[RideND]

I just finished reading this book and I have to say I thought it was excellent. I figured out a lot of the secrets before he actually told you but he did fool me with the Teacher. I really like how he makes the chapters so short, it makes it feel like you are moving faster than you normally would. I highly recommend this book to anyone that likes art, conspiracies, or thinks there is a Holy Grail.

 

[JRogers]

I'll have to put it on my "to read" list, right now I'm wading through the Talmud and the Mishnah.

Damn, I think you have too much free time. "Wading" is a good word to use.

I think we just need to remember that this book is a work of fiction. Read it, take it for what it's worth and move on. Sure, people are stupid but we can't blame Dan Brown for that. He just plays off of what people want.

 

[jacksonpt]

Read the DaVincci Code... finishing Angels and Demons now.

DaVinci Code is a bit predictable, but a good story, even if you don't get into the historical side of it. I don't like the way it was written - too much like a soap opera, *suspense building* "Then, just as Langdon is about to turn around" Off to one of the other story lines.

I'm liking Angels and Demons better. The story isn't quite as good and it doesn't have nearly as much "history", but the writing is better.

Brown does a good job building up characters - I especially liked the rich eccentric guy in the DaVinci Code (I forget his name).

 

[MikeD]

Hey thanks I'll go out and get that one when I'm finished with this one, sounds real interesting.

I read too much :

If you end up liking 'The Name of the Rose," (which I haven't read), then pay attention to Toshi's other Umberto Eco recommendation, "Foucault's Pendulum." I haven't read "Davinci," but I have a feeling "Foucault" is everything that "Davinci" wants to be, aside from generally accessible bathroom reading material. It is a bit heavy to get through.

Also might check out "House of Leaves" if you're interested in postmodernism at all. It's kind of like generally inaccessible post-modern bathroom reading material...think "horror novel by Derrida."

MD

 

[Ciaran]

Again this is a classic "Westernizing", "Catholicizing" and "Monday Morning QB'ing" the event that took place.

Kinda like what you are doing right here, right now.

It's a piece of FICTION man, let it go.

 

[Andy_B]

It was a very guick read...in fact I read it in under 6 hours...long Plane ride... A&D is another quick read.... Bought this at the next Airport....

Then I picked up a copy of Running with Scissors...this is one sick and twisted memoir.... reads quicker than DaVinci Code

 

[LordOpie]

bump

good read

 

[narlus]

my wife read this in 2 days...maybe i should give it a go? hey toshi, how's the movie version of _name of the rose_?

 

[Andyman_1970]

The Bible is a historic document. As far as historic documents go the gospels of the NT are considered extremely reliable sources. If you want to discredit the books of the NT as fiction then you should also be ready to ignore most of the textual history we have on the ancient world. The fact is that the books considered authentic were written between 20 and 80 years(most would say 50, but some still argue this) after the death of Jesus(who is a historic figure mentioned by several very well respected ancient Roman and Jewish historians). The fact that a peasant man from Isreal is mentioned in official Roman documents nearly 150 years after his death should tell you that he was a man of some significance. In the documented debates between Jews and the early Christians there is not one person who tries to claim that Jesus's tomb wasn't empty, the only dispute is how it became empty. I'll leave my argument at this, the majority of the books in the NT are of historical importance and are accepted by most authorities on the subject as free from addition of legends and exagerations.

If you enjoyed the DaVinci Code and want to learn more about the issues put together by Dan Brown I'd suggest reading Cracking the DaVinci Code, lots of good and accurate information.

Too many people believe whatever they read. Brown didn't get published because he was correct, he got published because he can tell a decent story.

Toshi, thanks for the list of authors, I think just found some new stuff to crack into.

The Ito

How did I miss this post......................

What he said....................

 

[BurlyShirley]

The Bible is a historic document. As far as historic documents go the gospels of the NT are considered extremely reliable sources.

