|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Explaining Fact vs. Fiction
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I live in a state where 87% of people do not go to church, which assumes (and my experiences and conversations seem to verify) that a majority of these people do not have any understanding of church history.
On top of everything, I'm very open about being a churchgoer, in a tradition that is similar enough to Roman Catholicisim that many people confuse the two (wearing a Rosary around like I've been doing lately hasn't helped that much ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ). Which means that I get a lot of questions about how I feel about the book. I've actually read the book, too, and have my very strong opinions about it (everyone who knows me even vaugely is not a bit surprised).
I know I can't be the only one who's in this situation. How is everyone else handling these questions (if you've gotten them)? I've got my own method, but I'd like to hear from some other people before I post my own.
[ 02. April 2006, 06:53: Message edited by: Spiffy da Wonder Sheep ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Normally by asking a question or two myself. Such as "what makes you think this is true". Folks can go all over the place after that.
If they believe the opening comment about the Priory of Sion, I'd suggest they do a bit of web-digging to find for themselves the impressive evidence of hoax.
If they are fascinated by the idea of a coded female "Beloved Disciple" in "The Last Supper", then it's not at all unreasonable to ask why they think da Vinci knew that was true. You then do get into HBHG territory and back to the Priory of Sion again.
If its about a sexually active Jesus being somehow more plausible, more easy to relate to than a celibate one, then the conversation can go in an entirely different direction. How safe is it to assume that the prevailing view in our sexualised western world is itself the whole picture? Maybe that very sexualisation, which has some pretty obvios commercial and social engineering roots, is actually distorting our understanding of the possibilities of human sexuality?
Anyway, for what its worth, those are the sorts of conversations I've had.
In general, its not a terribly good idea to quote the bible as authoritative to those who dont believe that to start with. But it is, for example, reasonable (at least I've used this argument) to point out that if TDVC is true, it must have been psychologically pretty difficult for the first disciples to proclaim death and resurrection, to suffer and die for that belief, all the while knowing that their Master had hiked off to France with his secret wife ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
The thing I've found difficult is explaining a Christian postition to people that doesn't assume an inerrant Bible but would question most of the stuff in the Da vinci Code. E.g, a friend of mine said she found the ideas there quite plausable so I explained why I thought it was wrong using basic historical methods and showing that it got basic facts wrong (e.g The Gospel of Phillip is in Coptic, not Aramaic and doesn't say that jesus was married) this stuff is true and it's very easy to show where the novel is desparately astray from good history, but even so, I just felt I sounded like fundamentalist trying to prove the Bible to be true. I'm not and I wasn't but I felt a bit uncomfortable none the less.
[ 02. April 2006, 20:00: Message edited by: Gextvedde ]
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Can't agree with the last bit, Barnabas. They wouldn't have known, would they. And people dying for their idolised leaders is not in itself proof of the idol's worthiness (though I'm not suggesting Jesus was an idol - only that mass hysteria can hapen in the company of good and bad leaders)
I quite like the idea of Jesus slipping away quietly, his work done, and almost universally misinterpreted by his closest friends. But that's my take, not Dan Brown's.
If Jesus WAS married, and there was genuine proof of it, the Church's reaction is predictable. But I think makes more sense to deal with the real problems of today which need no sensationalising. People are not going to leave the Church in droves because of Dan Brown. The betrayal of Vatican II is something else. And Ihaven't given up (as a bystander) on the rotweiler-turned-sheepdog.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
chemincreux
Something can still be reasonable even if you don't believe it. But I'll play along a bit. In order for the disciples (including Peter, James and John) and Jesus's mother not to know, there must have been another little coterie. An unknown inner "inner circle". No doubt they had some plausible explanation for the disappearance of Mary M as well.
Don't you see, mate? You need TWO conspiracy theories to make that work. One to magic Jesus and his partner away, another to fool his disciples and his mother that "praise God, it was a miracle!" And you have to have Jesus and his partner agreeing to this deception of his friends, followers and his mother! Come off it! Its cobblers!! For this to work, Jesus would have had to have been a completely duplicitous bastard to co-operate with it.
