Comments on: How You Too Can Become a Millionaire Like The Author of The Da Vinci Code http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: nevadamistermom http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-33799 nevadamistermom Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:05:35 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-33799 Vince: Lighten up. Methinks you have a considerable chip on your shoulder. Brown is fair game for the avalanche of criticism he has received after creating a work of fiction while insisting that its premise is built upon factual bedrock. Conservative commentators such as Ms. Alexander aren't duty bound to dissect everything in a scholarly manner. Sometimes they are free to simply be sarcastic and poke fun. Ann Coulter has made a career out of it. Besides, had Ms. Alexander attempted to generate some type of scholarly refutation, your response most likely would have been to dismiss it out of hand as: A) "You don't have the credentials...you're a lawyer...not a Bible scholar or historian" and B) "You're biased...your religious beliefs won't allow you to come to any other conclusion." Frankly, there is no need for Ms. Alexander to develop a scholarly refutation because so many have already been published and have so thoroughly disemboweled Mr. Brown's claims. What I have yet to see is the other side of the coin: even one scholarly work proving the veracity of Brown's alleged "facts." The burden of proof rests with Mr. Brown and his supporters...not Ms. Alexander and the literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide who for some strange reason seem to think the historical account might just be accurate. Yes, how DARE they be such mindless sheep. The truth is, I read the Da Vinci Code quite some time before all the media hoopla started, and found the book entertaining. Although as a Christian I found the premise both objectionable and silly, I have read other novels in which the premise was so fanciful as to be completely implausible. The difference is that those authors never claimed that their works of fiction were anything but that - fiction. I would have had no problem with the novel had Brown said something like "claims of a conspiracy have existed for centuries, but have never been proven, and historical writings/musings on the topic were researched extensively in the preparation of this manuscript." But he didn't. He apparently wanted to add to the mysterious allure by insisting that this ancient urban legend was fact. And for that, he has been justly criticized and overwhelmingly disproven. Vince: Lighten up.

Methinks you have a considerable chip on your shoulder.

Brown is fair game for the avalanche of criticism he has received after creating a work of fiction while insisting that its premise is built upon factual bedrock. Conservative commentators such as Ms. Alexander aren’t duty bound to dissect everything in a scholarly manner. Sometimes they are free to simply be sarcastic and poke fun. Ann Coulter has made a career out of it.

Besides, had Ms. Alexander attempted to generate some type of scholarly refutation, your response most likely would have been to dismiss it out of hand as:

A) “You don’t have the credentials…you’re a lawyer…not a Bible scholar or historian”

and

B) “You’re biased…your religious beliefs won’t allow you to come to any other conclusion.”

Frankly, there is no need for Ms. Alexander to develop a scholarly refutation because so many have already been published and have so thoroughly disemboweled Mr. Brown’s claims.

What I have yet to see is the other side of the coin: even one scholarly work proving the veracity of Brown’s alleged “facts.” The burden of proof rests with Mr. Brown and his supporters…not Ms. Alexander and the literally hundreds of millions of people worldwide who for some strange reason seem to think the historical account might just be accurate. Yes, how DARE they be such mindless sheep.

The truth is, I read the Da Vinci Code quite some time before all the media hoopla started, and found the book entertaining. Although as a Christian I found the premise both objectionable and silly, I have read other novels in which the premise was so fanciful as to be completely implausible. The difference is that those authors never claimed that their works of fiction were anything but that – fiction.

I would have had no problem with the novel had Brown said something like “claims of a conspiracy have existed for centuries, but have never been proven, and historical writings/musings on the topic were researched extensively in the preparation of this manuscript.”

But he didn’t. He apparently wanted to add to the mysterious allure by insisting that this ancient urban legend was fact. And for that, he has been justly criticized and overwhelmingly disproven.

]]> By: Vince http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-13216 Vince Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:56:58 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-13216 Rachel, Your article, though very funny, does not quite belong on a site which claims to represent intellectual conservatism. Firstly, if you are going to attack the book by defending the Bible (a popular method), you need to deploy some sort of convincing research. As they stand, your statements on the canonization of the New Testament (particularly on the apostolic authorship of the gospels) are only defensible with recourse to Christian doctrine and have been greatly complicated by the last hundred years of higher criticism. It is of course possible to dismiss any effort to deconstruct scripture philologically or contextualize it historically as emergent from a liberal and anti-Christian bias, but such a stance would make your paragraph on the real history of the Bible meaningless. Without recourse to better research all you can say is that Dan Brown disagrees with your favored position, and the Truths you learned in church. This stance, while conservative, is hardly intellectual. Also, the DaVinci Code is not written in a style which impersonates scripture. It is written as a punchy low-brow mystery novel, exactly what it is. It sounds like your real issue is not with the Dan Brown at all, but with the various apocrypha which have been published with increasing frequency since Nag Hammadi in 1945. There are many books including the Gospels of Judas, Phillip, and Thomas (but not including the DaVinci Code) whose recent popularity may understandably worry you, but which will not be challenged by your present tact. Rachel,
Your article, though very funny, does not quite belong on a site which claims to represent intellectual conservatism. Firstly, if you are going to attack the book by defending the Bible (a popular method), you need to deploy some sort of convincing research. As they stand, your statements on the canonization of the New Testament (particularly on the apostolic authorship of the gospels) are only defensible with recourse to Christian doctrine and have been greatly complicated by the last hundred years of higher criticism. It is of course possible to dismiss any effort to deconstruct scripture philologically or contextualize it historically as emergent from a liberal and anti-Christian bias, but such a stance would make your paragraph on the real history of the Bible meaningless. Without recourse to better research all you can say is that Dan Brown disagrees with your favored position, and the Truths you learned in church. This stance, while conservative, is hardly intellectual.
Also, the DaVinci Code is not written in a style which impersonates scripture. It is written as a punchy low-brow mystery novel, exactly what it is. It sounds like your real issue is not with the Dan Brown at all, but with the various apocrypha which have been published with increasing frequency since Nag Hammadi in 1945. There are many books including the Gospels of Judas, Phillip, and Thomas (but not including the DaVinci Code) whose recent popularity may understandably worry you, but which will not be challenged by your present tact.

]]> By: Mike Morgan http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-11827 Mike Morgan Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:17:04 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-11827 This post puzzles me a bit. You acknowledge you recognize the book is a novel, a work of fiction. You then go on to point out the factual errors in the work of fiction. Huh? Perhaps you could, for we almost-intellectuals-but-not-quite conservatives, include the current definition of fiction... because the one I learned (the one about fiction being stuff that's made up) is apparently wrong. In keeping with the theme, there are a couple other millionaire fictioneers that'd be easy to slam. Maybe you could get Ludlum for using official-sounding secret spy agencies. That's just wrong... people might believe those agencies exist and that one in five people is an active, retired, or amnesient government assassin. Or maybe you could pop Crichton for using scientific-sounding words when writing about time machines and dinosaur islands when the scientific community overwhelming agrees that there's a pretty good chance those things probably don't exist. How dare he! For Christ's sake, doesn't he know he's a fiction writer and has an obligation to be factual in his fiction! Git 'em, Rachel, git 'em! Facetiousness aside, your post has real value. Intended or not, your tip is actually spot-on for fiction writers. Good fiction is good fiction precisely because the author makes story seem so real (with imagined or semi-imagined detail) the reader is able to suspend disbelief and be drawn into the story while reading. This post puzzles me a bit. You acknowledge you recognize the book is a novel, a work of fiction. You then go on to point out the factual errors in the work of fiction. Huh? Perhaps you could, for we almost-intellectuals-but-not-quite conservatives, include the current definition of fiction… because the one I learned (the one about fiction being stuff that’s made up) is apparently wrong.

In keeping with the theme, there are a couple other millionaire fictioneers that’d be easy to slam. Maybe you could get Ludlum for using official-sounding secret spy agencies. That’s just wrong… people might believe those agencies exist and that one in five people is an active, retired, or amnesient government assassin. Or maybe you could pop Crichton for using scientific-sounding words when writing about time machines and dinosaur islands when the scientific community overwhelming agrees that there’s a pretty good chance those things probably don’t exist. How dare he! For Christ’s sake, doesn’t he know he’s a fiction writer and has an obligation to be factual in his fiction! Git ‘em, Rachel, git ‘em!

