Lebanese Authorities Ban 'Da Vinci Code'

[Khephra]

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- Deeming its contents insulting to Christianity, Lebanese authorities have banned "The Da Vinci Code," a novel that has drawn harsh criticism -- and millions of readers -- with its depiction of Jesus Christ marrying Mary Magdalene and fathering a child.

American author Dan Brown's fast-paced, globe-trotting thriller was pulled off shelves around Lebanon on the orders of the General Security Department this week after the Catholic Information Center, which speaks for Lebanon's Catholic community, recommended that it be banned.

"We were asked for our opinion on the book and we gave it," the Rev. Abdo Abu Kasm, who heads the center, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "We cannot accept that anyone insult our dignity and beliefs. ... Christianity is not about forgiveness to the point of insulting Jesus Christ."

The 2003 book portrays Roman Catholic leaders as demonizing women for centuries and covering up the truth about the Holy Grail, which Brown says is Mary Magdalene herself.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-lebanon-da-vinci-ban,0,2733411.story?coll=sns-ap-entertainment-headlines

[DavidDvorkin]

1. It ought to be banned

for being so godawfully badly written.

[goforit]

2. So, you edit books?

I don't think so.

[DavidDvorkin]

4. I write them

And they're far better than that pile of crap.

[BlueHandDuo]

5. I see you've written a novel in which...

...the protagonist is a writer.

Damn! Why didn't I think of that?

[DavidDvorkin]

8. Well, I wanted to be completely original ...

I see you have excellent taste in TV shows.

[MisterP]

30. you're the Budspy Dvorkin?!

[DavidDvorkin]

32. Yes, I'm that Dvorkin

Not a common name among writers, although by an amazing coincidence, there's another sf writer named Dvorkin.

No, wait, that's not a coincidence at all. He's my son. :)

[MisterP]

43. my divergence is 1889, what's yours?

:o
1889: Crown Prince Rudolf flees his attackers and, for one reason or another, does not reappear until 1916.
1918: Germany encircles French, British, and American forces in a bloody, tenuous move, winning World War I. This is encouraged by surprise successes in the Palestinian and Macedonian fronts.
1943: Li Tang Fu leads Populists against Jiang Jieshi, and, to a smaller extent, Mao Zedong, and wins, crowing himself Li Dynasty Emperor.
1958: De Gaulle, encouraged by the UN letting Germany and Italy keep their colonies, takes a stiffer approach to Guinean independence: colonies are retained in Africa and Oceania.
2000: Gore's VP Andrew Norton exposes Floridagate.
2004: Gore-Bush rematch, Bush looks like Harry Mudd sans moustache at debate, earth tones revisited, Norton calls Judy Miller "ridiculous."

[DavidDvorkin]

44. Mine was one of those WWII things

Budspy, that is. Hitler visits troops on the Russian front, gets cut off, surrounded, killed by an unexpected Russian attack. More palatable types take over the Reich, reach a peace treaty with the Western allies in return for continuing to fight the Bolshies.

By the 1980s, the Reich is the great superpower, although America deludes itself that it is. America has become increasingly fascist itself. The underlying moral is that "He who would sup with the Devil must have a mickle long spoon." (I may not be remembering that proverb correctly. I used it in the front of the book, but I'm too lazy to get up and walk all the way across my immense, auctorial study to check the wording.)

[truth2power]

18. I thought it was good. YMMV.

[leftofthedial]

24. good luck with your writing

may you never author a pile of crap that sells umpteen bazillion copies.

[Greyskye]

42. I read the first chapter of your book on your website...

And I can see how you might not like a book that doesn't include scatalogical monkey/wax-robot sex.

Hanging onto one blade by his fingertips, going around slowly in a circle, Jibber stared down in horror at the creature he had just mated with. He gibbered even more meaninglessly than usual. His bowels loosened, and chimpy feces showered down on Tess and the expensive carpet beneath her.

