« Talking Points Memogate | Main | Answering The Gullible »

Throwing the Book at Cardinal Bertone

Last week, Catholic Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone urged Catholics to not read "The Da Vinci Code," saying it was full of "cheap lies" and that it aims to "discredit the Church and its history." Cardinal Bertone is a close friend and advisor to the Pope.

Now, I've read "The Da Vinci Code." Maybe it's because I'm not Catholic, but I didn't see what the big deal was. It was OK, but nothing to write home about. I've read a couple other Biblicly-themed thrillers (Richard Ben Sapir's "The Body" and Warren Murphy's "Quest," to name a couple ones I particularly enjoyed), but I didn't see the big deal.

But if Cardinal Bertone wants to extend his authority from Catholic theology to literary criticism, I suggest he turn his gaze first to his own organization's primary publication -- the Bible. There are a few things in there that could use a little attention and clarification, if not outright correction.

(Author's note: at this point, this piece could very well veer into Catholic-bashing, and even general Christian-bashing. In fact, it most likely will. With that in mind, I'm going to stuff it in the extended section, so readers who would rather not see it can easily avoid it.)

First off, Cardinal, let's look at the Book of Exodus. In particular, Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Later scholars have pretty much agreed that "witch" was a mistranslation; it should have been "poisoner." Now, killing poisoners is something most of us can agree on. But would you care to retract that, and issue some kind of apology or pardon for all those "witches" who have been tortured or killed over the centuries in the name of this verse? I think the only people who would be upset would be a few merchants in Salem, Massachusetts, who make a good living off the city's historical witch trials.

Secondly, let's look at the Song of Songs (also known as the Song Of Solomon). Chapter 7, Verse 2 reads "Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies."

Now, I've read that in ancient Hebrew, vowels were omitted from written versions. And further, the words for "navel" and "vagina" are indistinguishable when written, as they differ only in their vowels. Which body part do you think is more likely to referred to by a lover as "a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine?" I tell ya, if MY lover had a navel that produced liquids, I'd rush her to the hospital.

Finally, Cardinal, let's look at the New Testament. Both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke give the lineage of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-38). Matthew traces Jesus from Joseph through King David back to Abraham, while Luke goes all the way back to Adam. But here's the odd part: in the middle, they don't agree. (PDF of Excel spreadsheet Download file">here.) Which is correct, or somehow are they both correct?

Cardinal, when you can answer these questions about your own book, then I'll listen to your criticisms of others -- especially since "The Da Vinci Code" is labeled as fiction, while yours is plugged as "the infallible word of God."

J.


Comments (39)

Part of the problem is the ... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Part of the problem is the Da Vinci code story relies on Gnostic versions of the Gospels which the Church declared as apostate. Second is that part of the story also indicates that Christ didn't die on the cross and went on to have children with Magdelene and was the reason for the claim of Divinity by many of Europe's royalty.

Kinda takes on the whole resurrection aspect which is the basis for most Christianity.

I was rasied Catholic but at best would be described as Agnostic at this point. The Da Vinci code does make claims that are directly opposed to formal Catholic teachings.

Now, whether the Church's position is based on theology or based on maintaining power is another discussion. Not trying to defend or attack the Catholic Church here, but I understand "why" the book would bug them.

Dear Cardinal Bertone,... (Below threshold)

Dear Cardinal Bertone,

IT'S FICTION!!!!

Devoutly,

Former Cathloic

Quite true. For someone wh... (Below threshold)
George:

Quite true. For someone who is not Catholic and who doesn't believe what Catholics believe, the book is no "big deal."

Because the book is a work ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Because the book is a work of fiction that, as does Howard Dean, uses Holy Scripture to further a fictious plot.

On a lesser harmful level but equal display, the practice(s) involved are akin to those who wear crucifixes as jewelry, use them as decorations, while having no sacred reference or understanding of what the crucifix is.

Not crosses, but actual crucifixes, rosaries and other relics in some plastic sense.