Facetiousness aside, your post has real value. Intended or not, your tip is actually spot-on for fiction writers. Good fiction is good fiction precisely because the author makes story seem so real (with imagined or semi-imagined detail) the reader is able to suspend disbelief and be drawn into the story while reading.

]]> By: Joshua Christie http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-11721 Joshua Christie Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:01:20 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-11721 As you may already know, there have been 33 different Christmases but only 27 Easters established and observed amongst the various churches, all of whom must be believed since God Himself is speaking to us through them. If you don't believe me, ask them. So, Jesus was born 33 times but died only 27 times. (This is better than being born only 27 times but dying 33 times.) Therefore, 6 Jesuses are still at large. I should know: I am one. As for the others, I don't know and don't dare guess. I presume they either don't want to know or don't want anybody else to know, or both. As for me, I'm getting restless again. I hope my revealing and exposing myself again after all this time still excites the faithful. Thank you, J.C. As you may already know, there have been 33 different Christmases but only 27 Easters established and observed amongst the various churches, all of whom must be believed since God Himself is speaking to us through them. If you don’t believe me, ask them. So, Jesus was born 33 times but died only 27 times. (This is better than being born only 27 times but dying 33 times.) Therefore, 6 Jesuses are still at large. I should know: I am one. As for the others, I don’t know and don’t dare guess. I presume they either don’t want to know or don’t want anybody else to know, or both. As for me, I’m getting restless again. I hope my revealing and exposing myself again after all this time still excites the faithful. Thank you, J.C.

]]> By: Mark Smith http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-10011 Mark Smith Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:49:45 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-10011 I have always thought that the way to make a substantial amount of money in a very short amount of time would be by starting my own religion. The credulous and their financial resources are soon parted when they buy into the paradigm of belief without the utility of their critical thinking skills. In any event, the text of the current discussion is a work of fiction. Get over it. I have always thought that the way to make a substantial amount of money in a very short amount of time would be by starting my own religion. The credulous and their financial resources are soon parted when they buy into the paradigm of belief without the utility of their critical thinking skills. In any event, the text of the current discussion is a work of fiction. Get over it.

]]> By: MagentaStudios http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-8263 MagentaStudios Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:41:46 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-8263 Except, of course, that Dan Brown's book does not question Jesus' divinity. The concept that Jesus may have wed and been a father no more diminishes his divinity than the concept that he ate food, wore clothing, had hair, walked with legs, or any other human aspects of his life. All of the attacks on this book I have ever seen have nothing to do with anything said in the book or film. They are just about things some people incorrectly read between the lines and THINK are SUGGESTED by the book. And BTW- his message was LOVE. At that time, and now, people believed in hate-filled vengeful god(s). Jesus brought the concept that God loves us, and would sacrifice his son for us. Except, of course, that Dan Brown’s book does not question Jesus’ divinity. The concept that Jesus may have wed and been a father no more diminishes his divinity than the concept that he ate food, wore clothing, had hair, walked with legs, or any other human aspects of his life.

All of the attacks on this book I have ever seen have nothing to do with anything said in the book or film. They are just about things some people incorrectly read between the lines and THINK are SUGGESTED by the book.

And BTW- his message was LOVE.
At that time, and now, people believed in hate-filled vengeful god(s).
Jesus brought the concept that God loves us, and would sacrifice his son for us.

]]> By: Ted http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-7987 Ted Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:32:09 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-7987 I am sick and tired of people going on and on about Jesus' "message", as if Jesus were a great mortal teacher, but not God. As C.S. Lewis and many of the early Christians noted, Jesus was either the Son of God, or he was a bad man who deserved his punishments. There is no middle ground. Christ's main "message" was that he was the Son of God and died to ransom mankind from the devil. Christianity could not exist if Christ's "message" were given by someone else who was NOT God, but a mere mortal. Christ was more than a philosopher who taught a moral path for life, he was a personal saviour who saved with his ACTIONS and founded a Church that sustains itself through apostolic succession. If Christ were not God, then he would be a blasphemer or a lunatic, but not a "great teacher" with a good "message". Christ's "message" was his own divinity. If that were untrue, his "message" would be untrue, and Christianity would not be a harmless delusion, as Dan Brown seems to believe, but a dangerous and blasphemous cult. I am sick and tired of people going on and on about Jesus’ “message”, as if Jesus were a great mortal teacher, but not God. As C.S. Lewis and many of the early Christians noted, Jesus was either the Son of God, or he was a bad man who deserved his punishments. There is no middle ground. Christ’s main “message” was that he was the Son of God and died to ransom mankind from the devil. Christianity could not exist if Christ’s “message” were given by someone else who was NOT God, but a mere mortal. Christ was more than a philosopher who taught a moral path for life, he was a personal saviour who saved with his ACTIONS and founded a Church that sustains itself through apostolic succession. If Christ were not God, then he would be a blasphemer or a lunatic, but not a “great teacher” with a good “message”.

