Cult of Dan Brown: Faith, Religion & History

heh, I love how the author gets a chance to attack Protestants, too.

Anyways, the authors first claim, for any who have not read the article, is that no "serious Catholic" can believe this. As he doesn't really use any evidence, I am going to dismiss that part.

A second claim is that there is no evidence of the Knights Templar being founded by any group that reveres Mary Magdalene. He/She says that this information is from "several serious sources", which remain unnamed. In this, he has a point, though there are some books which do support Dan Brown's claims, which the author has ignored (ex: The Templar Revelation, by Clive and Picknett).

Another claim is that if Brown says that Jesus was not divine, then, Mary's child cannot have been divine, eithor, nor was she. i don;t believe Dan Brown ever stated either Mary Magdalene or Sarah to be immortal or divine, so, while a good argument, this is largely irrelevant.

Next, the author presents a history of the Council of Nicaea. While I would have to say that parts of his argument fall short--after all, if 5 people, the martyrs he mentioned, believed in Christ's divinity, that doesn't mean every Christian (if I can use the term) did--his research is rather good. The Council was convened to deal with the heretical ideas of Arius and the vote was not close, though Dan Brown states that it was.

The author then goes on to talk about the Gnostic Gospels. He states that they were written about "50-75 years later" than the accepted ones. This is simply not true. Some were written as many as 100 years later, but some were written earlier. Lumping them together like that is innacurate. I would agree, though, with his claim that Dan Brown did a good amount of lumping together as well, attributing to all the gospels what is only found in some. I cannot comment on the claims about the nature of gnosis, because, frankly, I don;t know. My own research there has been minimal, and from online sources i do not entirely trust. As for the claim that the 4 accepted gospels were such by the 2nd century, it is a question of accepted by whom? They were popular, but so were the others, among many 'heretical' groups.

Under the heading Old Myths, the author goes on to say that only about "1400-1700" people were burned as witches, rather than 7 million. This is actually partly true, since few of the alleged witches were burned. Most were hanged. As fof the number, the current estimate is anywhere between 100,000 and 7 million. It all depends on the sourse, though most of the more credible sources agree with the smaller estimate.

Following this are a few paragraphs about the Templars. The author is right; it was Philip IV, called Philip the Fair of France, and not a pope, who was the mastermind behind their destruction. As for the number of Templars killed or what symbols they created and gods they worshipped, the numbers I do not know, and as for the symbols and gods, no one really knows. Theories abound, but I have seen no conclusive proof of this matter.

Following is an attack of the list of Grand Masters supplied. For this, we cannot blame Dan Brown. The list exists, and has been documented in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and a few other books. It may or may not be a fabrication, there is no proof of anything other than the fact that such as list exists, though i would credit the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" for their extensive research into every member of the list; I found this to be the best part of that book, and the most credible component.

Following is a brief denial of Mary Magdalene's alleged appearance in "The Last Supper" All I can say is, who knows?? The author is right, it can be freely believed or denied...

Following is an absolutely true statement that one cannot lump Freemasons, Kabbalists, and members of other groups together, though the statement is somewhat obscured by the authors desire to compare members of these organizations to demons. Also, he/she is able to slip in yet another anti-Protestant remark. I, for one, would pay a lot more attention to the arguments without these slurs....

In the conclusion, the author states that the book was written for two reasons: shock value and the destabilization of Catholicism. I think that the destabilization is a cause for books such as this, and not an effect, but this is beyond the point. The author adds a plea that people not see "Black as white" and that they not believe this book. No proof here, just beliefs.

Overall, the author made a few very good claims, but his haranguing got in the way, as did his refusal to credit or even mention the opposing opinion.

--------------------
"Your life is yours alone, rise up and live it" ~Terry Goodkind

Post Extras: