Invasion Of 'Da Vinci' Book Clones Challenges Church History
words of truth
Invasion of 'Da Vinci' book clones challenges church history,
teaching
By Annamarie Adkins
1/13/2006
National Catholic Register
MALAGA, Spain (National Catholic Register) -- Some Catholics may be
bracing for a new onslaught of confusion about Christ, his teachings
and his church when "The Da Vinci Code" movie opens May 19. But few may
be aware of a challenge on another front: a growing genre of books that
takes church history and gives it a fictional twist under the auspices
of entertainment and enlightenment.
The crop of books set to be released this year -- some reportedly
researched and concocted even before Dan Brown's bestseller hit
bookstores -- are written by American, Spanish and British authors; all
are being translated into dozens of languages and are set for large
first runs with high profile publishers.
Most focus on the supposed deep, dark secrets of the church, such as
crusades against rival sects, the lost treasure of the knights templar,
and what really happened at the Last Supper. The National Catholic
Register interviewed three authors of these religious thrillers to find
out whether their books may further malign the church.
Javier Sierra, an author from Malaga, Spain, promises to "reveal the
unknown secrets" behind Leonardo Da Vinci's painting "The Last
Supper" in his novel The Secret Supper.
"Of course, my book is a fictional work, but based upon real
documents, bibliographical sources and characters of 15th-century
Italy," Sierra told the National Catholic Register. "My idea is to
offer a possible explanation to the anomalies included by Leonardo in
his painting. And if I use a novel, and not a historical essay, it is
because Leonardo did not explain 'The Last Supper' in any of his
notes."
Those "anomalies," according to Sierra, include the fact that
neither Jesus nor his apostles have halos, that Jesus is not
consecrating the Eucharist, that there is no meat on the table (there
should be a Passover lamb), and that there is no chalice. They
correspond with the beliefs of the Cathars, members of a heretical
religious sect that lived in southern France and northern Italy in the
Middle Ages and were dualists -- believing that a good god of spirit
was continually at war with an evil god of matter.
Sierra surmises that Da Vinci incorporated Cathar elements into the
painting because "it was a challenge to paint a Cathar scene in the
very heart of a Dominican priory and the Milanese headquarters of the
Inquisition," he said.
But Bruce Boucher, the Art Institute of Chicago's director of
European Decorative Arts, Sculpture and Ancient Art, said that
Sierra's claims were highly unlikely.
"I don't think that the Dominicans -- who were considered models of
orthodoxy - would allow Leonardo to introduce schismatic beliefs into
'The Last Supper,' commissioned for their refectory. Patrons had
their own ideas of what should be in a painting," Boucher said.
"There was a Florentine tradition of painting scenes of the Last
Supper for convents and priories that stressed the sharing of a meal
between Christ and his disciples -- it was an imitation of Christ and
his disciples when the Dominicans came together for meals."
The Labyrinth
Author Kate Mosse splits her time between homes in West Sussex,
England, and Carcassonne, France, and has set her novel Labyrinth in
Languedoc in southwest France during two different time periods: the
early 13th century and present day.
The plot revolves around three parchments bound into books, said to
contain an ancient secret dating from 2,000 years before the Christian
era in ancient Egypt; the books are lost during the Albigensian Crusade
against the Cathars and rediscovered some 800 years later.
"In Labyrinth, I was not writing about the church or deliberately
seeking a religious theme, more that it was the place and the history
of the region that inspired what is an adventure thriller," Mosse
said.
"The history of the Catholic crusade against the Cathars is well
documented and not under dispute. At the heart of Labyrinth is a
respect for faith and what it means, although there is certainly a
criticism of intolerance and the inability of any organized religion to
allow others to follow their own morality and faith."
However, medieval historian Thomas Madden, chairman of the history
department at St. Louis University, cautions against misconceptions
about the history of the church and the Cathars.
"Catharism flourished because the secular lords either ignored the
heresy or actively promoted it," Madden said. "In the 13th century,
Pope Innocent III called a crusade against those lords.
"It is simply untrue that this crusade was a 'genocide' or that
it was even a way to destroy the cult. Instead, it was a means to
replace those lords who refused to see to the spiritual health of their
people," he said.
Madden stressed that after the crusade there were still plenty of
Cathars.
"The heresy vanished, though, under the subsequent efforts of the
Inquisition. The vast majority of Cathars, instructed by the
inquisitors, were restored to the Catholic faith."
The Templar Legacy
The search for the lost templar treasure in a little town in southern
France is the plot for Steve Berry's The Templar Legacy. The author
and lawyer from Camden County, Ga., was sure to include a writer's
note at the end of his book to help his readers distinguish between
fact and fiction. He wrote that he created the gospel of Simon for his
book and used an alternate concept of how Christ may have been
resurrected that is found in Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A
Bishop's Search for the Origins of Christianity by John Shelby Spong,
retired Episcopalian bishop of Newark, N.J.
Berry went on to say in the note: "The conflicts between the four
books of the New Testament relative to the resurrection have challenged
scholars for centuries. The fact that only one crucified skeleton has
ever been found does raise questions, as do many comments and
statements made throughout history.
"One in particular, attributed to Pope Leo X (1513-1521) caught my
attention," he said. "His statement is short, simple, and strange
for the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, it was the spark
that generated this novel. 'It has served us well, this myth of
Christ.'"
Father John Paul Echert, scripture scholar and pastor of Holy Trinity
and St. Augustine parishes in South St. Paul, Minn., clarified some of
Berry's contentions.
"The statement falsely attributed to Pope Leo X, 'It has served us
well, this myth of Christ,' was alleged long ago by an apostate
English Carmelite, John Bale, in his 16th-century satire, The Pageant
of the Popes," Father Echert said. "There is no basis for this
attribution and rarely, if ever, is any context for the statement
provided. Never has any legitimate papal text been cited to
substantiate this allegation."
Father Echert also addressed Berry's comments about the resurrection
in the gospels.
"With regards to seeming conflicts between details of the various
gospels, including the resurrection accounts, the faithful Christian
must affirm that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore free from
all error, for God cannot deceive or be the author of error."
The Jerusalem Bible, in a note to Matthew 28:10, says that "these
very divergencies of tradition are far better witnesses than any
artificial or contrived uniformity to the antiquity of the evidence and
the historical quality of all these manifestations of the risen
Christ."
When asked about causing confusion for readers, Berry said, "I would
certainly hope readers understand that The Templar Legacy is a work of
fiction, concocted out of my imagination. A story. Meant to entertain
you. Nothing more.
"But if at the same time the story stimulates the mind, causes the
reader to question, then great," Berry said. "That's what Dan
Brown did so well. He made people think - and is that so wrong?"
Christian Resources
Christians can do their own research about the groups or eras that
novels and non-fiction books spotlight - and help to catechize others
with their deeper knowledge of Church history.