:eyes:

[DavidDvorkin]

45. The next two chapters are even better!

:)

They're also on my site.

Later on, the book gets more serious about politica, although I hope it remains amusing.

[IndianaGreen]

7. By that standard of yours we should ban the Bible!

The Bible is not only "godawfully badly written," but it promotes bigotry, mysoginy, intolerance, homophobia, slavery, racism, Nazism, and all other "isms" that have plagued the human race.

I rather have a bad book on the bookshelf than to have a self-appointed apostle for truth tell me what books to read and which to burn!

[DavidDvorkin]

9. If I really believed in banning books

the Bible would probably be on my list. Along with any else that promotes religious belief. And of course all godawfully badly written books.

However, I don't believe in banning books. I thought it was clear that my original post was just a hyperbolic way of expressing my dislike for The Da Vinci Code.

"Godawfully badly written" refers to style and characterization, not to content. Large parts of the King James Bible are very beatifully written.

[w4rma]

10. DavidD was using sarcasm (nt)

[Tracer]

17. Ha. I take that as a "joke" because ...

... I was about to say the same thing.

The book was awful.

[absolutezero]

27. tell that to the millions of people

that loved that book. the only people I know that don't like it are bible bangers

[DavidDvorkin]

33. Now you've encountered some who aren't Bible-bangers

Is popularity the measure of quality? Does that apply to politicians, as well?

[Richardo]

37. You're the man, David D. My first thought: "Lucky Lebanese".

My capsule review: "It's the worst book you will ever read until you read "Digital Fortress", also by Dan Brown."

[Merlin]

3. Some are terrified of just the tiny morsel of truth this book contains.

The only redeeming social value of this work is that Brown gets out into the popular venue the truth that the gospels were written by unknown authors who never met Jesus decades after Jesus died, and that Jesus himself never believed he was God.

For this alone, Dan Brown deserves medal.

[jdj]

6. Yes.

Jesus is nothing like they portray him to be.

It never makes sense to me how nazis can make such an idol out of a hippie longhair in drag. Seems like they'd want to portray him as a skinhead too.

[papau]

11. Jesus himself never believed he was God.?

I think you mean Jesus himself never said he was God as recorded in those Gospels. He called himself God's son - but what do those words mean? Is the Word made flesh a good answer?

And "unknown authors who never met Jesus decades after Jesus died?" - true - a result of the "oral tradition" - Also individual churches thought they had the "correct" gospel and others did not! I believe Mark is thought to have been reduced to writing by a contemporary of Jesus about 20 years after the Crucifixion. The others are later - and if you buy computer analysis, more than one scribe contributed to the writing. But serious folks can discuss and fight over these "dates" and "concepts" for hours - even for 2000 years!

smile ..... :-) - all of which "proves" what?

The world of faith is an interesting place!

peace

:-)

[Merlin]

13. Nope. Never did. That's the conclusion of most biblical scholars...

including the 230 experts who make up the Jesus Seminar, the great Karen Armstrong, and the excellent Elain Pagel, and many, many others.

If you compare Mark and the Q-portion of the Synoptics, along with the recently unearthed (1945 - Nag Hamadi) Gospel of Thomas, written circa 50 ce, you discover that John is completely anamolous in terms of the "I Am" sayings, and is clearly the result of later day Christology. If you look at the actual meanings of terms in the other gospels, such as "Son of Man" and "Son of Adam" you find they were standard terms meaning, literally, all men.

So claims of deity do not mesh with the Synoptic Gospels. Paul does not claim deity. The Gospel of Thomas does not claim deity. The Gnostic writings did not claim deity.

You're left with John.

Jesus was not deified until a close vote on the issue in the Council of Nicea in 325 ce.

Btw, Paul wrote in the 50s. Mark did not write until just after the fall of the Temple in 70 ce. Obviously Matthew and Luke wrote later, in about the 80s. John was in the 90s.

There is very little doubt about these dates.

[aneerkoinos]

14. Thanks

A good, informative post, I learned something new.

