the book had all this hype associated with it, so i finally got around to reading it. What i found was an average book. Not particularly bad, not particularly good. Brown isn't very descriptive, this hurts the book because it seems kind of rushed along. And then the stupid cliffhangers at the end of EVERY chapter...c'mon, this isn't a serialized story, it's a bok, let's keep the continuity.
Originally posted by queeqBut you do recall that the book is fiction. I was wrong when I said he confirms ALL of the things in his books as fact, but he takes the facts and twists them to make a better, more readable story
Okay a few,1. He says that the canonical gospels are not the earliest gospels aroud, but surpressed the Gnostic ones. A big lie, the CG's date to the 1st century, the GG's to about th 2nd or even 3rd century. Much later
2. Jesus was supposedly divinised at the Council of Nicea in 325 - very ot true. Just check out the canonical gospels
3. "Constantine imposed the canonical gospels and the doctrine of divinity". Simply not true. The four gospels were already around and considerd as authoritative sources as early as 125 AD.
4. Jesus was supposeldy married to MAry Magdalene. Only LATER sources seem to say that, but the text has gaps, plus it doesn't really say that but with a little fantasy one could argue that it might mean that. Far from evidence rally especially since no earlier sources confirm it. Very doubtful.
5. "Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic gospels are oldest christian documents around." Howler. DSS date to 250 BC!!!! Not Christian at all!!! And Gnostic are much much later!!
So lots of easy lies. There are a few more detaillistic ones.
Originally posted by Lord Soth
But you do recall that the book is fiction. I was wrong when I said he confirms ALL of the things in his books as fact, but he takes the facts and twists them to make a better, more readable story
He doesn't even take facts... he takes some wrong popular assumptions. And I agree, it is fiction and a cleverly written novel. No doubts there. However, the foreword suggests the fact presented in the novel are facts and they are not. I just learned that even the Priory of Sion is complete fiction, something that was based on some fake documents produced by someone in the fifties or sixties but that have long been proven to be fakes. THere even goes the Da Vinci connection.
And it's not even Dan Brown's theory. He's been using other people's stuff, like Graham Hancock's.
Hi,
can someone shed some light upon the ending? what exactly Dan is referring "Holy Grail" as? it seems like the descendants of Christ's family (i.e Sophie). And what did he figured in Paris in Louvre that he realized the true reality of Grail? he was looking towards the sky in the end through the two pyramid structure in Louvre? what does that suppose to mean?
Can I just say, I've been to the Louvre in Paris and in the Da Vinci code, Brown describes the inverted pyramid as being surrounded by famous works of art, but PLEASE CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG, but isn't the inverted pyramid in a shopping centre?????????????
I distinctly remember going into esprit and Virgin records there?