cognac

Thanks. It's not likely that I would ever read it. I was just wondering how close Teabing's theory is to what it says.


This would be funny. Imagine taking a DNA sample from the Shroud (another hoax) and matching it to someone now living who could make the claim he's some sort of descendant of Jebus based on that.

andrewcriddle

What I meannt is I'm not aware of a mistake in Brown's book that tends to favour orthodox Christianity.

If Brown was simply being sloppy one would expect some mistakes to be statements that if true would support traditional Christianity.

Andrew Criddle

cognac

Interesting point from probability ...

I haven't seen a complete list of "mistakes" -- nor would I care to compile one -- but since most of the websites I've seen that are examining the book for errors are orthdox Xns, I rather doubt they're drawing attention to those that would favor them. The point of those critiques is to prove "Brown is out to start socio-religious upheaval."
Here, for instance: http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

NOGO

I followed the link and had a look.

Holy cow!
Now I can see where you were coming from.

John A. Broussard

It's a site well worth visiting, especially for people like myself who think that fiction is fiction.

I was fascinated at the idea that, like Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Da Vinci Code could lead to massive upheavals.

Frightening!!

goozlefotz

Yes! I am far more interested in what the reaction says about the readers than about the writer! I read it when it first came out and enjoyed it as a mystery novel. It never occurred to me that people would take it seriously.

cognac

I think this is where the emphasis and analysis should be. NOGO posted a poll about Canadians who've read and believe it. I think I saw one regarding the States that reported similar kinds of numbers. The reponse of Catholics and conservative Xns seems to be to attack Dan Brown (because he attacked us). What people should be analyzing is why certain groups of people might be believing the book. There's way more going on than simply "because Dan Brown said its true."

cognac

I'm (almost) completely baffled by these websites, except that I did note that at the top of the page where he's got a link for speaking engagements. I wonder how much he charges churches to bring him to give a talk on DVC.

The whole debunking phenonemon seems to be just cashing in on DVC for their own gain. The funny thing is, the more they debunk, the more Dan Brown will likely benefit, because if you haven't read it, you now might just to see what all the fuss is about.

lpetrich

Here are two nice skeptical reviews of The Da Vinci Code:

The Da Vinci Hoax, by Robert M. Price
The Da Vinci Crock, by Laura Miller, in Salon online magazine

Both reviewers rip that book to (metaphorical) shreds; it ought to be apparent that that book is nothing more than a big fat fraud. And both reviewers approach that book from a secular perspective, as Earl Doherty also does; they aren't wounded fundies.

Californian

The fundies can't stand the thought of their god having sex. End of story.

Those who believe Brown find he makes more sense than the NT, which is shoved down their throats as absolute historical certainty.

Neither group gives a hoot about Templars, Cathars, the exact date of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., etc. All those historical corrections are a waste.

The grail has always been up for grabs in mythology. Some Vatican cardinal recently clamed the grail was a cup. That would be from Authurian Legends. circa the 10th to 12th century, which make Brown look like a piker in terms of mixing fact and fiction.