No they are not. By whom are they considered extremely reliable sources? No professionals in the field that Ive ever met. If they were considered reliable, creationism would be taught in schools because the NT claims proof of god. It also claims many historic events for which there is simply no evidence.

 

[Lucee]

Has anyone read any of Dan Brown's other books?

Yeah, just read Angels & Demons, didn't like it as much, tho. Too formulaic.

 

[Jesus]

No they are not. By whom are they considered extremely reliable sources? No professionals in the field that Ive ever met. If they were considered reliable, creationism would be taught in schools because the NT claims proof of god. It also claims many historic events for which there is simply no evidence.

Wow, I was thinking the same thing!

kinda...

 

[Toshi]

my wife read this in 2 days...maybe i should give it a go? hey toshi, how's the movie version of _name of the rose_?

i haven't seen the movie version myself but my parents have. they liked it but, as typical for movies, they said it lacked the depth of the book. furthermore they thought that some of the casting decisions were screwy, namely sean connery.

 

[JRogers]

The Bible is a historic document. As far as historic documents go the gospels of the NT are considered extremely reliable sources. If you want to discredit the books of the NT as fiction then you should also be ready to ignore most of the textual history we have on the ancient world. The fact is that the books considered authentic were written between 20 and 80 years(most would say 50, but some still argue this) after the death of Jesus(who is a historic figure mentioned by several very well respected ancient Roman and Jewish historians). The fact that a peasant man from Isreal is mentioned in official Roman documents nearly 150 years after his death should tell you that he was a man of some significance. In the documented debates between Jews and the early Christians there is not one person who tries to claim that Jesus's tomb wasn't empty, the only dispute is how it became empty. I'll leave my argument at this, the majority of the books in the NT are of historical importance and are accepted by most authorities on the subject as free from addition of legends and exagerations.

The Ito

I'm going to have to side with Burly on this one. I guess the gospels could be considered extremely reliable sources....except for some of the more fanciful stories, the miracles, the divine birth, the contradictions among them and all that stuff. THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORICAL FACT. It is theological fact. In some cases, one could argue that the gospels (with exceptions) were not even written as historical documents but as theological ones. They communicate an understanding and an idea, not a precise history or a biography, even though these are byproducts. Besides, ancient authors are known for exaggerating, embellishing and creating some fanciful portrayals of events. Even the more reliable ones (Josephus, Herodotus and others) are apt to mess some stuff up and exaggerate quite a bit.

And what Roman and Ancient sources are you talking about? There are not that many from around the time (if you say Josephus Flavius I will e-bitchsmack you). The fact that we have nothing at all written by Jesus is rather remarkable considering your claims to his influence. I would argue that his influence was rather local and small in nature before his death. Stuff began to be written 150 years after his death because it was not until that point or soon before it that Christianity became anything of real significance.

You also mention books that are considered "authentic." Apparently, you use this as a synonym for "canonical" but I see a large distinction between the two. Based on how little information there is on the evangelists to begin with, there is no measure of authenticity except use in early communities, which lead to canonization. The fact is that there is no evidence that any of the evangelists knew Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the other early church leaders or apostles. Not that Paul really knew much about Jesus anyways. There is no evidence that they knew anyone who had contact with Jesus. They were written by some guy who knew people who knew people who knew Jesus a few decades before, a couple hundred miles away.

 

[Andyman_1970]

THE BIBLE IS NOT HISTORICAL FACT.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that regarding the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Those Jewish scribes were sticklers about details and such.

The fact is that there is no evidence that any of the evangelists knew Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the other early church leaders or apostles. Not that Paul really knew much about Jesus anyways. There is no evidence that they knew anyone who had contact with Jesus. They were written by some guy who knew people who knew people who knew Jesus a few decades before, a couple hundred miles away.

I'll have to disagree with you here also. Most Bible scholars agree that Mark was written about 50'ish AD, and Mark was a firsthand follower/witness to Jesus. There is some disagreement on John, but the general consensus is that the author John is "the one Jesus loved" as described in the Gospels. Now you are correct with Luke and Matthew, whose Text most scholars think came from a common "reference" otherwise known as the "Q".