"Rather than only worrying about The Da Vinci Code knock-offs, worry
about non-fiction books, too - you'll find many full of poor
information," said Sandra Miesel of Indianapolis, journalist and
co-author with Carl Olson of The Da Vinci Hoax. Miesel suggests reading
up on the Knights Templar in Peter Partner's The Murdered Magicians:
The Templars and Their Myth.
Madden recommends getting a dependable history of Catharism, The
Cathars by Malcolm Barber.
When encountering a relative, friend or coworker who has been misled
about the church by historico-religious thrillers, De-Coding Da Vinci
author Amy Welborn, from Fort Wayne, Ind., encourages Christians to see
it as an opportunity to share knowledge and faith.
"It is not a time to judge or be fearful," she said. "If someone
is really into this, don't run away or avoid conversation; invite the
person into discussion and suggest reading other books." Olson, of
Eugene, Ore., said he sees it as a spiritual battle over souls.
"Throwing out knowledge isn't the only solution. We need factual
responses but we also need true Christian responses to these souls who
are troubled by the church and are struggling with questions."
- - -
Annamarie Adkins, based in St. Paul, Minn., is a correspondent for
National Catholic Register (www.ncregister.com), a Catholic Online
Preferred Publishing Partner.
Bobby D. Bryant
> http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18320
>
> Invasion of 'Da Vinci' book clones challenges church history,
> teaching
> By Annamarie Adkins
>
> 1/13/2006
>
> National Catholic Register
>
> MALAGA, Spain (National Catholic Register) -- Some Catholics may be
> bracing for a new onslaught of confusion about Christ, his teachings
> and his church when "The Da Vinci Code" movie opens May 19. But few may
> be aware of a challenge on another front: a growing genre of books that
> takes church history and gives it a fictional twist under the auspices
> of entertainment and enlightenment.
>
> The crop of books set to be released this year -- some reportedly
> researched and concocted even before Dan Brown's bestseller hit
> bookstores
I have books on the topic published 12 and 20 years before Brown's.
One of them even pretends to be fact rather than fiction.
A lot of people, particularly Catholics, have certainly gotten their
panties in a bunch over this for no reason.
Hmmmmm...
<conspiracytheory>
It seems to have hit a tender spot. Maybe they've got something to hide?
</conspiracytheory>
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
John W. Kennedy
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, "words of truth" <wordsof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18320
>>
>> Invasion of 'Da Vinci' book clones challenges church history,
>> teaching
>> By Annamarie Adkins
>>
>> 1/13/2006
>>
>> National Catholic Register
>>
>> MALAGA, Spain (National Catholic Register) -- Some Catholics may be
>> bracing for a new onslaught of confusion about Christ, his teachings
>> and his church when "The Da Vinci Code" movie opens May 19. But few may
>> be aware of a challenge on another front: a growing genre of books that
>> takes church history and gives it a fictional twist under the auspices
>> of entertainment and enlightenment.
>>
>> The crop of books set to be released this year -- some reportedly
>> researched and concocted even before Dan Brown's bestseller hit
>> bookstores
>
> I have books on the topic published 12 and 20 years before Brown's.
>
> One of them even pretends to be fact rather than fiction.
>
> A lot of people, particularly Catholics, have certainly gotten their
> panties in a bunch over this for no reason.
How about historians?
It's wrong to tell lies, and Dan Brown is a liar, no different from
Charlton Ogburn or Bart Sibrel.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, "words of truth" <wordsof...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18320
>>>
>>> Invasion of 'Da Vinci' book clones challenges church history, teaching
>>> By Annamarie Adkins
>>>
>>> 1/13/2006
>>>
>>> National Catholic Register
>>>
>>> MALAGA, Spain (National Catholic Register) -- Some Catholics may be
>>> bracing for a new onslaught of confusion about Christ, his teachings
>>> and his church when "The Da Vinci Code" movie opens May 19. But few may
>>> be aware of a challenge on another front: a growing genre of books that
>>> takes church history and gives it a fictional twist under the auspices
>>> of entertainment and enlightenment.
>>>
>>> The crop of books set to be released this year -- some reportedly
>>> researched and concocted even before Dan Brown's bestseller hit
>>> bookstores
>>
>> I have books on the topic published 12 and 20 years before Brown's.
>>
>> One of them even pretends to be fact rather than fiction.
>>
>> A lot of people, particularly Catholics, have certainly gotten their
>> panties in a bunch over this for no reason.
>
> How about historians?
>
> It's wrong to tell lies, and Dan Brown is a liar, no different from
> Charlton Ogburn or Bart Sibrel.
All fiction writers are "liars."
Duh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Charity hospital closes for good
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3D51207C
A city on hold
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3E55207C
If Katrina was a "judgment," god hates poor people
and churches but loves a good party...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
VtSkier
Dan Brown certainly admits to fiction while the other two
purport to be telling the "truth". If Ogburn's thesis, which
it is, is proven to be incorrect, he won't be a liar either.
Just the loser of one side of a scholarly debate, though his
detractors may call him a liar. It's not a lie to put forward
an idea for discussion and to back up the idea with the facts
as they are known.
Sibrel uses untruths and twisted words to support an agenda. This
I believe, it the definition of a liar.
I agree that the analogy does not wash.
raven1
<wordsof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Invasion of 'Da Vinci' book clones challenges church history,
>teaching
>By Annamarie Adkins
<snip>
Yet another idiot who can't distinguish fiction from reality, but then
again, that's a prerequisite for believing in the Bible.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Jim07D6
>http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18320
>
>
>Invasion of 'Da Vinci' book clones challenges church history,
>teaching
>By Annamarie Adkins
>
>1/13/2006
>
>National Catholic Register
>
>MALAGA, Spain (National Catholic Register) -- Some Catholics may be
>bracing for a new onslaught of confusion about Christ, his teachings
>and his church when "The Da Vinci Code" movie opens May 19. But few may
>be aware of a challenge on another front: a growing genre of books that
>takes church history and gives it a fictional twist under the auspices
>of entertainment and enlightenment.
<...>
Continuing a tradition begun by the writers of the NT.
--- Jim07D6
Michael
All fiction writers are "liars."
******************
The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
There are many religions that have died and become myth. It is
possible that science and history will eventually bury Christianity.
For the time being, though, I think that the impact of the Da Vinci
code is overrated simply because it is faith that rules religion, not
fact. I found the Da Vinci Code hard to believe not because of all
the silly little "dark" secrets, but because I simply cannot imagine
the Church really concerning itself that much with all of it.
I find almost all conspiracy theories to be ludicrous. It bothers me
only a little when I wonder what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
Michael
raven1
What part of The DaVinci Code being a work of FICTION is unclear to
you?
Gabby
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:frgns1lvak78l1ti5...@4ax.com...
> What part of The DaVinci Code being a work of FICTION is unclear to
> you?
Brown starts off his TDVC by asserting that the Priory of Sion is fact.
That proves he didn't do much research.
Gabby
Brian E. Clark
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Michael said...