Also, not many of Pauls letters are authentic. Those that contain the most blatant pistic propaganda are certainly not, even though Paul can be hardly considered gnostic.

BTW I think that the "I Am" sentences do not refer to Jesus secifically, but that the "way, truth and life" is self, to be found inside each of us.

[megatherium]

16. pauline epistles

If memory serves, there's about 12 letters of Paul in the New Testament, but only 3 or 5 of these are not genuine (the "pastoral epistles", believed to be written by followers of Paul in his name).

The genuine epistles include 1 Corinthians, written about 57 of the common era. In this epistle, Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples and to 500 people, as well as to himself. He recites this claim in a manner that suggests it was already part of a Creed. Now Paul became a Christian only several years after the death of Christ, and he was in close contact with the community of believers (as is clear in the book of Acts). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Paul's affirmation of the central claim of Christianity was what the earliest Christians actually believed: that the resurrection of Jesus happened and it was a supernatural event.

None of this proves this event occured, but it discredits commonly held notions that the resurrection was legend or mythology that only later became Christian dogma. As far as the Jesus Seminar goes, they are <i>not</i> the mainstream of biblical scholarship: they are at the most liberal end of biblical scholarship, and their conclusions are not necessarily accepted by mainstream scholars.

[Merlin]

22. Partly right. Partly wrong.

On Paul's Epistles
Here's the way I have them in my notes from my research on Paul:

By Paul:
Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans

Probably By Paul:
1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon (very short)

Pseudonymous writings in the name of Paul:
1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians


On Paul's ties to Peter and the Apostles

Paul was definitely NOT in "close touch" with Jesus followers. He was detested by Peter and James who were living in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. In fact, although Acts is not always reliable, Acts nonetheless details how the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem were so angry with Paul that they chased and stoned him. Paul sought refuge with the Roman guards! claiming that, as a Roman citizen, he was entitled to their protection from the mob.

On early belief in the Resurrection

In the minds of the Apostles, and in the early writings, the Resurrection was believed to have been spiritual--not physical. The demand for a physical, bodily, resurrection did not come until later as part of the movement to deify Jesus and portray him as the fulfillment of prophesies.

Paul himself, in I Thessalonians (possibly the oldest surviving document written by a follower of Jesus ), writes about the promise of universal resurrection of the faithful:
15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

On the Jesus Seminar

Well, you can say it's "out of the mainstream" if by "mainstream" you mean the orthodox "theologians." But among those scholars who study the early Christian writings without a preconceived mindset -- that is to say, those who are true scholars -- the Jesus Seminar, comprising 30 top biblical scholars and over 200 researchers who have met twice yearly since 1985 to determine who Jesus truly was and what he actually said, is exceptionally relevant and scholarly.

[megatherium]

31. Paul and church elders

Paul did have close contact with the early Church. Please read Acts chapter 15, which describes how Paul participated in the Council at Jerusalem, where it was decided that Gentile believers did not have to be circumcised. He is also well-received by James and the other elders on his return to Jerusalem, where the decision of the Council was reaffirmed (Chapter 21).

Where in Acts is Paul described as having to seek shelter with Roman guards from followers of Jesus? Repeatedly, Paul attacked or chased by Jewish non-followers of Jesus, but I am not aware he was attacked by Jewish believers. (He did have arguments, as with Barnabas. But nothing involving mobs and stones.)

One thing I certainly agree with you on is that Paul and the early Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection. Paul states that Jesus died and was buried, but he never refers to the empty tomb. (The Canadian writer Tom Harpur makes a good case for a spiritual resurrection, a resurrection that was a genuine event but did not involve re-animation of a human corpse.)

Likewise, I don't think Paul equated Jesus with God, and I don't think Jesus equated himself with God. (He prayed to the Father and referred to things the Father knew that he did not.)