I don't believe that Cathol... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I don't believe that Catholics should go so far as to not read the book, however, but I can understand why the Bishop would so declare, since he's there to represent an official perspective. As in, to anyone who represents the Church, the book would not be recommended or even advised information.

It's important for people to perceive the Bishop's statements within his position of reference/representation of the Church.

There are other Christians, ministers included, who have also spoken out for similar reasons, if not mirror image reasons, to what the Bishop has expressed.

Rather, the Cardinal, not t... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Rather, the Cardinal, not the Bishop, sorry.

But, Jay, please place the Cardinal in proper perspective and when doing so, it's possible to understand that he represents a theology that you don't accept but that he poses an authority about. Becausae of that, his authority within a theoloy, his position about this work of fiction is significant as to the theology about which he speaks and represents.

Maybe it's because I'm n... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Maybe it's because I'm not Catholic, but I didn't see what the big deal was.

I think that's exactly the reason you don't see a problem. You're not Catholic. Not trying to be a jerk, I just think that if you were a Catholic - and were educated in the faith, you would see the problems.

I haven't read the Da Vinci Code, admittedly, but I've read Angels & Demons by Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code author). It's filled with errors presented as fact and is on the whole one big bash against the Church.

Here's a good reference to the problems in the Da Vinci Code.

I think what the Cardinal did was wrong. But I can understand why he did it. Many Catholics, unfortunately, aren't educated enough in their faith to refute much of what is in Brown's books. His books can leave you confused as to what the truth is.

What the Cardinal should have done is urged all Catholics to become educated in the lies and half-truths Brown puts forth as "facts".

Bashing the Bible on Holy T... (Below threshold)
julie:

Bashing the Bible on Holy Thursday. You're going to hell, Jay. I do hope to see equal time in that you cover the many inspring passages in the Bible. (And this, from an atheist, no less.)

Make that "inspiring."... (Below threshold)
julie:

Make that "inspiring."

JayTea-I'm not a Cat... (Below threshold)

JayTea-
I'm not a Catholic, but I HATED the book. However, I can't see the Bishop telling us not to read the book, except from the standpoint that it's horrible writing and inaccurate and a waste of time.
That said, Trying to draw an analogy between a work of fiction and a work that many people believe to be the divine word of God, gets into pretty tricky territory.
That isn't a fair comparison.

Jay, as someone who isn't C... (Below threshold)

Jay, as someone who isn't Catholic, you sure do like to bash Catholics even when what you're really doing is bashing other poeople

Jay, Catholics don't believe in LITERAL translation of the scripture. Let me point out mistakes in your little fold.

Catholics never burnt witches at the stake. To be sure, we burnt people at the stake for not believing during the Inquisition, but that was an ugly period of human history, and the corruptable humans damaged the church. You are talking about Protestants, usually fundamentalists who take everything from the bible literally (no matter how much it contradicts itself).

Your point about the Song of Solomon is valid, but Jay, where are you getting your translation for the Bible? The King James version or the Catholic version? I'm sure both use this translation due to the graphic nature of the Song of Solomon, it's basically a whole book about sex, so in a way, the humans who translated this book decided to censor a bit.

Tsk, Jay, you really don't know squat do you? Each Gospel was written for different reasons. Why else would we NEED four different versions of the same story? Let me break it down by each gospel.
Matthew: Matthew was a jew himself and he was writing to show the jews. That is why in his Gospel, he makes mention of all the old prophecies (notably mostly from Isaiah), and he traces Jesus' lineage back to Abraham, because Abraham is recognized as the father of the Jewish people (and faith).
Mark Luke: Luke was writing more towards converting the gentiles (everyone who wasn't a Jew). He traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam to show his relation to everyone, not just the Jews. Oh, and don't expect them both to be the same for it is quite possible that they each made a mistake in their research. Anyways, Luke was a doctor whose stories of Jesus mainly lies in the miracles that he performed.
It is also extremely likely that Luke was the author of Acts of the Apostles, judging by the way the story flows from the Gospel of Luke and into Acts.
John: John's gospel is the only one that is not chronological. John's gospel was written last, and is the one with the most theologic references. Just to clarify, John also wrote Revelations.