> The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
> statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
> details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
> novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
In a preface to _The Lord of the Rings_, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote
that his Middle Earth stories were derived from translations of
the _Red Book of Westmarch_, which was later described as "the
memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo of the Shire, supplemented by the
accounts of their friends and the learning of the
Wise...together with extracts from Books of Lore translated by
Bilbo in Rivendell."
Readers who possess more intelligence than a wine cork have
learned to expect such faux claims of authenticity from fiction
writers -- and from their publicists.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
John W. Kennedy
Moron.
John W. Kennedy
No, he's a liar.
> Just the loser of one side of a scholarly debate, though his
> detractors may call him a liar.
That's because he's a liar.
> It's not a lie to put forward
> an idea for discussion and to back up the idea with the facts
> as they are known.
...which has nothing to do with Ogburn, who is a liar.
> Sibrel uses untruths and twisted words to support an agenda. This
> I believe, it the definition of a liar.
>
> I agree that the analogy does not wash.
Moron.
John W. Kennedy
> Mark Bilbo writes:
>
> All fiction writers are "liars."
>
> ******************
> The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
> statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
> details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
> novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
>
> There are many religions that have died and become myth. It is
> possible that science and history will eventually bury Christianity.
> For the time being, though, I think that the impact of the Da Vinci
> code is overrated simply because it is faith that rules religion, not
> fact. I found the Da Vinci Code hard to believe not because of all
> the silly little "dark" secrets, but because I simply cannot imagine
> the Church really concerning itself that much with all of it.
That, and the fact that over and over again, Brown lies outright. It's
all a sick, made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with real history.
John W. Kennedy
Moron.
kathryn
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:NzOyf.31$H0...@fe12.lga...
Presumbly JR Tolkien, Patricia Cornwell and Dean Koontz are liars too then.
kathryn
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:aKRyf.10$sw...@fe11.lga...
You clearly are
Brian E. Clark
> > All fiction writers are "liars."
> >
> > Duh.
>
> Moron.
One of the bestselling fiction-writing guides of all times is
Lawrence Block's _Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_.
Eric Stevens
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
--- snip ---
>>>> It's wrong to tell lies, and Dan Brown is a liar, no different from
>>>> Charlton Ogburn or Bart Sibrel.
>>>
>>>
>>> All fiction writers are "liars."
>>
>> Dan Brown certainly admits to fiction while the other two
>> purport to be telling the "truth". If Ogburn's thesis, which
>> it is, is proven to be incorrect, he won't be a liar either.
>
>No, he's a liar.
>
>> Just the loser of one side of a scholarly debate, though his
>> detractors may call him a liar.
>
>That's because he's a liar.
>
>> It's not a lie to put forward
>> an idea for discussion and to back up the idea with the facts
>> as they are known.
>
>...which has nothing to do with Ogburn, who is a liar.
>
>> Sibrel uses untruths and twisted words to support an agenda. This
>> I believe, it the definition of a liar.
>>
>> I agree that the analogy does not wash.
>
>Moron.
A brilliant argument but for a minute I thought that was your sig.
:-(
Eric Stevens
John W. Kennedy
Because I believe that lying for profit is immoral? Because I detest
organized activities taken to increase and spread the general level of
ignorance?
Hell, even if that made me a moron, I'd still rather be a moron than a
psychopath.
John W. Kennedy
Moron.
Francis A. Miniter
> Michael wrote:
>
>> Mark Bilbo writes:
>>
>> All fiction writers are "liars."
>>
>> ******************
>> The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
>> statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
>> details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
>> novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
>>
>> There are many religions that have died and become myth. It is
>> possible that science and history will eventually bury Christianity.
>> For the time being, though, I think that the impact of the Da Vinci
>> code is overrated simply because it is faith that rules religion, not
>> fact. I found the Da Vinci Code hard to believe not because of all
>> the silly little "dark" secrets, but because I simply cannot imagine
>> the Church really concerning itself that much with all of it.
>
>
> That, and the fact that over and over again, Brown lies outright. It's
> all a sick, made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with real history.
>
I am puzzled about your last sentence. Granted that Brown indulged a fantasy
that has been around since the Gnostics and amplified it with Knights of the
Templar conspiracy theory, what do _you_ mean by real history? I am not sure
that there is any real history about Joshua ben Joseph other than the passing
reference in Flavius Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", and he was considered
an unreliable source. [And on top of that, there are two early codices of his
work extant, one in the Vatican, and the other, I believe, in St. Petersburg or
the Kremlin. In any case, the paragraph is not identical in both.]
Francis A. Miniter
Steve Hayes
<re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>Readers who possess more intelligence than a wine cork have
>learned to expect such faux claims of authenticity from fiction
>writers -- and from their publicists.
And don't forget the Necronomicon hidden in the crypt of the Miskatonic
University.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Colin Day
> Because I believe that lying for profit is immoral? Because I detest
> organized activities taken to increase and spread the general level of
> ignorance?
>
> Hell, even if that made me a moron, I'd still rather be a moron than a
> psychopath.
>
And now you know why atheists criticize the Church.
Colin Day aa #1500
George Hein
> "Throwing out knowledge isn't the only solution. We need factual
> responses but we also need true Christian responses to these souls who
> are troubled by the church and are struggling with questions."
>
facts. Jesus had siblings, attested to in NT. Many in early church
accepted that. The "Church" has been in denial, although some of its
best scripture experts avow it. Paul may have been married, Jesus
likewise. There is no proof either way, but it was the custom to get
kids married off young. You were not a man if you did not have a wife.
There are many traditions which may or may not be historical.
The Church recently changed the words of consecation from: WHICH SHALL
BE SHED FOR MANY to ALL. Under which authority did the RC-Church do that?
I think that these novels are good, it will make people think - at least
those who can. Maybe they will seek out knowledge for themselves.
Gabby
"George Hein" <zweistein...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:_tVyf.487$ij1...@fe12.lga..
>
> The Church recently changed the words of consecation from: WHICH SHALL BE
> SHED FOR MANY to ALL. Under which authority did the RC-Church do that?
The Church didn't change the words. The Latin Roman Missal, the official
document of the Roman Church, says 'for many'. ICEL, the International
Commission for the English Language, translated that as 'for all'. Other
languages differ. French uses 'for many', as do other Romance Languages.
Gabby
George Hein
Beg to differ. In NYC area for the last few years at RC Church they use
ALL. Latin Missals that I have seen use MANY, as do Greek. However, in
the past few years I see ALL. Nowhere in the NT can I find ALL for the
Eucharist (Greek, Latin or older German and English translations). If
the RC Church did not change it, who did. What bishop has the guts
(read something else) to change it without the unelected by the people
so called bishop of Roman Kremlin (SEE, I'M PREJUDICED!).
John W. Kennedy
You are /assuming/ that the Gospels are not historic. That is bad
scholarship.
> [And on top of that, there are two early codices of his work extant, one
> in the Vatican, and the other, I believe, in St. Petersburg or the
> Kremlin. In any case, the paragraph is not identical in both.]
