Dan Brown's "DaVinci" errors??
- Bobby Valentine writes, in part, and alleges Dan Brown has revealed a number of errors in his book/movie "The DaVinci Code":
> Brown is careless, extremelyFWIW!
> careless, about his "facts" to
> the point of being simply
> absurd or lazy.
> A simple internet search could
> have eliminated most of the
> faux paus.
> Despite the claims for even
> accuracy of architectural
> details Brown simply reveals
> his top ten "errors" for all
> the world to see.
> The Top 10
> 10) Westminster Abbey does
> not have spires
> 9) There are no frescos in
> Notre Dame
> 8) Why would Isaac Newton
> be afraid of the Roman
> Catholic Church in 17th
> century England? (perhaps
> Brown never heard of the
> 7) Constantine collated the
> Christian Bible at the Council
> of Nicaea in A.D. 325.
> 6) There was a close vote on
> the deity of Christ at the
> Council of Nicaea. There was
> a vote regarding Arianism.
> The vote was 218 to 3 . . . if it
> were not for the hanging chads
> Constantine may not have won
> the day!!
> 5) Q was a "gospel" possibly
> written by Jesus' own hand
> (DaVinci Code, p. 343)!!.
> 4) The Dead Sea Scrolls were
> discovered in the 1950s and is
> a collection of the earliest
> Christian writings. These
> "errors" just keep getting
> better don't they!
> 3) Jesus is portrayed with
> more "human traits" in the
> Gospels banished by Constantine.
> This one is patently absurd!
> Jesus looses all identification
> as a real human being in the
> Gnostic texts of Thomas, Philip,
> Peter and the recently discovered
> Gospel of Judas. In these texts
> Jesus becomes a super deity with
> little connection to the flesh and
> 2) Jesus was married to Mary
> Magdalene. In fact Grail scholar
> Professor Lee Teabag . . . I mean
> Leigh Teabing . . . in a show of
> unbelievable ignorance over-
> whelms Sophie Neveu with a
> citation of the Gospel of Philip
> "There were three who always
> walked with the lord: Mary his
> mother and her sister and the
> Magdalene, the one who was
> called his companion. His sister
> and his mother and his companion
> were each a Mary."
> The brilliant Teabag, I mean
> Teabing, says "As any Aramaic
> scholar will tell you, the word
> companion in those days, literally
> meant spouse" (DaVinci Code,
> p. 246). There is no Aramaic word
> for "companion" in the Gospel
> of Philip for an Aramaic scholar
> to define. Philip is written in
> Coptic, not Aramaic. Second the
> word "companion" in the Gospel
> of Philip is a Greek loanword (not
> Aramaic) koinonos which does
> not mean wife or spouse
> but "companion," "friend," or
> In all of the ancient literature,
> Orthodox or Gnostic, there is
> not a single place, in ANY
> "Gospel" that even alludes to
> a marriage or "romantic"
> relationship between Jesus
> and Mary. The writings of Paul,
> the "Gospel" of Peter, "Gospel"
> of Thomas, "Gospel" of Philip
> (cited by Teabing), "Gospel" of
> the Egyptians . . . not even the
> "Gospel" of Mary Magdalene
> suggests the existence of this
> secret love of Jesus (Bart
> Erhman has a very good discussion
> on this in his Truth and Fiction in
> The Da Vinci Code, pp. 141-162.
> Erhman is a "happy agnostic" on
> the subject of religion so I find
> his writing especially interesting
> though I disagree with him on
> many details as well).
> 1) Jesus was not thought of as
> "divine" until the infamous
> Council of Nicaea. As Teabag,
> I mean Teabing says
>> "My dear,' Teabing declared,
>> 'until that moment in history,
>> Jesus was viewed by His
>> followers as a mortal prophet
>> . . . a great and powerful man,
>> but a man nontheless.
>> A mortal.
>> Not the Son of God?
>> Right,' Teabing said, 'Jesus'
>> establishment as 'the Son
>> of God' was officially proposed
>> and voted on by the Council of
>> Nicaea." (DaVinci Code, p.233)
> Brown finds himself in some
> serious self-contradictory speaking
> through Teabag. How do we explain
> the mere existence of the Gospels
> (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that
> "won" at Nicaea if no one thought
> of Jesus as divine before 325?
> In those Gospels, all of which date
> to the First Century, Christians
> already were calling Jesus God.
> What of the writings of Paul?
> He clearly thought of Jesus as
> divine. And as we have seen the
> Gnostic Gospels themselves (the
> ones supposedly suppressed by
> Constantine) affirm the deity of
> Christ (their issue is that the
> humanness of Jesus is cast aside . . .
> despite the claim of Teabag,
> I mean Teabing).
> This, in my view, is truly Dan
> Brown's biggest "error" of all!
No, I haven't read the book or seen the movie.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]