[ 02. April 2006, 21:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
I'm in general agreement with barnabas62. What we're looking for here is history that provides a critical assessment of the sources we have whether they be christian, jewish gnostic or whatever. Dan Browns book provides none of this and even misrepresents some of them. No, the belief of Jesus disciples after his death doesn't "prove" that the resurection happened (whatevever we mean by that), but it provides data that needs to be explained without resorting to a "the Bible says it so it's true" approach or dissmissing it out of hand. A difficult task I admit.
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
... I just felt I sounded like fundamentalist trying to prove the Bible to be true. I'm not and I wasn't but I felt a bit uncomfortable none the less.
Welcome to the world of dealing with pseudohistory, Gextvedde! My involvement in the subject comes through Scottish history.
Even before the Da Vinci Code, I heard people coming out with nonsense about Rosslyn Chapel being founded by Templars. I pointed out that it was a mid 15th century collegiate church and that the Templars were suppressed in the early 1300s and never very important in Scotland anyway. I was then told that a Templar fleet had come to Scotland to hook up with an excommunicate Robert Bruce and that a Templar army had helped him win Bannockburn and the order had continued in Scotland and founded Rosslyn.
This was absolute rubbish - I'll spare you the detailed historical debunking to cut the length of this post, but the nonsense all turned out to stem from Baigent and Leigh's later book 'The Temple and the Lodge' which first claimed a Templar connection to Rosslyn and which was picked up on by other pseuds.
Anyone with a basic understanding of the history could see why this was ridiculous, but most people don't have even a basic knowledge of 14th century history and here lies the parallel - most people now don't have even a basic knowledge of the Bible, Christianity and church history. Hence they can look at a chapel, which is an excellent example of the flowering of medieval Catholic piety in Scotland, and think that it's the key to some hokey occult mystery. They can't understand basic Christian symbolism, so they're as prey to Dan Brown's kooky notions about religion as they are to Leigh and Baigent's sad piece of crapola about Scottish history.
To my astonishment, despite the fact that this stuff is as ridiculous to a historian as flat-earth theory is to geographer, broadsheet Scottish newspapers (which should have known better) ran articles which were uncritical nonsense about Rosslyn. Poor William Sinclair - he was a devout Catholic who founded the chapel for the salvation of his family - and the heirs now appear to be pandering to the anti-Catholic loons. Yet the goose that lays their golden egg came from Catholic piety.
Most people simply can't be bothered exercising any critical skills about this crap. They want to believe there are occult secrets and buried treasure hidden there and that Rosslyn was a centre of pagan-friendly resistance to the nasty Church - rather than a hymn in stone to medieval Catholic Christian piety.
I think it comes down to people wanting the sense of superiority which comes from 'knowing' about deep issues like the basis of Christianity, the role of women in the church, the formation of the NT canon, but they can't be bothered actually doing the bloody work you need to come to a scholarly understanding of these issues or are incapable of it. Try asking the buggers to learn to read the NT in the original, or to learn enough Latin to work on medieval church history or even to read a few scholarly works on New Testament criticism and they can't be bothered - but read a single novel and that makes them instant experts who are superior to the people who have actually spent years learning the necessary disciplines to bring us closer to answers in these fields.
It's part of modern anti-intellectualism - everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's regardless of how ill-qualified it is. People are suspicious of experts - and when you see what the theological 'experts' have said for hundreds of years about women and gay people to just give two examples, it's easy to see why people are leery of them, but they've rushed to the other extreme of taking people who know f*ck all - like Dan Brown as authorities, just because what they say sounds exciting and chimes with their dislike of traditional religion. Few people can be bothered with the discipline and work which actually goes into understanding these things critically for themselves.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Great post, Louise!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
That's a great post Louise. I think the phrase pseudohistory really describes it well. I remember trying to explain to a friend that just because something is controversial or anti-church, that doesn't make it true. I'm no traditionalist and hold fairly loose wth some conservative Christian values but blatantly bad history steeped in its own ignorance really pisses me off. I don't care if people freely admit they don't know or care about early church history but using a pretty crap novel as a basis for a critique of the church is, well, silly.
[ 02. April 2006, 22:11: Message edited by: Gextvedde ]
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Fact vs. Fiction is a tricky thing.