There was no Priory of Sion. There was no medieval Grail cult; you might
as well talk about a 20th-century Ring-of-Power cult. (Experts on the
King Arthur mythos take this all just about as seriously as Shakespeare
experts take the ravings of anti-Stratfordians.) The Cathars were a
matter-bad-spirit-good cult who would have been /horrified/ at the idea
of Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene or anyone else; in fact,
believing as they did that Jesus was a wholly spiritual being who didn't
have a body in the first place, they wouldn't have believed it to be
physically possible. The /whole/ /thing/ is garbage from beginning to end.
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
You want all fiction writing outlawed maybe?
Mark K. Bilbo
<zsp...@gte.net> wrote:
I found the book mediocre and though Brown seems competent, he's far from
inspired.
I can't believe anybody is all that hyped up about that book. It's just
not really all that *good...
Mark K. Bilbo
<re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
> In article <1137426817.836342.40440
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Michael said...
>
>> The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
>> statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
>> details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
>> novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
>
> In a preface to _The Lord of the Rings_, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that his
> Middle Earth stories were derived from translations of the _Red Book of
> Westmarch_, which was later described as "the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo
> of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the
> learning of the Wise...together with extracts from Books of Lore
> translated by Bilbo in Rivendell."
And, anyway, that is *not the draft I turned in!!!!
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
Why? Because I realize what "fiction" means?
Gabby
Because that's the way it was translated from Latin into English by ICEL.
It is not a literal translation. ICEL has argued that the use of 'the many'
meant 'all'.
> Latin Missals that I have seen use MANY, as do Greek. However, in the
> past few years I see ALL.
The official document says 'many'.
> Nowhere in the NT can I find ALL for the Eucharist (Greek, Latin or older
> German and English translations). If the RC Church did not change it, who
> did.
I told you. ICEL translated it that way into English.
It may change soon because they are in the process of writing a new
translation that Rome wants closer to a literal translation rather than a
'sense' translation. So things like "Dominus vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu
tuo" would be translated "The Lord be with you." "And with your spirit"
rather than "And also with you" as it is written now in English.
Gabby
Douglas Berry
<jwk...@attglobal.net> posting the following on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
13:43:34 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>That, and the fact that over and over again, Brown lies outright. It's
>all a sick, made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with real history.
Right. A work of fiction. Which is how it is shelved, catalogued,
and sold. Only morons like you even care.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
<jwk...@attglobal.net> posting the following on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
>Because I believe that lying for profit is immoral? Because I detest
>organized activities taken to increase and spread the general level of
>ignorance?
Do yourself a favor. Never, ever, EVER, read "Focault's Pendulum" or
"The Illuminatus Triology"
Your head would explode.
>Hell, even if that made me a moron, I'd still rather be a moron than a
>psychopath.
Well, your wish has been granted.
raven1
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
What an intelligent, reasoned response.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Lewis Mammel
raven1 wrote:
> What part of The DaVinci Code being a work of FICTION is unclear to
> you?
Uncle Tom's Cabin was also a work of fiction, if I'm not mistaken,
yet a lot of people certainly got their panties in bunch over
that one. Didn't Lincoln say, "So this is the little lady that
started this great war," when he met H. B. Stowe? What do
you suppose she might have replied? Perhaps, "It's fiction, idiot."
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Francis A. Miniter
I asked you what you meant by "real history". You have not answered.
Francis A. Miniter
Bobby D. Bryant
> In <MPG.1e35add71...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Brian E. Clark
> <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>
>> In article <1137426817.836342.40440
>> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Michael said...
>>
>>> The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
>>> statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
>>> details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
>>> novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
>>
>> In a preface to _The Lord of the Rings_, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that his
>> Middle Earth stories were derived from translations of the _Red Book of
>> Westmarch_, which was later described as "the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo
>> of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the
>> learning of the Wise...together with extracts from Books of Lore
>> translated by Bilbo in Rivendell."
>
> And, anyway, that is *not the draft I turned in!!!!
We're eagerly awaiting your _Secret History_.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Because I believe that lying for profit is immoral? Because I detest
> organized activities taken to increase and spread the general level of
> ignorance?
Talk about Freudian slips...
Brian E. Clark
said...
> > In a preface to _The Lord of the Rings_, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote that his
> > Middle Earth stories were derived from translations of the _Red Book of
> > Westmarch_, which was later described as "the memoirs of Bilbo and Frodo
> > of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and the
> > learning of the Wise...together with extracts from Books of Lore
> > translated by Bilbo in Rivendell."
>
> And, anyway, that is *not the draft I turned in!!!!
Oddly enough, Tolkien's original draft centered on a centuries-
long conspiracy by the Priory of Sion. But Allen and Unwin
thought the time was not ripe...
Francis A. Miniter
><snip>
To assume that the gospels are historic [sic] would be good scholarship???
None of the gospels or epistles were written by anyone who was present and had
first hand knowledge. As such they are unreliable sources, especially given the
incredible story which they tell. Given what we now know from the Nag Hammadi
find, it seems that the writing of gospels was a real cottage industry up to the
time of the Nicene Council.
Then, too, there is the clearly Hellenic influence on the story of Joshua
[Hebrew]/Jesus [Greek] of Nazareth as told in most, if not all, of the gospels.
Just to mention a few points (and you can see these more fully stated in other
writings, e.g., Harold Bloom, "Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine"): (1) a god
impregnating a woman was a common theme in Greek myth, e.g., Leda and the Swan,
but absent in the Jewish Bible and oral tradition; (2) a dying and resurrecting
god is a strong pagan icon associated with fertility and the annual crop cycle,
and very common in Greek myth, e.g., Proserpine/Ceres or Adonis or Dionysus, but
absolutely unknown to Jewish sources; (3) polytheism - the holy trinity - was
common in Greek tradition, but antithetical to Jewish law - see the First
Commandment. Furthermore, if Yahweh would not let Abraham sacrifice his son,
the idea that Yahweh would later sacrifice his own son - which is somehow also
his own self - makes even less sense. With all these icons rolled up into one
god narrative, you can see how the greco-roman world would find this new god to
be of interest. On the other hand, the permeating Hellenic influence undercuts
the authority of the texts as based on any first hand account of events, as it
would appear that the narrative source has been relocated from Jerusalem to
Greece.
Given this, and even not given this, if you are contending that the gospels are
historically accurate, the burden is upon you to adduce the evidence for that.
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
Well, actually, this is a somewhat parallel situation here.
Josiah Henson was born a slave in Charles County, Maryland. He eventually
escaped from slavery and made his way to Ontario, Canada. There he wrote his
autobiography "Truth Stranger than Fiction", which was published in 1849 (and
republished with an introduction by Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1858). Stowe read
the autobiography and used it as the basis of her 1852 novel "Uncle Tom's
Cabin". So, like the gospels, like The DaVinci Code, it had some basis in
alleged fact. Whatever first narrator there was in the case of Jesus apparently
disappeared before any of the gospels were written, unlike the Henson/Stowe case
where the original narrative has survived. Of course, the fact that it was an
autobiography does not in itself guarantee truthfulness.