[Merlin]

34. They didn't get along well.

If memory serves, Acts says Paul was "summoned" by James, Jesus' brother (who, with Peter, was leader of the Jewish Jesus followers in Jerusalem, essentially comprising the first papacy), for teachings antithetical to those which Jesus advocated. Historians date this to about 58 ce. He went to meet them, but the attempts at reconciliation did not go well. This resulted in his being chased by a mob of followers of Peter's administration through the streets of Jerusalem. Paul sought sanctuary with the Romans. They intended to punish him for causing a disturbance until he revealed to them that he was a Roman citizen and deserving of a proper trial. Thereafter he was transported to Rome, and that's pretty much where the trail of his history fades away.

This is all very murky, of course, because it's so difficult to tell what is truthful of the early axe-grinding Christian documents.

I personally feel Paul was a brilliant promoter. Today, he would be somebody like John Chambers, CEO of CISCO, or Bill Gates, or even Bill Clinton. His prose captures a stirring sense of spirituality. Unfortunately, most of it was based on his imagination. That's what got him in trouble with the Jewish crowd.

He claims the Jews objected to his welcoming gentiles into the Jesus movement. But I believe his preachings about such things as the Eucharist--which he invented--the eating of the body and blood of Jesus in commemoration--were far more infuriating to the Jewish followers of Jesus, lead by Peter and James.

One of the most intriguing aspects of Paul is the relation between Tarsus and Catholic doctrine. Tarsus, Paul's home town in Asia Minor, had become the Greek center of Mithra-ism, a "pagan" "mystery" sect by the 1st century bce. In Mithraic belief, a bull symbolized the godhead. One gained immortality during Mithraic secret rituals when they would kill the bull, and cut or rip apart its freshly killed flesh and drink its blood. Paul's invention of the last supper and the preposterously bizarre ritual of Eucharist is clearly based on this.

[megatherium]

47. Paul in Jerusalem

I'm not sure you're correct about the mob being followers of Peter. After Paul makes the conciliatory gesture to James and the elders of undergoing purification rites, he is recognized in the Temple by some Jews from the province of Asia, who stir up the crowd against Paul by claiming he was preaching everywhere against the Jews and the Temple (Acts 21:27-28). This precipitates his trial in the Sanhedrin, and his journey to Rome. What's confusing here is that in Acts 21:21, the elders tell Paul that thousands of Jewish Christian believers have been informed that Paul has been teaching that Jewish believers in the diaspora should abandon the Mosaic law; and this is why Paul consented to undergo purification rites (that would allow him to re-enter the Temple), to demonstrate he hasn't abondoned the Law. It doesn't appear that the Jewish crowd of Acts 21:27-28 is the same as the Jewish believers in Acts 21:21. Possibly, Luke is not clear here. But the Romans bring Paul in front of the Sanhedrin, and at that point it is clear that the issue has become Paul vs. the Jews, not Paul vs. the Christian Jewish believers.

I would be curious as to how you argue that Paul invented the Eucharist, or that James and Peter would have been angry at the teaching of the Eucharist. The synoptic Gospels portray Jesus himself as instituting the Eucharist. The Gospel of John is filled with Eucharistic imagery (water changed to wine; Jesus as the Bread of Life, e.g., John 6:51).

[papau]

23. Jesus Seminar? - sorry - the Delphi technique is not appropiate -IMHO

But I agree as to your dates and some of your "facts"

Even as to past usuage meaning "all men" - !

But he said Son of God!

The Gnostic writings did not claim deity? - really? - the riots in Alexandria were not over leaving the Gnostic determination - their secret or true knowledge or Truth - that the Holy Spirit was a lesser showing of God than the dualism of God the Creator and God the Son and Word made flesh?


"Jesus was not deified until a close vote on the issue in the Council of Nicea in 325 ce" - meaning a vote on the creed was not taken until then - it was not a vote on being "deified."