The cardinal in question of course is in a position to try and tell people not to read anything that might hurt their faith. I agree he should have actually said "If you DO read the Da Vinci Code,please keep in mind that it is only fiction, and if you do have questions, please consult your priest"

CRAP i should have hit prev... (Below threshold)

CRAP i should have hit preview, but the html fucked up, I need to edit the html of that, please :(

Witches: I believe there a... (Below threshold)
Drew:

Witches: I believe there are enough other verses in the bible (if you bother to read the whole thing rather than quoting random passages) to condem witchcraft if that's your purpose. Strike one.

Solomon: WTF is your question? Strike two.

Conflicting geneologies: One is through Mary, the other through Joseph. I would hope that even you have different geneologies through each of your parents, but then it's possible you don't.

Am I now qualified to bash the DaVinci Code?

Matthew: Matthew was... (Below threshold)

Matthew: Matthew was a jew himself and he was writing to show the jews. That is why in his Gospel, he makes mention of all the old prophecies (notably mostly from Isaiah), and he traces Jesus' lineage back to Abraham, because Abraham is recognized as the father of the Jewish people (and faith).
Mark:Mark's Gospel was probably written the first. It is the shortest, containing few (if any) outside references and is just a story of the man named Jesus.
Luke: Luke was writing more towards converting the gentiles (everyone who wasn't a Jew). He traces Jesus' lineage back to Adam to show his relation to everyone, not just the Jews. Oh, and don't expect them both to be the same for it is quite possible that they each made a mistake in their research. Anyways, Luke was a doctor whose stories of Jesus mainly lies in the miracles that he performed.
It is also extremely likely that Luke was the author of Acts of the Apostles, judging by the way the story flows from the Gospel of Luke and into Acts.
John: John's gospel is the only one that is not chronological. John's gospel was written last, and is the one with the most theologic references. Just to clarify, John also wrote Revelations.

I understand the point the ... (Below threshold)
Kabuzz52:

I understand the point the cardinal is trying to make. I am not Catholic, but the book does go out of the way to bash Catholic teaching and Chrisianity in general. The whole point of Jesus Christ is the son of God is he rose from the dead, not sneak off and have a family with Mary M. I can go on, but to sum up, the book stunk and I realized half-way in Brown had issues.

If you read the Cardinal's ... (Below threshold)

If you read the Cardinal's comments in their entirety on zenit.org instead of relying on CNN, you'll find that his point was much the same as the one raised by many of his detractors in the comments prior to this one: He was concerned that people were reading this work of fiction and believing it was real.

So, to clarify, his point was also, "Hey, its only fiction!" He also suggested it shouldn't be read because it is full of half-baked slander, which in the context now provided, doesn't sound all that hysterical.

Cardinal, when you can a... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Cardinal, when you can answer these questions about your own book, then I'll listen to your criticisms of others -- especially since "The Da Vinci Code" is labeled as fiction, while yours is plugged as "the infallible word of God."

Yes, the Code is labelled as "fiction", but is billed as "historical fiction", implying that while the plot line is fiction, the history is factual. And the Bible is not billed as "the infallible word of God". It is the "inspired word of God". Get it right before you go bashing it. Sheesh.

Okay, let's just start with... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Okay, let's just start with the fact that "Da Vinci Code" is FICTION. The issue I have with the books is that Brown writes as if what he is writing about is considered truth, when he is really just considering an alternate story idea.

I do think the books (I haven't read Da Vinci, I have read Angels and Demons) tend towards anti CAtholicism (I am not a Catholic, but if I was some of the stuff in there would have bugged me), but I am also an avid reader, and generally I realize that fiction is fiction, and a good read is a good read (and can I admit here that I don't think Brown is all that in his writing style, it is entertaining enough, but most of his plot seemed pretty implausible).