I've had a number of people assert to me that Jesus never existed. For them this is a reasonable position to take; in their experience the only people who have argued against this proposition have then gone on to assert that not only did Jesus exist but he also walked on water, turned water into wine and was resurrected from the dead.
In that context, the idea that 'Jesus' was made up by a bunch of religous nutters seems quite plausible to them.
The theories in The Da Vinci Code are wacky, way out and entertaining to read. They are also no more inherently implausible than a lot of what mainstream Christianity believes.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Louise, I must also echo the fabulousness of your answer.
Now, I tell you how I tend to deal with it. It's often people who just ask, "What did you think?"
I know I'm not dealing with historically savvy people, and they're not biblically literate. And I also know that a long-winded explanation of the v. v. bad history is not at all feasible, so I try to keep my explanation under 90 seconds.
It goes something like this:
quote:
Oh, you know, the hoax of the Priory of Sion has been proven and there are dozens of books and websites on Opus Dei, but you know what clinched it for me? Walt Disney. The main character wears a Mickey Mouse watch because he believes the reason Walt Disney made all these movies about princesses was because he was a subversive promoting the Divine Feminine. Which is so not true; he used the fairy tales so he wouldn't have to pay any writers royalties! Total fiction, man.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Sigh. You're a much better person than I am, Spiffy.
What did you think of it?
I think Dan Brown picked up on a convergence of conspiracy theoritis, a mistrust of scientism and concurrent mistrust of supernaturalism, not to mention the usual distrust of authority and institutions and patriarchy, put it all in a pot and stirred. He can’t write for shit if DVC is any indication, but he may be a genius. Maybe one of those idiot savants or something. And you?
This sometimes leads to a tangent about whether I liked it or not, and whether they did or not, which gets us to but do you think it’s true?
No, I don’t. I’ve read too much church history.
But don’t you think it could happen?
As in, an alternative universe? Sure. I think it didn’t happen in this one, so I don’t see the point of speculating. Why, do you think it’s true?
I think there may be something in my tone of cold condescension that causes most people to hedge their answers here. Well...
Well, all right, if you think it’s true, do you think it’s true the same way you think the civil war is true? Or do you think it’s true because you feel like Christianity, and Catholocism in particular, has a history of being mysogynistic and you think this would validate those feelings?
Generally I can get them to agree that the second option is more likely, and that the way to change that is to influence the future, not rewrite the past. At that point anything vaguely resembling logic leaves the room as they tell me why they don’t want to do that, which usually includes some variation of how they don’t believe any of the Jesus stuff in the first place, and the argument goes all over the place.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chemincreux
Something can still be reasonable even if you don't believe it. But I'll play along a bit. In order for the disciples (including Peter, James and John) and Jesus's mother not to know, there must have been another little coterie. An unknown inner "inner circle". No doubt they had some plausible explanation for the disappearance of Mary M as well.
Don't you see, mate? You need TWO conspiracy theories to make that work. One to magic Jesus and his partner away, another to fool his disciples and his mother that "praise God, it was a miracle!" And you have to have Jesus and his partner agreeing to this deception of his friends, followers and his mother! Come off it! Its cobblers!! For this to work, Jesus would have had to have been a completely duplicitous bastard to co-operate with it.
FWIW, in this particular scheme, I don't think Jesus escaped with his wife. I think the argument goes something like, everybody did know about his marriage, but after the crucifixion and resurrection it would have been too dangerous for Jesus’ wife and child if people knew they existed, so they sent them off to France and erased all evidence of their existence for their protection. But I may be mixing up my sources and arguments here. Does anyone know if the Da Vinci Code features a Jesus who didn't die or not?
Oh dear, I’m arguing the Da Vinci Code. I’m obviously still reeling from the several hours I recently spent in the company of friends arguing over Wu Tang, the five percent nation of Islam, imaginary sky buddies, and pork that’s left me so confused I may have to post in purgatory.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
madteawoman
Shipmate
# 11174
|
Posted
I've had friends and family ask me about TDVC and if its true, and my response is always "Did you buy/borrow it from the fiction section? Then I guess its a made up story." Which seems to me to be such a basic point that I don't know why they don't think of it themselves. It was written as fiction. As a history it is so laughable that it would rightly belong in comedy (as better historians than me have already pointed out here).