Francis A. Miniter
Mark K. Bilbo
D. Bryant) wrote:
Not until I get back royalties from the Tolkien estate dammit!
Mike Painter
<snip>
> I found the book mediocre and though Brown seems competent, he's far
> from inspired.
>
> I can't believe anybody is all that hyped up about that book. It's
> just not really all that *good...
I've not read it but look at the Left Behind Series. I've not read any of
them but in glancing at one it reminded me of the poorer science fiction
stories of the 40's and 50's. (And I include a certain founder of
scientology among them.)
Steve Hayes
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In <1137426817....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Michael"
><zsp...@gte.net> wrote:
>> I find almost all conspiracy theories to be ludicrous. It bothers me only
>> a little when I wonder what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
>
>I found the book mediocre and though Brown seems competent, he's far from
>inspired.
>
>I can't believe anybody is all that hyped up about that book. It's just
>not really all that *good...
That's my take on it too.
But my son (who has a degree in fine arts) worksd in a book shop, and they see
the punters comeing in and looking at the art books and going "Oooh! Ah!" over
reproductions of Leonardo's "The last supper"; exmailing "There's the dagger",
and taking this as proof that it's all true.
It's the same sort of people who really do believe that there is a book called
the "Necronomicon" as described in the works of H.P. Lovecraft, locked away in
a secret vault at the Miskatonic University.
I'd never heard of H.P. Lovecraft until a professor of Religious Studies at
the University of Calgary informed me that the Chthulhu mythos actually had a
cult following of people who believed it was all true, and it was being
studied as a New Religious Movement (NRM).
I tok a couple of books of Lovecraft's short stories out of the library to see
what it was all about. Some were not bad, others were drek.
Long before I'd ever heard of HP Lovecraft, I bought a book of short stories,
by Clark Ashton Smith and others, read half the first one, and tossed it
asiode. It was absolute crap, people trying to evoke a spurious atmosphere of
horro by using words like "eldritch" in every sentence. After reading
Lopvecraft's stories I went back to it, and managed to make it through to the
end. Perhaps one become innured to it after a while.
But the same kind of people who really believe in the Necronomicon are the
one's who don't care how mediocre a book is, if they buy the conspiracy
theories that its based on, and really believe that the stuff in "The da Vinci
code" is true.
And there's always been a market for books that speak of dark horrors within
the Roman Catholic Church... try Maturin's "Melmoth the wanderer". I read that
because I once lived in the town of Melmoth, and was drawn by the title, but
it's HP Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith and Dan Brown all rolled into one.
Olrik
> Michael wrote:
>
>> Mark Bilbo writes:
>>
>> All fiction writers are "liars."
>>
>> ******************
>> The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
>> statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
>> details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
>> novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
>>
>> There are many religions that have died and become myth. It is
>> possible that science and history will eventually bury Christianity.
>> For the time being, though, I think that the impact of the Da Vinci
>> code is overrated simply because it is faith that rules religion, not
>> fact. I found the Da Vinci Code hard to believe not because of all
>> the silly little "dark" secrets, but because I simply cannot imagine
>> the Church really concerning itself that much with all of it.
>
>
> That, and the fact that over and over again, Brown lies outright. It's
> all a sick, made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with real history.
Just like the "bible", then. Christianity tries too much to "prove" that
"Jesus" existed, what with all this "relics" industry, the Shroud of
Turin, etc.
It makes for good fiction, though (excluding The Da Vinci Code, which
was crap.)
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Don Tuite
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I tok a couple of books of Lovecraft's short stories out of the library to see
>what it was all about. Some were not bad, others were drek.
Lovecraft can be very silly. FWIW, I think he is at the top of his
form in _Charles Dexter Ward_. The genre works best when it leaves
the most to the reader's imagination.
Don (Refusing to make the obvious observation about NRMs)
R. Pierce Butler
news:5ahos1lh28a6qi89a...@4ax.com:
I was hoping for an intelligent rational response as well but alas, it did
not come.
Alan Crozier
news:frgns1lvak78l1ti5...@4ax.com...
I think the reference might be to the fact that this work of
fiction starts with an assurance from the author that it is all
based on fact, a claim which he has repeated many times.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Douglas Berry
<olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> posting the following on Tue, 17 Jan 2006
00:29:27 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>It makes for good fiction, though (excluding The Da Vinci Code, which
>was crap.)
As serious literature, yes. But as a breezy "beach book"? It did the
job. Fun little read, in my opinion, and my standards for Secret
History are quite high.
John W. Kennedy
Since you are reduced to barefaced, impudent lies, I see no point in
continuing.
John W. Kennedy
> What's so funny about peace, love and "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> posting the following on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
> 13:43:34 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>
>> That, and the fact that over and over again, Brown lies outright. It's
>> all a sick, made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with real history.
>
> Right. A work of fiction. Which is how it is shelved, catalogued,
> and sold. Only morons like you even care.
It is distressing in the extreme to discover how many people posting in
rec.arts.books are completely unacquainted with what happens when
someone actually reads one.
John W. Kennedy
Moron.
--
John W. Kennedy
John W. Kennedy
Precisely.
You evidently have more patience than I have.
John W. Kennedy
Rome's on its way to accepting the Book of Common Prayer?
(Is ICEL the same thing that used to be ICET?)
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
You've run rings around my logic!
Oh, by the way, grow up.
Mark K. Bilbo
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The funny thing about it is that the church shows a definite preference
for an ignorant flock then bitches when ignorance takes its course...
Mark K. Bilbo
<olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> wrote:
The bible makes for good fiction? No way. Bad as Brown's stuff is, the
babble is *much worse...
olrik666
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and Olrik
> <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> posting the following on Tue, 17 Jan 2006
> 00:29:27 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>
> >It makes for good fiction, though (excluding The Da Vinci Code, which
> >was crap.)
>
> As serious literature, yes. But as a breezy "beach book"? It did the
> job.
Sure. I think I expected too much. More precisely, I expected more
mystery than action. I got Angels & Demons as a gift, had low
expectations, but enjoyed it much more that TDVC.
> Fun little read, in my opinion, and my standards for Secret
> History are quite high.
I read mostly French "Secret History" books. Do you have one or two
English books you could suggest?
Thanks!
Olrik
olrik666
LOL!
Well, I've never read the bible. I was referring to the usual suspects
: the holy grail, the Templars, lost scriptures, etc. That religion is
quite rich in fables.
Olrik
Gabby
> Gabby wrote:
>> I told you. ICEL translated it that way into English.
>>
>> It may change soon because they are in the process of writing a new
>> translation that Rome wants closer to a literal translation rather than a
>> 'sense' translation. So things like "Dominus vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu
>> tuo" would be translated "The Lord be with you." "And with your spirit"
>> rather than "And also with you" as it is written now in English.
