One of the blogosphere's own has a fisking-the-DaVinci-Code book.

One has to wonder why people give any fictional work such profound significance.

Obviously the book is fiction, and Jesus and Mary Magdalene were probably not actually lovers. However, how and why would our perception of Christ and His teachings be so fundamentally altered if they had been?

Off Colfax: three reasons, I think.

One, Brown says that everything in the book is true. Why would he say that and lie? And in any case, plenty of books dealing with historical fiction, etc, are mostly accurate; it's just that they have a particular issue that's changed in order to tell the story.

Two, even when fiction is factually erroneous, it can teach us something else. Not to imply that Brown's work is on par with the Bard, but methinks that the fact that Romeo and Juliet never existed has no bearing whatsoever on the way the story affects people.

Three, with respect to Brown's work, perhaps people *want* the book to be true. If what Brown says was true, then sure, there are some major things about the Bible that aren't quite spot on. But if what he said was true, then it would also mean that Jesus actually existed and that there was direct proof of that existence. I'm sure many ITA readers are quite comfortable in their faith that Jesus existed, but I'm just as sure that there are a lot of people who would prefer some proof.

Nick,

I don't think any credible historian believes that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Beyond the fact that he was an itinerant Jewish teacher and was crucified by the Romans, there isn't much historical proof outside of the Bible and other religious texts, but the fact that he existed is just about as solid as any ancient figure's existence.

Eric: That's all true.

However (and this may be colored by my not actually having read the book in question), a better way of saying what I said above would be that people want the book to be true because "then it would also mean that Jesus actually existed as the son of God and not just an ancient historical figure who was probably a Jewish prophet a couple thousand years ago and that there was direct proof of that existence."

But in any case, it's a fair distinction to make. I agree and I don't think you'll find many people at all who believe that no Jesus-figure ever existed.

Ah, I see your point now, Nick.

Nick, the way the book treats the historical person of Jesus as the Son of God is problematic, such that if people believe the book contains even a meaure of truth on that portion of the story, their acceptance of that characterization is going to be very skewed, which I think goes to McDowell's intent to make sure the record is clear on that part of it.

As far as Jon's question about whether it would matter to the integrity of the Biblical record if Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, adultery is "one of the top 10" sins in the Bible.

God's purpose in sending His Son to earth was to provide a perfect - i.e., sinless - sacrifice for the sins of the world. If the Da Vinci Code's fictionalization is taken as accurate, then Jesus would have committed a sin, and there would have been no reconciliation with God because there would have been no payment in full for sin. That's the theological danger with believing the book to be true as written.

That said, it's a well-written, well-researched book, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I found no difficulty in engaging in the "willing suspension of disbelief" in the author's premise any more than I would with any other book.

I am interested in reading McDowell's book, too, and I think that any time something like this comes up, it presents an opportunity to engage in thoughtful and thought-provoking discussions about topics that might not otherwise come up.

LC1, I think you're probably right. However, I think there are two sides to this story.

As far as drawing people into traditional Christianity, particularly Lutheranism, Catholicism, and other more orthodox denominations, it may be the case that the Da Vinci Code isn't going to do anything.

But for the average individual (particularly, I would think, in the US) who was brought up with a general Protestant denomination and who went to church until they were old enough to convince their parents to let them sleep in, the book might mean a lot.

I don't think that the average person is very concerned about deep implications of various dogmas. For example, I don't often hear people fret about how there can be evil in a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God; nor do I often hear people question how God can be so patently unfair (Don't think so? Ask Job!). I do think, however, that most people are somewhat spiritual, and that they're most likely spiritual enough to wish that they were more spiritual.

Assuming I'm correct, these people aren't going to worry about the spiritual implications of Jesus being fully human, i.e., sinning (whatever heresy that is). What they are going to worry about is whether or not there's something more to or more than this life. Maybe they'll find that through the Bible. Maybe they'll find it through meditation. Maybe they'll find it through Dan Brown.

What they'll care about is being relaxed, at peace, and thinking that they've come to a good conclusion about the meaning of life (and the afterlife); what they won't care about is whether their particular notion has much at all to do with traditional Christianity. Think about all the people who go to church twice a year (Easter and Xmas) - they obviously aren't too adherent to traditional Christianity, or maybe they'd try harder. So while the Da Vinci Code may not be a good thing for traditional Christianity, it's probably a perfectly fine thing for people who just want to feel better about this big scary world that we live in.

Side note: You mentioned adultry. Mary Magdalene was married? Or did biblical adultry include fornication? It's been a long time since I picked up a Bible.

"So while the Da Vinci Code may not be a good thing for traditional Christianity, it's probably a perfectly fine thing for people who just want to feel better about this big scary world that we live in."

Maybe. That's like saying that people who are OK with chicken soup and mustard plasters shouldn't try to get antibiotics when they have bacterial pneumonia, as long as they're interested in being healthier.