But I agree that the real question is why people want to believe it is true. And I think that is because they want to be told that Christianity is made up so they don't have to be worried about whether or not to believe it. Because if TDVC is true, it affects my life not one iota. But if Christianity is true, well that's a whole other ballgame.
--------------------
Listen carefully to my words, and let this be your consolation.
Bear with me, and I will speak; then after I have spoken, mock on.
Posts: 1446 | From: by the fireside | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Barnabas. Yes, of course. Sorry to have sounded so dense. I wasn't arguing an alternative DVC. Regardless of whether or not Jesus was married, what could Jesus, crucified and risen, do next?
Once the disciples had got over their shock, shame, guilt and fear, they would have regarded anything short of a miraculous - and probably bloody - ousting of their enemies as duplicitous bastardy on his part. He had to leave. I don't know how or where to, unlike conventional believers, but the bible confirms that he left.
If he was married, I would guess he left his wife as well as his disciples. I'm saying that one way or another he left alone, not because he was a duplicitous bastard but to protect his friends and family. I'm pretty sure we are agreed on that last point - up to a point!
[ 03. April 2006, 06:06: Message edited by: chemincreux ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
quote:
Originaly posted by Demas
The theories in The Da Vinci Code are wacky, way out and entertaining to read. They are also no more inherently implausible than a lot of what mainstream Christianity believes.
I agree with you on that point. Someone getting married and buggering off to France whilst others make other claims for what happened to them, no problem. My issue with Dan Browns book is that it claims to be based on real history but completely misrepresents historic sources and shows a deep ignorance of its subject matter. It works because most people haven't got a clue about the bible, early church history or how historical research is done. Why would they? But because of this, a controversial conspiracy theory based on pretty shabby foundations is heard and given merit when it really doesn't deserve it. There are plenty of real historical reasons to find fault with the church in history, use those not some half baked crap novel.
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Perhaps the reason so many people don't know how historical or religious research is done is because (a) Historical research was for aeons constricted by the refusal of religiously-endowed institutions to treat history like any other science, and the bible as any other historical source, and (b) because they think history is something they were taught by their atrocious Sunday-School teachers, and dropped it as soon as they were able. Much over-simplified, I know, but the way Baigent and co. do history isn't that different from the way some orthodox religious do it. There's an awful lot of pots calling kettles bklack here.
[ 03. April 2006, 14:39: Message edited by: chemincreux ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Chemincreux, my history degree comes from the Department of Behavioral and Social Science*. Just because something was done that way in the past, doesn't mean it is a reality now.
*Yes, folks, I have a B.A. in B.S. And no one's really surprised.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
quote:
Perhaps the reason so many people don't know how historical or religious research is done is because (a) Historical research was for aeons constricted by the refusal of religiously-endowed institutions to treat history like any other science, and the bible as any other historical source, and (b) because they think history is something they were taught by their atrocious Sunday-School teachers, and dropped it as soon as they were able. Much over-simplified, I know, but the way Baigent and co. do history isn't that different from the way some orthodox religious do it. There's an awful lot of pots calling kettles bklack here.
Maybe but the people I had in mind were my friends who have no religious background and no real interest in early church history. If you don't have any reason to think otherwise, and like conspiricy theories, the basic ideas in book could seem quite plausable.
As for the pots and kettles, you'd have to know that the people on this thread are trying to defend an orthodox view of history. I haven't seen enough detail to make that judgement yet.
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
Well I must admit I find it difficult to understand how Christianity spread under horrendously difficult conditions if the real truth of the matter was that Jesus went off with Mary Magdelene for a dirty weekend in the south of France....!! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
But to be serious....
I think - for some reason -there's a liking for conspiracy theories in today's society.You see it in science as well as history
Has anyone read 'Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code' by Bart Ehrman? I found it a fascinating read - whereas he is not polemical I did think that Ehrman disentangled the two quite successfully
Incidentally I read DVC, and enjoyed it but I did find the plot rather far-fetched at times.I picked it up at an airport terminal - and really I thought it was that sort of book......