>
> Rome's on its way to accepting the Book of Common Prayer?
The Book of Common Prayer? No. I was referring to the Roman Missal. Or
maybe you were making the point that they have a lot of prayers in common?
> (Is ICEL the same thing that used to be ICET?)
I had to look up ICET. No, ICEL & ICET (defunct since 1975) are separate
entities working on totally different things.
ICET (International Consultation on English Texts) arose from Consultation
on Common Texts (CCT) and is an ecumenical group working on common English
prayers for all Christian Churches.
ICEL is the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, charged with
translating the Roman Catholic Liturgical Books & documents from Latin
(their official language) to English. There is no doubt that ICEL has used
some ICET translations, causing an uproar in certain quarters since those
translations change the meanings of certain texts.
Gabby
Steve Hayes
>Sure. I think I expected too much. More precisely, I expected more
>mystery than action. I got Angels & Demons as a gift, had low
>expectations, but enjoyed it much more that TDVC.
It's the hype that does it.
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:XV7zf.24$dd5...@fe11.lga...
>> Gabby wrote:
>>> I told you. ICEL translated it that way into English.
>>>
>>> It may change soon because they are in the process of writing a new
>>> translation that Rome wants closer to a literal translation rather than a
>>> 'sense' translation. So things like "Dominus vobiscum" "Et cum spiritu
>>> tuo" would be translated "The Lord be with you." "And with your spirit"
>>> rather than "And also with you" as it is written now in English.
>> Rome's on its way to accepting the Book of Common Prayer?
>
> The Book of Common Prayer? No. I was referring to the Roman Missal. Or
> maybe you were making the point that they have a lot of prayers in common?
Heck, the BCP had "And with thy spirit" for centuries....
>> (Is ICEL the same thing that used to be ICET?)
>
> I had to look up ICET. No, ICEL & ICET (defunct since 1975) are separate
> entities working on totally different things.
>
> ICET (International Consultation on English Texts) arose from Consultation
> on Common Texts (CCT) and is an ecumenical group working on common English
> prayers for all Christian Churches.
>
> ICEL is the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, charged with
> translating the Roman Catholic Liturgical Books & documents from Latin
> (their official language) to English. There is no doubt that ICEL has used
> some ICET translations, causing an uproar in certain quarters since those
> translations change the meanings of certain texts.
Same thing in Episcopalland, trust me. I'm all for modernization, and
regard the continued use of "thou" when not one person in a thousand
understands it as positively pernicious, but the ICET texts, apart from
questions of meaning, sometimes give the impression of having been
written by a ten-year-old with a short attention span.
Alan Crozier
news:1137515978....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Douglas Berry wrote:
> > What's so funny about peace, love and Olrik
> > <olrik666@yahoo_BACON!_.com> posting the following on Tue,
17 Jan 2006
> > 00:29:27 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
> >
> > >It makes for good fiction, though (excluding The Da Vinci
Code, which
> > >was crap.)
> >
> > As serious literature, yes. But as a breezy "beach book"?
It did the
> > job.
>
> Sure. I think I expected too much. More precisely, I expected
more
> mystery than action. I got Angels & Demons as a gift, had low
> expectations, but enjoyed it much more that TDVC.
>
> > Fun little read, in my opinion, and my standards for Secret
> > History are quite high.
>
> I read mostly French "Secret History" books. Do you have one
or two
> English books you could suggest?
A good one if you can read Portuguese is "O Codex 632" by José
Rodrigues dos Santos. It's about a historian discovering the
truth about Columbus's Portuguese origin. It's not a thriller,
more like "The Rule of Four".
P.T.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:JuqdnRm0mMf...@megapath.net...
> All fiction writers are "liars."
>
Many fictional writings, or myths, carry truthful messages.
Mark K. Bilbo
<olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Trust me, the bible itself isn't much of a read...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Katrina aftermath pictures
http://www.nola.com/katrinaphotos/user/
raven1
<l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>raven1 wrote:
>
>> What part of The DaVinci Code being a work of FICTION is unclear to
>> you?
>
>Uncle Tom's Cabin was also a work of fiction, if I'm not mistaken,
>yet a lot of people certainly got their panties in bunch over
>that one. Didn't Lincoln say, "So this is the little lady that
>started this great war," when he met H. B. Stowe? What do
>you suppose she might have replied? Perhaps, "It's fiction, idiot."
Lincoln was being facetious.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
raven1
I can't think offhand of many works of historical fiction that aren't
*based on* fact. Your point was...?
Douglas Berry
10:09:39 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>> What's so funny about peace, love and "John W. Kennedy"
>> <jwk...@attglobal.net> posting the following on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
>> 13:43:34 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>>
>>> That, and the fact that over and over again, Brown lies outright. It's
>>> all a sick, made-up fantasy that has nothing to do with real history.
>>
>> Right. A work of fiction. Which is how it is shelved, catalogued,
>> and sold. Only morons like you even care.
>
>It is distressing in the extreme to discover how many people posting in
>rec.arts.books are completely unacquainted with what happens when
>someone actually reads one.
I'm posting from alt.atheism, and average a new book every week.
Currently reading "Life As We Do Not Know It" by Peter Ward. Excellent
bookj, if you're into speculative science. Next up: "Ring of Fire"
ed. by Eric Flint, the latest book in the "1632" series.
Now, I'm sorry you don't understand what fiction means, but don't
project.
Francis A. Miniter
I have to laugh. Pray, tell, my good man, what lie(s) I have told. Then,
perhaps, your supreme majesty could indulge us mental plebians with the truth,
so that we too may be saved. (Or, come to think of it, is it "so the wrong ones
can't find it, so can't get saved as Saint Mark says they mustn't." I am sure
you know the source of that quote as well as the subsidiary reference to the
Gospel of Mark and the hidden reference to the Book of Isaiah, your lordship.)
Francis A. Miniter
Michael
Readers who possess more intelligence than a wine cork have
learned to expect such faux claims of authenticity from fiction
writers -- and from their publicists.
**************
I smiled when I read the claim of authenticity. Nevertheless I
still maintain that the claim, standing outside the obvious fiction
text as it is, and worded thus, is easy to interpret as intended
as a nonfictional statement. It's best not to discount the remark
as inconsequential. The factual claim is the real heart of the
controversy. Without it, it would have been much easier to
shrug it off as the obvious fiction it is.
Michael, the intellectual superior of a wine cork
Douglas Berry
posting the following on 17 Jan 2006 08:39:38 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>I read mostly French "Secret History" books. Do you have one or two
>English books you could suggest?
For a great deal of fun, get Supressed Transmission from Steve Jackson
Games. This is a collection of columns by Ken Hite, that while
written for an online RPG magazine, rarely mention gaming. Instead
it's a treasure trove of High Weirdness.
http://www.sjgames.com/suppressed/
Liz
<fg2zf.42681$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net> wrote:
>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>news:frgns1lvak78l1ti5...@4ax.com...
>> What part of The DaVinci Code being a work of FICTION is
>> unclear to
>> you?
