looks intriguing. =)