[Merlin]

25. Jesus Seminar findings are extraordinarily illuminating.

"Delphic" is hardly a justifiable criticism of their methods which rely primarily upon stringent "rules of evidence" re: the degree of concordance of Mark, Q, Thomas and sometimes Signs. Check out "The Five Gospels" by Funk and Hoover of The Jesus Seminar. It details minutely the evaluation of each purported Jesus saying in the Canonicals, and the reasons for the group's democratically determined judgement of validity.

On the Gnostics, I'm not familiar with the riots you mention, unless it's those of the mid 3d Century. The Gnostics had a tortuous creed, but generally did not believe in physical ressurection. In fact, for example, see Dr. M. D. Magee:
"Gnosticism held that the world was created by the Demiurge, offspring of the true God and Sophia, who was the Yehouah of the old Testament. God pitied humanity and sent Christ to help them reunite with Himself. Some held that Jesus had been a man and the Christ His spirit after death."
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0770Gnostics.html

On whether the Nicean vote constituted "deification," maybe we're debating semantics here. My point is that the fact that the vote was so close--despite the fact that the conclave had been purged of any voices thought to be even remotely "heretical," proves there was significant debate about the assertion even then; a debate which has been wholly suppressed ever since.

[papau]

28. a father and son both as God

In 91 AD we have Pope Clement I refering to his Bible which was the old testament plus what was in effect a "Gospel" although he does not call it that - indeed the additions are so valid the source was a given for anyone living at the time - and Clement does not not try to identify where the parts of his Bible that are the sayings and doings of Jesus were originally writtem. He also refers to several of Paul's epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The riots I refer to are not the famous riots of the late 3rd century and the 4th century, but instead are those of the 2nd Century when Gnostic groups appeared with a belief in "light", its manifestation in human, human mythical guidance, sending the darkness out from the body, AND Christainity! The The Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi Library is dated around 180 AD http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/tripart.htm and reads of a father and son both as God. The secret - and GNOSTIC means knowing the secret truth - was the the Holy Spirit was not truly part of the trinity. And indeed the first paragraphs of the Tripartite Tractate so state. Later ideas - revelation was part of the ongoing Gnostic movement - sent other ideas into the group - but it started as simply a challenge to the Trinity. The demiurge, Sophia, Mother Wisdom (as the Church in Turkey is named - the wisdom of God), and the unknown Most High God, along with Gnostic sects that held Jesus had been a man and the Christ His spirit after death - are ideas that followed the initial God And Son - but not holy spirit - idea that began things - at least that is how I remember it! :-) .

"Delphic" uses "rules of evidence" and logic by definition - and again I believe it is not appriopiate to getting what the Jesus group thinks it is getting (This could be a 1000 page post on this topic, but let's keep DU more or less as a political board! :-)

Back when we had quite a few popes - with priests sent out that were loyal to their specific pope - (we are down to only 3 popes and an ArchBishop of Canterbury at the moment) - the Eqyptian pope was the Patriarch of Alexandria (now Pope of the Coptic Orthodox of Alexandria, and the riots I refer to occurred around the time of Tripartite Tractate was written down under the Patriarch of Alexandria. (I am doing this from 50 year ago studies remembered only slightly, so the thrust I am sure of, but the details are most certainly not totally correct)


Now Mark the Evangelist (1st century) is traditionally believed to be the author of the Gospel of Mark, drawing much of his material from Peter. He is often identified with the John, surnamed Mark that accompanied Paul and Barnabas in the first journey of Paul, but was left behind (and Barnabas stayed too) for the second, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. He is also the first Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, Egypt.

The riots of the "early" 3rd century I thought dealt with 254 and the "Era of the Martyrs

The later 3rd century and 4th century riots I thought were the Arian riots.

[Merlin]

35. Ain't this a whole lot more fun than...

the current state of the political situation!:-)

Thanks for your interesting thoughts.

[aneerkoinos]

26. Gnosis

Does not mean secret or true knowledge. Gnosis means redemption from the Powers (=ignorance, separateness, dualism, worldly illusions) ie. giving up belief in dualistic conseptual "knowledge" in order to gain direct mystical (=what cannot be explicated) gnosis and holistic union with undefinable God. Compare with 'Enlightment'.