>
>I think the reference might be to the fact that this work of
>fiction starts with an assurance from the author that it is all
>based on fact, a claim which he has repeated many times.
Printed in the front of the book just above the ISBN is the
disclaimer:
"All of the characters and events in this book are fictitious, and any
resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely
coincidental."
In the acknowledgements, Brown refers to the book as a novel.
"And finally, in a novel drawing so heavily on the sacred feminine, I
would be remiss if I did not mention the two extraordinary women who
have touched my life."
Brown also verifies that, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture,
documents, and secret rituals in this novel is accurate."
Just how balmy must one be to think that a "novel" whose characters
are fictitious is supposed to be historically accurate?
Albeit from Brown's pov, the hype caused by this misunderstanding
hasn't hurt his sales at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he
encourages the controversy.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them
as much as you please. -- Mark Twain
Liz
<43CC4C05...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>raven1 wrote:
>
>> What part of The DaVinci Code being a work of FICTION is unclear to
>> you?
>
>Uncle Tom's Cabin was also a work of fiction, if I'm not mistaken,
>yet a lot of people certainly got their panties in bunch over
>that one. Didn't Lincoln say, "So this is the little lady that
>started this great war," when he met H. B. Stowe? What do
>you suppose she might have replied? Perhaps, "It's fiction, idiot."
I don't think any one has claimed that works of fiction can't inflame
people to action. Look at the Bible for a prime example.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I could not believe that anyone who had read this book
would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every
literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of
God? Have these people simply not read the text? Are they
hopelessly uninformed? Is there a different Bible? Are
they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naivete?
-- Bishop John Shelby Spong!
Liz
<jwk...@attglobal.net> in news message <JOWyf.5519$ng3....@fe11.lga>
wrote:
[-----]
>There was no Priory of Sion.
LOL That's what every secret society wants you to believe. The EAC
(ntie,oc) is another secret society that does not exist.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Head Wrangler: EAC Petting Zoo and Cafeteria (ntie,oc)
Liz
<jwk...@attglobal.net> in news message <YM7zf.20$dd5...@fe11.lga>
wrote:
[----]
>It is distressing in the extreme to discover how many people posting in
>rec.arts.books are completely unacquainted with what happens when
>someone actually reads one.
There is a difference between reading and understanding.
Liz #658 BAAWA
A great many people think they are thinking when they
are merely rearranging their prejudices. - William James
Francis A. Miniter
Good point. In another post, Liz quotes the statement: "All descriptions of
artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel is accurate."
That is the kind of statement that writers of historical fiction can and do
make. For instance, P. C. Doherty, author of "The Death of a King", a novel
about Edward II of England, refers to several documents, which he represents in
an Epilogue to exist and to be accurately described therein and about which he
wove the fictional story. But he does claim that the description of the
documents is accurate. This is precisely the claim made by Brown and that is
the source of the problem.
Historical fiction has a special problem and a special burden. When do you deal
in history and when do you deal in fact, and what, if any, representation do you
make about the facts to your readership? An example from one end of the scale:
Clavell, Shogun. Clavell makes no representations of fact and, if you just
read the book, it is a good yarn. But if you start to investigate, you learn
that his Lord Torunaga is an alias for the real Lord Tokugawa and that the
improbable Englishman actually existed and became a retainer to Lord Tokugawa.
Indeed, you learn that the large political facts are mostly all true and the
fiction is confined to the personal level, a technique very often used by
writers of historical fiction.
P. C. Doherty also keeps close to the large political fact situation and advises
the reader (in epilogues or postscripts) of the historical basis that allows him
to fictionalize a possible account of unknown or unrecorded events.
Another variant is Tim O'Brien, "How to Tell a True War Story" in his book "The
Things They Carried". While assuring the reader repeatedly that it is all true,
he weaves a plausible fiction. But that is all done within the context of the
text, and not outside of it, as it is with Brown. O'Brien's "true" lies in the
feeling and sense that you get from the fictional portrayal of the war (Vietnam,
that is).
Brown is on the other end of the scale. He makes this representation about the
factual accuracy of documents and rituals outside the text, but then, unlike
Doherty, he misrepresents the historically referenced texts and goes on from
there to fictionalize the big political and historical events, not just the
personal story events. It is this dishonesty to the historical fiction genre
that has raised the controversy.
Nor does his representation stand in the context of an outer text, such as the
Prologue to Eco's "The Name of the Rose", wherein the outer narrator tells a
story about how he found, lost and reconstituted the text that forms the inner
story - and thereby gives the reader a hermeneutic for interpreting the inner
story. Brown's representation is more like that of Doherty's. It stands alone.
It is on its face intended to be relied upon. It is not couched in a context
to make it unreliable.
Now, it should be granted that Brown's representation does not go to the textual
events that he puts forth as an alternative history. That one can safely say
that even he deems that fiction. It only goes to "artwork, architecture,
documents, and secret rituals". But even as to these limited areas, he makes
significant misrepresentations. And it is in the area of inferences from
falsely described real things (the documents in the Nag Hammadi collection, for
instance) that the problem arises. Since the documents are falsely described by
him, the inferences from them are less reliable than those, say, of Doherty, if
you know that the documents are falsely described. But the average reader is
not familiar with the Gnostic writings in the Nag Hammadi documents and is not
in a position to realize that he or she is being had.
So what we have here is not an unreliable narrator, but an unreliable author.
Francis A. Miniter
olrik666
Douglas Berry wrote:
> What's so funny about peace, love and "olrik666" <olri...@gmail.com>
> posting the following on 17 Jan 2006 08:39:38 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
>
> >I read mostly French "Secret History" books. Do you have one or two
> >English books you could suggest?
>
> For a great deal of fun, get Supressed Transmission from Steve Jackson
> Games. This is a collection of columns by Ken Hite, that while
> written for an online RPG magazine, rarely mention gaming. Instead
> it's a treasure trove of High Weirdness.
>
> http://www.sjgames.com/suppressed/
Well, that may not be my cup of tea, but the link you provided led me
to an article about FTL travel. It's an interesting piece.
Thanks.
Olrik
olrik666
Thanks for the suggestions. But no, I don't read Portuguese.
:(
Olrik
![Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWC6mzzawUrO7GCu7fCerkyuc2lhlBFoatj_KeGRNuuk3rG=s40-c)
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]
Furthermore the notion is based on an erroneous translation of medeival
French.
"holy blood."
Brian E. Clark
said...
> I think the reference might be to the fact that this work of
> fiction starts with an assurance from the author that it is all
> based on fact, a claim which he has repeated many times.
Likewise, every movie-of-the-week shown on network television
claims to be "based on a true story." Caveat lector.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Mark K. Bilbo
wrote:
Modern fiction writing carries the message "I have bills to pay."
ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> In <dqhlmp$hbo$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu (Bobby
> D. Bryant) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
> >
> >> In <MPG.1e35add71...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Brian E. Clark
> >> <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <1137426817.836342.40440
> >>> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Michael said...