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
How Christianity spread under such difficult conditions? Didn't Tertullian say (something like) the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church?
Religions and quasi-religions do not thrive (ISTM) as a result of unquenchable love or incontrovertible truth. Look at the rise and fall and rise of Islam, at the New Age movement and its offshoots.
How and why some ideas begin, gain ground, proliferate and survive cannot be down to one simple truth or one set of simple rational causes. People die in their millions for patent
untruths.
That sounds so cynical! In spite of the last sentence, the best religios give hope - and I think that is the best they - or we - can do.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
chemincreux
I think you're relativising, me old chum. It is actually a reasonable historical (not faithful) position that the NT presents impressive evidence for the existence of a belief, in the AD30s, in Palestine, that a man rose from the dead. It is NOT a reasonable historical position that this man was married to anyone. There is no evidence for this. There is evidence of subsequent fevered speculation - but that's about as far as you can take it. So it is not a question of balance between two inherently reasonable positions.
That is the sort of thing that Lousie meant when she talked of doing the hard work. Of course, if you aren't prepared to look at the evidence, you can believe almost anything about these times which suits your current perspective. But that aint doing history.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Barnabas. I'm not sure where I was supposed to be relativising. Sounds like a mild oblique insult but if you don't explain it I won't be offended. I was certainly retrogressing at one point (knee-jerk tangent to a remark by Gextvedde, I think), having been profoundly influenced in my teens by George Bernard Shaw's "The Adventures of the Black Girl in Her Search For God" - an ironic romp through the bible on which so much "history" was based in Shaw's day. We've moved on of course. Nobody fulminates against Darwin nowadays. Oh, wait a minute....
I wish I could be as articulate and sensible as Louise.
And I'm with you and Gextvedde on most things.
However, you move from a "reasonable historical evidence for a belief"(in the resurrection) to a "fevered speculation about a marriage" (not a belief about a marriage) and seem to suggest that I'd somehow put those two ideas up as balanced entities. I don't even see the logic of such a comparison.
Dealing with each in turn, however, there is some evidence in the gospels for substantial lack of belief in the resurrection. Which seems entirely reasonable to me, even though I believe in the resurrecton myself. I just don't get your "not faithful" remark. Are you suggesting that belief equals proof? Or that the number of believers is proportional to the veracity of a belief? Millions of Muslims deny the death on the cross, so the resurrection is not an issue for them - and few of them, I suspect, are Dan Brown thinkalikes.
The marriage? Pure speculation, of course, and from a historical perspective I'd suggest that it is neither very likely nor very unlikely. I must admit to not knowing, with an accuracy, the marital status of all the disciples. If that makes me a lazy incompetent, I apologize. I doubt if the marital status of Jesus was an issue in his lifetime. The vicious rumours about his parentage were something else, of course. And once he was made - or recognised as - God I don't think anyone stood a chance of "doing history" as we recognize it today.
It may be that Christianity has been over-demythologized and needs to get its breath back,
but isn't Dan Brown having the last laugh? Why rise to his bait so willingly?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Sorry to double post, but in the cool light of day I must try to make a better fist of things. Firstly, I should mention hat GBS was havin a go at the whole eductional system of his time, and we HAVE moved on.
Re-reading Louise's post I both understand and share her frustration. Baigent and Leigh first took me for a ride with "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception" and I should have learned more than I did from that. There is no doubt that they are assiduous researchers, but scholars? I doubt it. One of the first rules of scholarship is that you not only cannot suppress evidence to your thesis - you must declare it where you know it exists. And if you cannot answer that contrary evidence reasonably, you must give up the thesis. It is only recently that I have realised how seriously they flout this rule.
They claim to follow an alternative process to analysis - i.e. synthesis. In this they are no more at fault than those religious people who say that conflicting accounts of an event merely give us different shades of meaning or different viewpoints of the same truth (attempts to totally harmonise the synoptics with John, for instance, particularly at Christmas and Easter. But in no law court that I have ever heard of do four 25% truths add up to one 100% proof.
