I know this isn't the hot topic it was a while back. I have an excuse - honest! I was cleaning up a big pile of books beside my bed the other day and found this one. I was given it as a gift about two years ago and simply forgot I had it. It's small and thin - easy enough to lose, eh?
Anyway, the content of the book proved worth reading even if the topic isn't as hot as it has been...
I won't bore you with the details of Dan Brown's silly story. In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I've not read it or any other of his works. I understand that he's a good writer - I assume he must be to have sold so many copies of the DaVinci Code (over 7 million, last I heard).
Hanegraaff's book is actually two books in one. Hank writes the second part - a basic defense of historical Christianity using his common methods (as frequently employed on his radio program, The Bible Answer Man). I merely skimmed this section, as I've heard his arguments dozens of times before (and agree with them, of course!).
Paul Maier wrote the first part of the book, a critique of the supposed "facts" and "history" the Dan Brown employs in his book. He treats the big issues in detail (like the hypothesis that Jesus married Mary Magdalene) and then goes through a litany of specific quotes that are inaccurate. One particularly good one - Brown apparently thinks that Constantine suppressed various alternative gospel accounts, but these were thankfully uncovered by the Dead Sea Scrolls that were dug up in the 1950s. [I don't have the book in front of me, or I'd quote it directly.]
The problem? Three: 1) Constantine wasn't in the business of suppressing any Christian texts (or supporting any either - that issue was largely resolved by the time of the Council of Nicea), 2) the Dead Sea Scrolls were unearthed in 1947 (not the "1950s" of Brown), and 3) [this is the biggest 'oops!'] ...
The Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain any gospels! They're all Second Temple literature and copies of the Old Testament. None of the "other gospels" are in the DSS! Silly, Mr. Brown. Very silly.
Anyway, this book is a short and easy read - but don't let that devalue it! If you know someone enamored with Brown or the DaVinci conspiracy theories, read this. You'll be glad you did.
My only real complaint, incidentally, comes at the end of Maier's section, in what's almost as post script. He basically blames Brown's problems on the theory that he must be a "post-Modern"! This is neither the time nor the place for that argument...
Hatushili
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Book Review: DaVinci Code - Fact or Fiction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In Dan Browns defense he openly admits the fact that he is a FICTION writer. He isn't really trying to prove anything. His goal is to entertain not to promote the fictional heresy he creates as truth. (No, I’ve never read his books either, but I rented the flick...it was a little weird.)
My opinion, not that anyone’s asking, is that it really isn’t that big of a deal. I’m much more offended by movies such as “One Night with the King” (the story of Esther) and “Noah and the Ark” (you got it, the story of Noah), both newer movies which try to portray Biblical events or stories as nonfiction and do a horrendous job of it, just awful. People assume that these religious flavored movies are going to present them with an accurate account of the events. The by this stuff hook, line, and sinker. However, what ends up happening is that the masses walk away from such movies actually believing that Noah met other people on smaller boats during his 40 day and night adventure and that Xerxes the King of Persia was a charming and devoted husband.
To be honest, I would prefer to watch or read an openly heretical FICTION movie or book than a poorly written, often just as heretical, religious nonfiction movie or book which claim to be true.
My rant is thus finished.
JB, I agree with this:
I would prefer to watch or read an openly heretical FICTION movie or book than a poorly written, often just as heretical, religious nonfiction movie or book which claim to be true.
The problem is that Dan Brown, though he's writing fiction, portrays most of it as fact. The book starts with as list of the "facts" according to Brown. More to the point, in an interview after the release of the book Brown was asked what data he'd have to change if he rewrote the book as non-fiction. His answer? "Nothing." He presents his book as "historical fiction", claiming that only the story of his main character is actually fiction.
Frankly, I think Brown's book fits your statement better than you think.
Hatushili
You are probably right. My wife had just rented the above mentioned videos a couple nights before writing my response. I was frustrated with them to say the least. Perhaps my statement was a bit harsh and drama-queenish...
Post a Comment