> >>>
> >>>> The problem with Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is that there's that
> >>>> statement at the front of the book that declares that all the historic
> >>>> details are true. That statement is outside the text of the actual
> >>>> novel, and its context appears to be aimed at being factual.
> >>>
> >>> Middle Earth stories were derived from translations of the _Red Book of
> >>> Westmarch_, which was later described as "the memoirs of Bilbo and
> >>> Frodo of the Shire, supplemented by the accounts of their friends and
> >>> the learning of the Wise...together with extracts from Books of Lore
> >>> translated by Bilbo in Rivendell."
> >>
> >> And, anyway, that is *not the draft I turned in!!!!
> >
> > We're eagerly awaiting your _Secret History_.
>
> Not until I get back royalties from the Tolkien estate dammit!
>
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo
Middle Earth is a term form those who bleived the Earth was flat.
To stop the Oceans form pooring out, the flat Earth has mountains
surounding the water. The flat Earth was believed to have four
corners,
and if you draw diagonals from each corner, they cross in middle
Earth.
Larry
smw
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> Brown is on the other end of the scale. He makes this representation
> about the factual accuracy of documents and rituals outside the text,
il n'ya pas de hors-texte.
John W. Kennedy
> Furthermore the notion is based on an erroneous translation of medeival
> French.
>
> "holy blood."
In the first place, you've got it wrong; the claim is that "san graal"
is a mistake for "sang real", "royal blood". In the second place, it's
provably false; the Grail makes its first appearances as "un graal", "a
dish". It only becomes "le san graal" much later.
Bobby D. Bryant
> That is the kind of statement that writers of historical fiction can
> and do make.
Interesting question: should we consider TDVC historical fiction?
Intuitively, I don't think of it that way. But I'm not sure how to
draw the boundry lines.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
e.johansson@telia.com Inger E.Johansson
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:Qavzf.29$5W6...@fe12.lga...
> Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
> > Furthermore the notion is based on an erroneous translation of medeival
> > French.
> >
> > "holy blood."
>
> In the first place, you've got it wrong; the claim is that "san graal"
> is a mistake for "sang real", "royal blood". In the second place, it's
> provably false; the Grail makes its first appearances as "un graal", "a
> dish". It only becomes "le san graal" much later.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
You are right John. The Grail is a dish and some other items go with it.
Inger E
VtSkier
Historical fiction is the literary equivalent of
a costume drama.
TDVC is set in modern times even though the subject
matter deals with things "historical" note the quotes.
It is not historical fiction.
"Rob Roy" would be historical fiction.
Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]
> Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
> > Furthermore the notion is based on an erroneous translation of medeival
> > French.
> >
> > "holy blood."
>
> In the first place, you've got it wrong; the claim is that "san graal"
> is a mistake for "sang real", "royal blood". In the second place, it's
> provably false; the Grail makes its first appearances as "un graal", "a
> dish". It only becomes "le san graal" much later.
>
i did not get anything wrong my friend you merely clarified what i
said.
but more to the point the sang real is a myth.
John W. Kennedy
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
>>> Furthermore the notion is based on an erroneous translation of medeival
>>> French.
>>>
>>> "holy blood."
>> In the first place, you've got it wrong; the claim is that "san graal"
>> is a mistake for "sang real", "royal blood". In the second place, it's
>> provably false; the Grail makes its first appearances as "un graal", "a
>> dish". It only becomes "le san graal" much later.
>>
>
> i did not get anything wrong my friend you merely clarified what i
> said.
Your very words "holy blood" are quoted above, and it remains a fact
that no-one (except you), at any time, has ever claimed that the
original French was, or was meant to be, or was misinterpreted as being,
"san sang".
> but more to the point the sang real is a myth.
Yes indeed, there is a late-20th-century myth, a demonstrably false one,
to the effect that the words "san graal" were an error for "sang real".
However, this was the result, not of an "erroneous translation", but of
an egregious blunder by conspiracy-mongers who didn't bother to check
their facts. And even if it had been true, it /still/ wouldn't involve a
"translation" of any kind, since there is no "translation" in going from
Old French to Old French.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>>> unclear to you?
>> I think the reference might be to the fact that this work of
>> fiction starts with an assurance from the author that it is all
>> based on fact, a claim which he has repeated many times.
Lots of novels have had significant influence on the world because
of the implicit factual claims, political/philosophical arguments,
or prescriptions for living contained in them:
Jonathan Wild
The Confessions of a Justified Sinner
Caleb Williams
Oliver Twist
Bleak House
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Germinal
The Jungle
The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists
All Quiet on the Western Front
The Forty Days of Musa Dagh
The Grapes of Wrath
1984
Animal Farm
The Loved One
On the Beach
The Naked Lunch
Atlas Shrugged
Starship Troopers
The Turner Diaries
and so on ad nearly bloody infinitum. For most of the above the
author was quite open about being a propagandist (Fielding on
policing or Burroughs advocating apomorphine treatment, say),
but a novel can still be intended to communicate facts and values
despite the author saying otherwise. The question is just *what*
the author intends us to believe when we get to the end; it's not
usually hard to work that out if you really want to.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Kater Moggin
> The Cathars were a
> matter-bad-spirit-good cult who would have been /horrified/ at the idea
> of Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene or anyone else; in fact,
> believing as they did that Jesus was a wholly spiritual being who didn't
> have a body in the first place, they wouldn't have believed it to be
> physically possible.
Generally true. Like many other gnostics, the Cathars had
a highly docetic perspective. No dispute. But also like
other gnostics, they didn't always agree. The record indicates
that certain Cathars felt Jesus was born in the flesh.
Example: "They disgree among themselves, however, in that some
of them believe his body was physically constituted from the
body of the Virgin; some of them do not accept this." Moneta's
_Summa_, ca. 1241, Preface.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> ... The Cathars were a
> matter-bad-spirit-good cult who would have been /horrified/ at the idea
> of Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene or anyone else; in fact,
> believing as they did that Jesus was a wholly spiritual being who didn't
> have a body in the first place, they wouldn't have believed it to be
> physically possible.
Generally speaking true. The Cathars leaned very strongly
to docetism over and against the carnal Jesus of Christian
orthodoxy, but they didn't always agree. Some of them believed
that Jesus came in the flesh (see Moneta's _Summa_), and in
certain instances the record says they considered Jesus married
to Mary Magdalene. "They also declare that Christ was the
husband of Mary Magdalene," according to the _Summa Contra
Haereticos_, and _An Exposure of the Albigensian and Waldensian
Heresies_ states "They teach in their secret meetings that
Mary Magdalene was the wife of Christ." Exceptions to the rule.
Variation on the theme: a Cistercian monk travelling with
the Crusaders, Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, reported that the
Cathars in Toulouse posited two Christs: a celestial being who
never put on flesh, annointed by the good God, and a
terrestial being annointed by the evil Maker of this world, who
made Mary his concubine.
-- Moggin