 

[Jesus]

Let us not forget the Gnostic texts also.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Let us not forget the Gnostic texts also.

Ah Gnostisim, what a wonderful philosophy that is alive and well in the modern church (for the most part) and yet they have not recognized it.

The Jehovah's Witness's have done a great job of putting Gnostisim in a new package.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Ah Gnostisim, what a wonderful philosophy that is alive and well in the modern church (for the most part) and yet they have not recognized it.

The Jehovah's Witness's have done a great job of putting Gnostisim in a new package.

Shouldn't that be "Gnosticism"?

-S.S.-

 

[Andyman_1970]

Shouldn't that be "Gnosticism"?

-S.S.-

You are correct..................that's what I get for being in a hurry.....

 

[JRogers]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that regarding the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Those Jewish scribes were sticklers about details and such.

I'll have to disagree with you here also. Most Bible scholars agree that Mark was written about 50'ish AD, and Mark was a firsthand follower/witness to Jesus. There is some disagreement on John, but the general consensus is that the author John is "the one Jesus loved" as described in the Gospels. Now you are correct with Luke and Matthew, whose Text most scholars think came from a common "reference" otherwise known as the "Q".

Jewish scribes have a lot of detail but that does not mean that they were accurate, especially considering they wrote down oral tradition hundreds of years after the events occurred. It varies book to book as well. Genesis and Exodus? I wouldn't count on them as much as I would Kings, Samuel and the histories.

As for the second part, that is a very conservative interpretation. Most scholars place the time of writing of Mark just before or after the destruction of the temple in 70, say 67-71 or, at the least 60-70. John is placed around 90 or, at least, 80-100. If you need to talk about specific authorship, there is not much indication that Mark was a witness. The only real lead is John Mark, an associate of Paul and possibly an interpreter for Peter. He never knew Jesus. And John? Well, 50-70 years after Jesus died is a bit much for me to think he was around. Plus, he is so very different from the synoptics that if you think Mark knew Jesus, then John's memory must be whack. Seriously, I can provide references if you want them.

 

[Toshi]

davinci code cracked by dave barry!

`The DaVinci Code,' cracked

DAVE BARRY


I have written a blockbuster novel. My inspiration was The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown, which has sold 253 trillion copies in hardcover because it's such a compelling page-turner. NOBODY can put this book down:

MOTHER ON BEACH: Help! My child is being attacked by a shark!

LIFEGUARD (looking up from The DaVinci Code: Not now! I just got to page 243, where it turns out that one of the men depicted in ''The Last Supper'' is actually a woman!

MOTHER: I know! Isn't that incredible? And it turns out that she's . . .

SHARK (spitting out the child): Don't give it away! I'm only on page 187!

The key to The DaVinci Code is that it's filled with startling plot twists, and almost every chapter ends with a ''cliffhanger,'' so you have to keep reading to see what will happen. Using this formula, I wrote the following blockbuster novel, titled The Constitution Conundrum. It's fairly short now, but when I get a huge publishing contract, I'll flesh it out to 100,000 words by adding sentences.

CHAPTER ONE: Handsome yet unmarried historian Hugh Heckman stood in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., squinting through the bulletproof glass at the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, he made an amazing discovery.

''My God!'' he said, out loud. ``This is incredible! Soon I will say what it is.''

CHAPTER TWO: ''What is it?'' said a woman Heckman had never seen before who happened to be standing next to him. She was extremely beautiful, but wore glasses as a sign of intelligence.

''My name is Desiree Legume,'' she said.

Heckman felt he could trust her.

''Look at this!'' he said, pointing to the Constitution.

''My God, that's incredible!'' said Desiree. ``It's going to be very surprising when we finally reveal what we're talking about!''

CHAPTER THREE: ''Yes,'' said Hugh, ``incredible as it seems, there are extra words written in the margin of the U.S. Constitution, and nobody ever noticed them until now! They appear to be in some kind of code.''