Baigent, Dawkins, Brown, Pullman - they've all got it in for the church, haven't they? What a waste of talent. At least Pullman can write, and I like his defence: "If it's a problem, write a better story yourself."
Ah, now THERE's a challenge.....
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
chemincreux
I was guilty of both obscurity and assumption. I apologise on both counts. I could unpack my thoughts at the time, but your latest post basically says, much better, what I wished I'd said in my post to you. Louise's post deserves wider circulation.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Barnabas. Goodwill gratefully accepted. No apology needed.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's part of modern anti-intellectualism - everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's regardless of how ill-qualified it is.
Louise, excellent post!
This idea of "truthiness" would seem to define your point pretty well.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Chemincruex
I was certainly retrogressing at one point (knee-jerk tangent to a remark by Gextvedde, I think)
Was this anything relevant for discussion or had I phrased something badly? If the first, great lets talk. If the second, apologies, didn't mean to offend.
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But it is, for example, reasonable (at least I've used this argument) to point out that if TDVC is true, it must have been psychologically pretty difficult for the first disciples to proclaim death and resurrection, to suffer and die for that belief, all the while knowing that their Master had hiked off to France with his secret wife ...
That isn't the way the DVC story goes! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Not explicitly - the resurrection or survival of Jesus sort of hangs in the air. But the survival of Jesus is, as I recall, pretty explicit in HBHG and this is acknowledged in the research notes by Dan Brown's wife, based on her reading the book. (The point came up in the recent court case.) Normally what I try to do is to get discusssions out of the cryptic puzzle zone and into the real people zone.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Golden Key
Forgot to post this point (which IngoB made elsewhere). An ascended Jesus leaving his wife and newborn behind would be an odd sort of Son of God. There is a lot of difference between commissioning your followers and abandoning a wife and child. So, if you accept the survival, its odd if he doesn't go to France, and if you accept the resurrection and ascension, its even odder if he leaves them behind. What you're sort of left is, the survival didn't happen and the resurrection didn't happen, but a few of us in the know got Mary off to France, leaving the sucker disciples to live and die and proclaim an illusion. It's sort of lose-lose really.
These options get folks thinking ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I've read this thread with some interest. I have to say I am entirely disappointed that no one has ever asked me about TDVC despite my bona fides as a church goer.
Do people actually believe the pseudo-history underlying this novel as fact? I guess around here people who don't go to church may care so little about religion that they don't even care about religious conspiracy theories.
How often are people really asked about this book?
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Not for a few days. But my barber is interested and we talked about it on my most recent visit. And my mum, brother, sister-in-law and one of my cousins (none of whom go to church) got into a conversation about it on a recent visit. Mind you, in the latter case, they may just have been polite. Humouring my "oddness", you know. These conversations (plus a few others, one of which was "virtual") were the sources of the stuff I posted in this thread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084
|
Posted
I read it because I had noticed so many people reading it. There are quite a few people I’ve met who are interested in this sort of thing, even if it’s a “see the church was wrong” type of approach. In fact, I had a semi-coherent, pissed, conversation with my manager at the pub this evening about it. It can be a good way into something more meaningful if you’re lucky (or unlucky). Mind you, we also discussed how a space hopper Olympics might work out so you can’t read too much into it.
Edited because I really shouldn't be in front of a PC at this time if night.
[ 22. April 2006, 00:00: Message edited by: Gextvedde ]
--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton
Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
I read it because I had noticed so many people reading it. There are quite a few people I’ve met who are interested in this sort of thing, even if it’s a “see the church was wrong” type of approach.
I wonder if it is any more ubiquitous than any other 'bestseller' though. I mean, a lot of people will pick this up in the train station or airport simply because it is the only thing vaguely interesting to them in the top 20 book display.
Granted, it's a best seller because people are buying it. And maybe its the first best seller in some time to feature the church in any way positive or negative [PD James 'Death in Holy Orders' might be another, but don't know how well it did]. But I wonder how many people actually go out of their way to buy this as compared to those who pick it up indiscriminantly as the latest pot boiler.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
smileyjo
Apprentice
# 11336
|
Posted
Hi, first time post so please forgive if slightly confused or even posted in the wrong place....
