« Success and birth order | Main | Atlas Shrugged and baseball »

May 11, 2006


You are very right when you state that the Da Vinci Code is a "mediocre thriller/murder mystery". And you are correct in stating that "it sure isn't literature".

Where I politely beg to differ with you is in the "set of facts to teach". The Da Vinci Code is fiction, pure and simple. It has nothing to teach and should only be looked upon as a prime example of how not to write a decent novel.

There is more proof that Jesus was the son of God, than there is that Plato wrote the Republic. Yet, we take that as gospel.

I will also agree with you, that yes, The Da Vinci Code will be a box office success. I hope to be well entertained.

I would very much like to see the evidence, mentioned by the previous commentor, that Jesus was the son of an imaginary creature. A book that is supposedly the revealed word of that imaginary creature, does not apply.

I for one have not read the book, and will try hard to avoid the movie. Although I am experiencing schadenfreude over the Christians complaining about a fictional story based on their fictional story.

Well, I *have* read Holy Blood, Holy Grail... and I've never seen a bigger rip-off of another book than I have with The Da Vinci Code. Just spent the past 2 days reading it and writing a review.

The first half the book is rather good. It almost read like a screen play. You can see the camera pan and scan from room to room.

The second half of the book is weak, to put it mildly. This book is the successor to Angels and Demons, but both books shares many of the same details. What is different between the books is that A&D is weak at the beginning but rather exciting towards the end.

It would not surprising is Dan Brown rethread the parts that worked from the two books and combined into another best seller.

Haven't read the book, and not one review I have read would persuade me to either.

No desire to see the film either.

I enjoyed "Sione's Wedding" too much. Oh, and that had religion in it as well - in the form of a Samoan pastor and a church wedding.

The real truth is that excluding the gospels, there is zero historical evidence that Jesus (or his 12 apostles) even existed.

Yes, "The Goal" might be the only business book I've ever finished during my long corporate career.

Hi, like your blog. There really is no historical evidence that "[t]he New Testament wasn’t created until several hundred years after Jesus’ death. The Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, sponsored and strongly influenced by Roman emperor Constantine, is when the religion of Christianity as we know it today (in its Catholic incarnation) was actually created. At that time, the four Gospels included in the New Testament were edited to ensure that they agree with the story of Jesus’ divinity."

Below is a link to a pretty thorough debunking of Brown's book from the Skeptic, not a guardian of Christian orthodoxy.

Of course, the fact that the Emperor Constantine didn't invent Jesus' divinity doesn't mean that Jesus really was divine. But the idea that Constantine imposed the idea of Jesus' divinity on Christianity at a church council is ludicrous on its face. There were delegates at Nicea who had been tortured and crippled during Diocletian's persecutions 20 years before for refusing to abandon their faith. Do you really suppose they would nod in obedience while the emperor changed their faith's very essence? Christians believed in Christ's divinity as far back as we can trace.

The comments to this entry are closed.