''Let me look,'' said Desiree. ``In addition to being gorgeous, I am a trained codebreaker. Oh my God!''

''What is it?'' asked Hugh in an excited yet concerned tone of voice. ''The message,'' said Desiree, ``is . . . ''

But just then, the chapter ended.

CHAPTER FOUR: ''It's a fiendishly clever code,'' explained Desiree. 'As you can see, the words say: `White House White House Bo Bite House, Banana Fana Fo Fite House, Fe Fi Mo Mite House, White House.' ''

''Yes,'' said Hugh, frowning in bafflement. ``But what can it possibly mean?''

''If I am correct,'' said Desiree, ``it is referring to . . . the White House!''

''My God!'' said Hugh. ``That's where the president lives! Do you think . . . ''

''Do I think what?'' said Desiree.

''I don't know,'' said Hugh. ``But we're about to find out.''

CHAPTER FIVE: Hugh and Desiree crouched in some bushes next to the Oval Office.

''We'd better hurry up and solve this mystery,'' remarked Desiree anxiously. ''It's only a matter of time before somebody notices that the Constitution is missing.'' She had slipped it into her purse at the National Archives while the guard wasn't looking.

''The answer must be here somewhere,'' said Hugh, studying the ancient document, which was brown from age and the fact that he had spilled Diet Peach Snapple on it.

''Wait a minute!'' he said. ``I've got it!''

''What?'' said Desiree, her breasts heaving into view.

''The answer!'' said Hugh. ``It's . . .

But just then, shots rang out.

CHAPTER SIX: ''That was close!'' remarked Desiree. ``Fortunately, those shots had nothing to do with the plot of this book.''

''Yes,'' said Hugh. ``Anyway, as I was saying, the answer is to hold the Constitution up so that it is aligned with the White House and the Washington Monument. . . . There, do you see what I mean?''

''My God!'' said Desiree, seeing what he meant. ``It's . . . ''

''Hold it right there,'' said the president of the United States.

CHAPTER SEVEN: '' . . . and so you see,'' concluded the president, ``you two uncovered a shocking and fascinating secret that, if it should ever get out, could change the course of history.''

''Mr. President,'' said Desiree, ``thank you for that riveting and satisfying explanation, which will be fleshed out into much greater detail once there is a publishing contract.''

''Also,'' noted Hugh, ``we may use some beverage other than Snapple, depending on what kind of product-placement deals can be worked out.''

''Good,'' said the president. ``Now can I have the Constitution back?''

They all enjoyed a hearty laugh, for they knew that the movie rights were also available.

 

[narlus]

i read both the da vinci code and angels and demons in the last few days. both read fast, both were entertaining. good fluff for a warm weather vacation.

although i did like A&D a bit better, i think because the end was better, imo.

 

[spincrazy]

I haven't read it and I only quickly perused your posts but I've heard from many that it's a book for people who don't read. I do really enjoy Eco and would highly recommend his fiction or nonfiction any day.

I'll read it on a long bus ride or something. Anything that gets people reading again is a good thing. Hopefully those that get the bug look for more and not just slip on over to the Crichton type side of the world.

 

[arboc!]

hate to bring up a semi old thread, but i finished the da vinci code... its a great read, but i'm liking angels and demons alot more. Honestly these are the first books i've ever read with out it being homework.

 

[Pau11y]

If you guys like this book and the topic, you should definitely take a look at Holy Blood, Holy Grail. There's a lot more details on what happened in the south of France. However, it's more stale of a read IMO.

 

[caputo1989]

Read Angles And Deamons and you will understand The Davinchi Code better

 

[arboc!]

im reading it right now and im almost done

 

[Inclag]

The History Channel had a 2 hour show about that book basically disproving most of his facts and accusations that he made. Personally I thought it was a decent read and pretty creative. Sort of symbolic of this day in ages search for religion and truth. I wouldn't take what was written in there too seriously though.