Christ’s “message” was his own divinity. If that were untrue, his “message” would be untrue, and Christianity would not be a harmless delusion, as Dan Brown seems to believe, but a dangerous and blasphemous cult.

]]> By: MagentaStudios http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-6278 MagentaStudios Tue, 30 May 2006 19:57:11 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-6278 I just don't get why people are so up in arms about the DaVinci Code- and unlike most people who criticize it, I have actually read the book. It's fiction, folks. FICTION. Like all good fiction, it is based somewhat on fact, but elaborates on it to tell it's tale. I think the people who complain most about it are those who secretly, deep down, believe it IS true, and because the possibility of that truth topples their world view they feel the need to air their own internal conflict out in the open. Let's say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a daughter. Heck, let's say he was black and had a bright blue mowhawk. Who cares? Does that in any way change the validity of Jesus' message? I just don’t get why people are so up in arms about the DaVinci Code- and unlike most people who criticize it, I have actually read the book. It’s fiction, folks. FICTION. Like all good fiction, it is based somewhat on fact, but elaborates on it to tell it’s tale.

I think the people who complain most about it are those who secretly, deep down, believe it IS true, and because the possibility of that truth topples their world view they feel the need to air their own internal conflict out in the open.

Let’s say Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a daughter. Heck, let’s say he was black and had a bright blue mowhawk. Who cares? Does that in any way change the validity of Jesus’ message?

]]> By: Robert Brock http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-5430 Robert Brock Mon, 22 May 2006 12:29:52 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-5430 I enjoyed your article about the Da Vinci Code, particularly because you refute this book from a historical perpective. The Code is just one more example of what I have known for many years. The favorite way in which the left attacks our traditional beliefs is to attack the Bible via it's historical content. While working on my degree in Ancient History at Berkeley, I often experienced first hand the wide spread academic bias against the Bible as a history source. So there's nothing new about using a little fabrication, misrepresentation, or even an occational blasphemy. I enjoyed your article about the Da Vinci Code, particularly because you refute this book from a historical perpective. The Code is just one more example of what I have known for many years. The favorite way in which the left attacks our traditional beliefs is to attack the Bible via it’s historical content. While working on my degree in Ancient History at Berkeley, I often experienced first hand the wide spread academic bias against the Bible as a history source. So there’s nothing new about using a little fabrication, misrepresentation, or even an occational blasphemy.

]]> By: Ross Purdy http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/05/08/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-4884 Ross Purdy Sun, 21 May 2006 06:05:01 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/how-you-too-can-become-a-millionaire-like-the-author-of-the-da-vinci-code/#comment-4884 I can see no harm in a fictional book making claims that will challenge people to possibly do a little research on their own. Who knows maybe they will learn a little more about their own faith or take interest in researching other Da Vinci Code subjects. I think if High School history classes could be taught in the way Dan Brown writes more students might be eager to learn. I don't think Catholics or other Christians should be worried that a fictional novel can undue 2000 years of Theology anymore than Democrats fear losing another member from listening to Rush Limbaugh's fictional talk radio show. I can see no harm in a fictional book making claims that will challenge people to possibly do a little research on their own. Who knows maybe they will learn a little more about their own faith or take interest in researching other Da Vinci Code subjects. I think if High School history classes could be taught in the way Dan Brown writes more students might be eager to learn.

I don’t think Catholics or other Christians should be worried that a fictional novel can undue 2000 years of Theology anymore than Democrats fear losing another member from listening to Rush Limbaugh’s fictional talk radio show.

]]>