I notice that a few postings have talked about the DVC as saying that Jesus went with Mary to France.
'According to the Priory... Mary Magdalane was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion. For the safety of Christ's unborn child, she had no choice but to flee the Holy Land. With the help of Jesus' trusted uncle, Joseph of Aramathea, Mary Magdalane secretly traveled to France, Then known as Gaul....It was here in France that she gave birth to a daughter'. (DVC p342)
I have to admit it's a while since I read the book fully but I remember that the bits that I had most issue with were that the theories put forward as fact, deny both the resurrection and Jesus' divinity. Yet he manages to slip these denials of two core aspects of the gospel in so quietly and surrounded by so much about how bad the church is that people don't end up dicussing if that part is true or not. This is the bit that I want to discuss with my non christian friends though.....
Posts: 4 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stumbling Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 7637
|
Posted
For UK viewers, there's a programme on BBC4 tonight at 9 called 'The Da Vinci Code - the Greatest Story ever Sold' (well, I like the title anyway!). I don't know exactly what the content is, but according to Radio Times it promises not to be comfortable viewing for DVC believers. It's followed by a programme called 'Did Jesus Die?'. Not sure if I'm going to be able to see either, and my video is dead ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) , but I'll be interested to see if it sparks any response here - sounds like an interesting juxtaposition of programmes.
[ 01. May 2006, 10:26: Message edited by: Stumbling Pilgrim ]
--------------------
Stumbling in the Master's footsteps as best I can.
Posts: 492 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
I saw the BBC4 programme last night, and it was pretty good, having several art critics and historians on (including Brian Sewell) demolishing Dan Brown. It showed a number of clips from an old ‘Chronicle’ programme from the 1970s (which I remember!) which went over the whole Rennes-le-Château business, and interviewed the HBHG authors – although when Richard Leigh first came on I thought for a moment he was Lemmy from Motörhead... Baigent said that their HBHG book did not state anything as fact, only that these theories were plausible. Hmmm.
I was surprised by how many readers of the book still seem to believe large chunks of TDVC, although as one of the historians/writers pointed out, it was clever of Dan Brown to introduce it by having a series of ‘facts’ stated as such right at the beginning.
The ‘Did Jesus Die ?’ programme has been on before, and is a complete load of old tosh, and includes the theory that Jesus went to Kashmir and died there aged 80-odd. It even showed his tomb.
[ 02. May 2006, 09:45: Message edited by: Amethyst ]
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
What do I think?
I think Dan Brown is laughing all the way to the bank.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
smileyjo
Apprentice
# 11336
|
Posted
Here's a theory: Humans are not naturally sceptical. Do we want to believe what we are told and trust people. I can be very sceptical in some areas of my life and then accept things without question in others. I know I have been through phases of being like that in church, which I guess is why we are told to test everything....
An alternative theory is that we just don't engage our brains that often. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 4 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I wonder if it is any more ubiquitous than any other 'bestseller' though. I mean, a lot of people will pick this up in the train station or airport simply because it is the only thing vaguely interesting to them in the top 20 book display.
Don't know about the US, but over here, it was top of the weekly sales charts for many, many weeks, usually shifting at least twice as many copies each week as the next-biggest seller, even when that was a new release from a really bankable author. It was only eventually knocked off the top of the charts when the latest Harry Potter book came out, but it seems like most people had bought a copy by then anyway. In 2004, TDVC sold in numbers only ever matched by Lady Chatterley, James Bond, Jaws and Harry Potter. Despite this, it was still going strong in 2005, coming in second behind the aforementioned Potter.
It seems highly likely that there will be another surge in sales with the release of the film, and all the accompanying documentaries, regardless of what they say about the book's content. When Tony Robinson produced a very effective explanation of why TDVC was a load of hokum for C4, sales of the book doubled the week after it was aired. So in summary, yes, I think it is very much more ubiquitous than any other bestseller.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wet Kipper
Circus Runaway
# 1654
|
Posted
It was nice to see Tom Hanks' opinion on the whole thing...
quote:
..loaded with "Hooey" and "nonsense"
--------------------
- insert randomly chosen, potentially Deep and Meaningful™ song lyrics here -
Posts: 9841 | From: further up the Hill | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stumbling Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 7637
|
Posted
Finally managed to see the Tony Robinson programme on Discovery last night (and now it seems I could have gone to bed after all, as it's repeated on Channel 4 tonight). There was so little left of the theory after he'd finished with it, with even Baigent admitting at the end that much of it was pure hypothesis, that I can only assume that anybody who continues to believe it does so because they desperately want to. I liked the analogy, though I can't remember who said it, of people in a few hundred years time discovering a copy of 'Lord of the Rings' and thinking 'ah, this is what people must have believed in those days'.