It reminds me of Alexander Pope: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or touch not the pyerian (sp?) spring. There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, while drinking largely sobers us again."

As far as the adultery question, you're right. Technically, adultery is committed between two people of which at least one is married to someone else, and fornication is between two people who are not married at all (either to each other or to anyone else). My bad. Fornication is still a sin, but the terminology in my earlier comment was inaccurate.

As far as the effect the book is going to have (and probably has already had) on other issues you pointed out, though, I guess I would say that the real concern about perceptions here is that people who may be seeking for something real and satisfying are getting a sham instead.

When an author (or anyone else) passes work off as true when it's not, it's a misrepresentation. Whether anyone realizes the full extent of the impact such misrepresentations will have on the average individual doesn't matter after the damage is done.

I would never expect a book like the Da Vinci Code to "draw[...] people into traditional Christianity, particularly Lutheranism, Catholicism, and other more orthodox denominations." However, I hate to see people assisted in believing a lie just because a talented author makes the lie more attractive and convincing than the truth.

If somebody wrote a book that suggested that our understanding of germ theory was based on fiction and that colloidal silver was the "real" way to cure infection, there is a substantial and real harm that even smart people would go out and look for bottles of it to self-medicate whenever they felt poorly, with no understanding of the dangers of toxicity. That's perhaps a simplistic example, but in a spiritual sense, it's a decent parallel.

I also find it a bit problematic that the author includes a statement about the accuracy of his "descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals." Perhaps, having gone out on that limb, he would have been wiser to include a statement on the accuracy of his historical research on Jesus' life - who knows.

This is pretty interesting from a non-religious point of view (the link was on Amy Wellborn's page, which I found thanks to Alan). I have to say, I was surprised at the author's attention to details I didn't check out when I first read the Da Vinci Code, and it certainly makes me rethink my earlier statement that the book was "well-researched."

As far as the article writer's comments about Brown's writing, I liked it. That's probably along the lines of "it's got a good beat and you can dance to it," but to each his own.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/index_np.html?pn=1

"That said, it's a well-written, well-researched book, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it."

I would beg to differ; the style brings back memories, however fond they may be, of the Hardy Boys. The manner in which Brown elevates the suspense level is rudimentary at best and immature at worst.

That's like saying that people who are OK with chicken soup and mustard plasters shouldn't try to get antibiotics when they have bacterial pneumonia, as long as they're interested in being healthier...I guess I would say that the real concern about perceptions here is that people who may be seeking for something real and satisfying are getting a sham instead.

I don't consider the story of Christ-as-the-son-of-God any more true than I do Heinlein's stories about Lazarus Long, to be blunt. In any case, I realize how much I learned from authors like Heinlein and Heller, and if other people manage to pull something out of Brown's book that makes them live their lives better, then that's fine with me. I find such a notion dubious; it seems that in order for anything to be so popular, it must necessarily have some amount of blandness to it. But that's a much different argument for a different time.

In any case, while I take your point about books publishing patently false things masquerading as truth being bad things, I don't see them as inherently evil. Plenty of books are published every day that contain patently false things masquerading as truth, and so far, we have (as a society) managed to pretty successfully weave our way through most of the BS.

I guess, my point is that while I think it's perfectly fine if you want to argue that Brown's notion of Jesus is wholly inaccurate (which seems likely to me in any case) and try and show people what Christianity is all about, that's fine. But keep in mind that the only authority you've got to point to is a book - an older book with a lot more historical accuracy going for it, to be sure - but a book just the same.

You are perfectly entitled to have faith that the Bible is the correct, true word of God, but you've got no more hard scientific evidence than someone who thinks otherwise; such is the notion of faith. Thus, I think your worries about people being exposed to falsehoods are a bit misplaced. I can prove to you that antibiotics take care of bacterial pneumonia, just as I can prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun - and that's why there's not much literature about geocentric universes floating around these days. But since there's no similar proof about the Bible, etc - again, this being the nature of faith, and not something which I am criticizing - it's simply open to a lot more debate.

You're entitled to believe what you want, but I don't think you should be quite so smug that others are wrong. Do you consider the Koran to be a lie that misleads others? The Bhagavad Gita? The Tao te Ching? You can, of course, but just remember that they're just as sure that you're wrong, too.

Off topic: there was a guy here at IU who self-medicated with collodial silver for some time after being specifically warned not to do so. He didn't turn all the way blue - not quite, anyway. Heh.

Catholics argue that the book misrepresents various episodes of church history (and also art history) - check out this site. Opus Dei counters the depiction of its own organization.

It won't be the first time I've been "rudimentary at best and immature at worst"....

I didn't say that.

I know - I was referring to the comment about the Da Vinci Code's being on a par with the Hardy Boys! Which I also read - every one I could get my hands on!! :)

Hardy Boys??? Maybe a bit harsh. Robert Ludlum may be the better comparo. It is a page-turner, and interesting, but it won't be a mainstay of high school English classes.