So, basically same as Indian philosophy, but it can be debated whether Gnosticism is closer to Brahmanism or Buddhism. IMO Buddhism.


PS: I don't know what you mean by Delphi technique, but AFAIK respectable eksegetics apply standard common sense philological methodology, with all the usual words of caution. And scientific truth is the majority opinion of the scientific opinion at any given time. That is indeed the very definition of the (inherently falsifiable) scientific truth.

[papau]

29. My Greek is very poor - and forgotten - but I believe that back

in the second century it did indeed mean secret knowledge - albeit of how to get to 'Enlightment'

[aneerkoinos]

38. Greek

Gnosis means simply knowledge, same Indoeuropean root as Latin gnoscere, English know. AFAIK Gnostics did not call themselves by that name, that is later academic nomination. I'm not sure about Gnosticism, but at least Hermeticism had esoteric initiatory system, perhaps that is where the idea about secret knowledge comes from.

[papau]

40. I think you are correct re esoteric initiatory

:-)

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. I have not read the book...

But now I know that it is simply retreaded and tarted up Merovingean Mythos stuff. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and all that. Started by a French con man from Rennes le Chateau, France, to make himself into some kind of Jesus-descended royalty.

Frankly, it is all quite fascinating, but keep your bullshit filter tuned up and on its highest setting.

[KittyWampus]

41. What A Lovely, Concise Post.

interesting thread, actually.

[Khephra]

15. My thoughts on the matter:

1 - I agree that The Code is a badly written novel, however, I also feel that it's struck a cord with some people and it's opened their minds up to possibilities of a different type of Christianity that they might never have encountered without The Code. That "opening up" of these readers is what has so many fundies up in arms about the book. Once the flock starts thinking for themselves when it comes to religion then the position of the Preacher and Pope are in danger.

2- Yep, much of this is old hat to many of us. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and the recent adult comics "Preacher" and "Rex Mundi" are just a few of the modern works that have touched upon similar Mary-Bloodline plots. Those of us familiar with Gnosticism know about the plot from older sources and legends.

3 - I'm against anyone banning books--any books. And I'm especially against it happening when it is being enacted by a Church and State working hand-in-hand.

[jmcgowanjm]

19. It's right in front of me,I'm on p 301

No one has mentioned the Feminine Diety
part here. Or that the Church actively engaged
in witch hunting. To wipe all feminine traces out

My God is a female.

My theory is that the matriarchals discovered planting.
That guarding the grain stores required masculine
and we went down from there.

And anytime someone talks about Fibonacci Sequences,
I'm interested.

[jmcgowanjm]

20. Oh, and that Opus Dei is a whacked out organization n/t

[chenGOD]

21. At least they didn't put out a bounty on his head like Rushdie....

Never read the DaVinci code, heard mixed reviews about it. I might read it if a friend lends it to me.

I did like "The Satanic Verses" a lot. Does "the DaVinci Code" compare?

[Politicub]

36. The Bible is insulting to Bush's version of Christianity

Perhaps it should be banned, too.

[Catfight]

39. I think the bible is insulting, period. All religion leads to persecution.

[QC]

46. And atheism has a great track record on human rights,

as long as you overlook Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Dan Brown is one of the worst writers out there.

I can only assume the appeal of his books is due to his readers' ignorance of history. On the one hand, there are the atrocious "Left Behind" books, which are a perversion of Christian teaching, on the other, Dan Brown's mishmash of Christian conspiracies. Both have some truth but, equally, both mislead the reader.

[Ilsa]

49. Well, that's an interesting twist...

"...Christianity is not about forgiveness to the point of insulting Jesus Christ."

Uh, I thnk the New Testament is about Christianity and forgiveness to the pointing of crucifying Christ (etc). Or did I miss the point of Sunday School?