I must admit I would have quite liked to see what the Sinclair descendant made of the fact that his 'medieval' scroll bore a coat of arms that wasn't devised until 1752 or thereabouts (but I probably wouldn't have had the heart to tell him either). He just seemed like a rather sad individual, but I wonder if part of the attraction for others is that if people can say 'look how the nasty oppressive Church has lied to us for 2000 years', they can then dismiss the Church and so don't have to consider its real message and whether that might have anything to say to their lives?
--------------------
Stumbling in the Master's footsteps as best I can.
Posts: 492 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stumbling Pilgrim:
...I wonder if part of the attraction for others is that if people can say 'look how the nasty oppressive Church has lied to us for 2000 years', they can then dismiss the Church and so don't have to consider its real message and whether that might have anything to say to their lives?
I'm sure that's what's going on.
People keep coming up with new ways (and recycling old ones) to discredit Christianity. It's almost a religion with some.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vikki Pollard
Shipmate
# 5548
|
Posted
"The vast majority of devout Christians understand this fact [that it's a novel] and consider TDVC an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate."
- Dan Brown.
Is it that Christians feel personally attacked or that non-Christians will somehow be driven away from God? Because if you're saying you are now prepared to engage with people who would never have discussed Christ previously - and indeed, with whom you would never have broached the subject - then isn't Dan Brown right?
My Dad's conversion was largely due to the 'Conjuring Trick with Bones' misquote of David Jenkins, and I remember similar outrage back then.
[ 14. May 2006, 22:35: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
--------------------
"I don't get all this fuss about global warming, Miss. Why doesn't the Government just knock down all the f**king greenhouses?" (One of my slightly less bright 15 year old pupils)
Posts: 5695 | From: The Far Side | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
For ages i didn't get why people were upset about the 'faction' of DVC - i thought that (as Browne said in Vickis quote) that mature adults could see that it was fiction. But in the last fortnight i've heard SO many wierd statements that i can't help but be worried
E.g. A comedian saying 'watched people arguing over DVC last night on TV, turned down the sound and it looked like people arguing over whether Donald Duck or Mickey mouse were more real'.
E.g. A radio DJ saying 'anyone who ever played chinese whispers knows that the gospel accounts cannot possibly contain truth'.
E.g. Students saying 'DVC is far more plausible than the Bible, you're all just afraid of sex'.
However, i don't think we can achieve anything by blaming DVC - I think all we can do is challenge people who consider themselves 'thinkers' to think !!!!!!!!
So, i've adopted the line 'why do you call for a priest when you are sick? ... what do you think a priest can offer, if the church is corrupt ... think about it', ...
or ... 'why are you preparing your child for Baptism in this church ? ... what connection can a person have with a man who faked the ressurection ... think about your choices!'
(yep, people at baptism prep meetings will claim to not like 'the church' and see no problem with that !!!)
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I just wanted to briefly point to this resource. To cite from the main page:
quote:
The Aims of this Site
History vs The Da Vinci Code aims to examine the historical claims made in Dan Brown's novel and compare them to the historical evidence. Unlike many other online resources about this novel, its intention is not to simply examine some of those claims, but to provide a comprehensive analysis of all of them. Its intention is to look at these topics from a purely historical perspective, without any religious bias or orientation.
<...>
Are you a Christian?
I am an atheist with an academic background in medieval literature and ancient and medieval history. Where this site's analysis touches on religious topics it does so purely in terms of history and attempts to handle current religious concerns, beliefs and controversies with neutrality.
This is a convenient website, since many people may believe that Christian critique of TVDC may be biased.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
