"The Truth at the Heart of the Da Vinci Code" by Elaine Pagels

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomarin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tomarin

Guest
I found this npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5422879 quite hilarious because of its conspiratorial tone. Sign of the times we live in, I suppose. Comments, anyone?

*Archbishop Angelo Amato, a top Vatican official, recently railed against The Da Vinci Code as a work "full of calumnies, offenses and historical and theological errors.’’ As a historian, I would agree that no reputable scholar has ever found evidence of author Dan Brown’s assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, and no scholar would take seriously Brown’s conspiracy theories about the Catholic group Opus Dei.

But what is compelling about Brown’s work of fiction, and part of what may be worrying Catholic and evangelical leaders, is not the book’s many falsehoods.

What has kept Brown on the bestseller list for years and inspired a movie is, instead, what is true – that some views of Christian history were buried for centuries because leaders of the early Catholic Church wanted to present one version of Jesus’ life: theirs.
 
tomarin said:
I found this npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5422879 quite hilarious because of its conspiratorial tone. Sign of the times we live in, I suppose. Comments, anyone?

*Archbishop Angelo Amato, a top Vatican official, recently railed against The Da Vinci Code as a work "full of calumnies, offenses and historical and theological errors.’’ As a historian, I would agree that no reputable scholar has ever found evidence of author Dan Brown’s assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, and no scholar would take seriously Brown’s conspiracy theories about the Catholic group Opus Dei.

But what is compelling about Brown’s work of fiction, and part of what may be worrying Catholic and evangelical leaders, is not the book’s many falsehoods.

What has kept Brown on the bestseller list for years and inspired a movie is, instead, what is true – that some views of Christian history were buried for centuries because leaders of the early Catholic Church wanted to present one version of Jesus’ life: theirs.
Click to expand...
There is nothing said that is new- a lot of the cra- was known ages ago. She has an agenda- it’s called making more money from the books she has written.Ho Hum:shrug:
 
Your term.‘railed against.’ shows your agenda…why not say,his evaluation or his conclusions etc. DaVinci was of course a perfect role model for the Christ haters.Leonardo was arrested several times in the city of Florence,called even then.the scarlet lady,for it is much like Frisco today…he was arrested for molesting a teen…he later managed to ‘adopte’ a ten year old boy called Giacomo…and they had a quite 'close’relationship for years…Leonardo leaving the bulk of his estate to the boy he re-named…satans body!!! The various Gnostic accounts came from the enemies of the new religion and thus of course they were tossed as they should have been…after all in one supposed gospel it declared that only Men will be admitted into heaven and therefor women will have to be changed…see how ahead of their times these gnostics were…cross dressers and all…I think its getting rather boring to hear the haters dismiss the RCC as a large body of liars…I have never heard nor witnessed a person dieing for a lie knowing…knowing its a lie…nonsense…try again down the street to the secular humanist society…
 
I read the Da Vinci Load at the urging of an acquaintance. I’ll say this for it: it’s a textbook example not only of how to write suspense fiction, but how to play into the widespread hatred against the true Church.
 
juliamajor said:
There is nothing said that is new- a lot of the cra- was known ages ago. She has an agenda- it’s called making more money from the books she has written.Ho Hum:shrug:
Click to expand...
Probably true, but it may also be true that she believes what she’s saying, which is probably even more disturbing.

What I’d like to know is how someone with her credentials as a scholar (she was one of the original translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) could get what she’s talking about so spectacularly wrong. Isn’t there a logical contradiction between being a religious relativist and claiming that orthodox christianity is wrong (presumably because it came about as the result of power, specifically male power)?

Or to put it a different way, what makes her think gnostic christianity is superior to orthodox christianity, or that it is compatible with today’s liberal politics?
 
tomarin said:
Probably true, but it may also be true that she believes what she’s saying, which is probably even more disturbing.

What I’d like to know is how someone with her credentials as a scholar (she was one of the original translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) could get what she’s talking about so spectacularly wrong. Isn’t there a logical contradiction between being a religious relativist and claiming that orthodox christianity is wrong (presumably because it came about as the result of power, specifically male power)?

Or to put it a different way, what makes her think gnostic christianity is superior to orthodox christianity, or that it is compatible with today’s liberal politics?
Click to expand...
Her fame doesn’t necessarily have to do with her scholarship but her publicity agent! Take the Jesus Seminar(pleaseee!) you got a couple of publicity hounds and a lot of invisible folk.Most of the most famous schools of Divinity and theology were not asked in. Only like minds wanted! That’s not true scholarship whatever the may say. then they contact the media in all forms, push their theories and Voila’ money comes pouring in.Controversy(no matter how artificial )sells. The whole problem is if you read books by Ehrman, Crossan,Funk or the others you become aware that none of this is new! these kinds of discussions have been around for millenia ! Great publicity and scandal mongering might make you rich and famous and you might become “the oracle” to media and masses, but it doesn’t make you a scholar or correct! the vast majority of theologian and biblical scholars are really not that extreme- that’s why these guys stand out like sore thumbs. With a few exceptions most of the jesus seminar are former Fundamentalist and Evangelicals who lost their faith in the Bible because of the literalist stand that is taken.So if one of their literal views doesn’t pan out their beliefs fall like a House of Cards! So beware of both extremes!😉
 
So taxpayers have to pay for this article as it was picked up by NPR? UGH!!!

She doesn’t even have the story of the Qumran right.

I get the feel as if this article was written by an 8th grade girl writing her first article for the school paper and is really overdoing it.

~RSF
 
And is she really one of the original translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or is this just a claim?

And how on earth would that accomplishment make her any more correct in HER Biblical interpretation than the entire Magisterium?
 
RedSoxFan said:
So taxpayers have to pay for this article as it was picked up by NPR? UGH!!!

She doesn’t even have the story of the Qumran right.

I get the feel as if this article was written by an 8th grade girl writing her first article for the school paper and is really overdoing it.

~RSF
Click to expand...
She’s actually hard on Christianity but an apologist for Islam. Lots of clinkers in that book!:eek:
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
And is she really one of the original translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls, or is this just a claim?
Click to expand...
Yes, she really is. See here books.google.com/books?id=SbofAAAAIAAJ&dq=elaine+pagels&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0
And how on earth would that accomplishment make her any more correct in HER Biblical interpretation than the entire Magisterium?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t know either. From what I’ve subsequently read about her, I don’t think she is ever completely up-front about these things in her books. Clearly she doesn’t believe the early Church had the right to combat what it perceived as heretical movements (or “alternative Christianities”) and she seems to believe in an inclusive Christianity that would find a place for gnosis in its practices and beliefs. And she also seems to find a link between the gnostic Christianity of the Nag Hammadi scrolls and contemporary feminist politics (“the Catholic Church and its patriarchy”).

But apparently serious scholars find all this very speculative, if not pure fiction.

What bothers me is that people will read this article on the NPR website and NOT take it with a grain (or a boulder) of salt, being unaware that she is way, way out on a limb and being impressed with her credentials as a Princeton professor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top