As for your quibbles with the Bible-what scholars are you refering to on the poisoner thing? Also, when you start quoting the OT, keep in mind that there are three basic types of laws in the OT, there is the basic moral laws, there are civics/state laws (when Moses wrote the law, keep in mind that God was about to establish them as a nation, and so he also provided basic civil law code) and then there are the ceremonial laws (these are things specific to the Jewish faith). Since we do not live in a theocracy, the civil code stuff isn't so applicable (although moral principles behind them would be, take the witch, while most of us wouldn't advocate killing witches, it is a bad idea for Christians/Hebrews to practice witchcraft, because God thinks it is wrong), and for Christians the ceremonial stuff no longer applies since the first generation Christians solved that one for us and determined that new converts did not have to become Jews first. That leaves Christians for being responsible for the basic moral laws and moral principles behind the civil codes.

Your Song of Soloman quote-honestly who cares on that one. The book is about two lovers after all, and about the joy of a physical relationship within the bounds of marriage, although there are greater spiritual applications, it is silly to argue that they aren't referencing a sexual relationship. Your question is silly and pretty much moot.

Your issue of the geneologies-generally it is believed that one geneology traced the line through Mary (Luke) the other through Joseph (Matthew), although this is up for debate. I am not sure that any major theology hangs in the balance here either.

As a Catholic the book anno... (Below threshold)

As a Catholic the book annoyed me because a lot of non-Catholics seemed to think it was true - not fiction.

What REALLY bugged me though was that I am a fan of Arthurian Literature (Holy Grail stuff) and he broke every single rule of the genre - a genre that has existed for centuries...

What conceit for him to place his alter ego in the Arthur position and then accomplish what no man has accomplished before - because only the pure could do so - and no man is pure... Arrgghhh

Henry, Just Me, I appreciat... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Henry, Just Me, I appreciate your responding to my questions, and I will give them fuller attention later (I'm sneaking around here at work), but I can't readily accept the "lineage through Mary" explanation, when both end at Joseph and Jesus. Sorry, just doesn't work for me that easily.

J.

'but I didn't see what the ... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

'but I didn't see what the big deal was.'

I think it was the implication that the Catholic church was run by a cabal of murderous criminals who are behind a heretical conspiracy to transform the teachings of Christ into a misogynist cult to control the world. Funny he didn't explain how he got the Protestants to go along with it too.

From a devout Catholic.... (Below threshold)

From a devout Catholic.

Like Henry said we do not believe in the Bible literally in the way evangelicals do, so your parsing of the old testament is moot.

I have read both books and they were no big deal to me because they were FICTION. But many protestants were taking it as real. I think that is why the Cardinal spoke out. But I don't think he is speaking for the Church. It is his opinion.

My Gosh, it's not the first or last time fiction and nonfiction will be written about the Church that is not true.

Where is the Gospel of Jesu... (Below threshold)
Darby:

Where is the Gospel of Jesus? I mean all the disciples wrote books about the works of Jesus. Where is His book in the bible? One would think that if He wanted to teach the masses, He would add His own words to the bible.

Jay--I recommend t... (Below threshold)
Jim:

Jay--

I recommend this website which does a good job in explaining your slams, er, questions about the Bible.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX

As a Catholic, I know that many Catholics have the same misconceptions you have. I know people who have read The DaVinci Code who say things like, "Gee, I didn't know Jesus was married." While I don't think any thoughtful person should be dissuaded from reading this vastly overrated book, I do think there is a danger in this type of thing.

I have read both books a... (Below threshold)
Sean:

I have read both books and they were no big deal to me because they were FICTION. But many protestants were taking it as real.

Exactly the point. I'm Catholic, I know my Church history and teachings, and so I just found Angels & Demons annoying (haven't read Da Vinci yet).

My Gosh, it's not the first or last time fiction and nonfiction will be written about the Church that is not true.

Too true, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is the fact that the book is billed as historical fiction. That implies that the storyline is fiction but the underlying "history" of the Church is fact or at least based on fact. Therein lies my very big problem with Dan Brown and his books.

Come now, the biggest probl... (Below threshold)
andy:

Come now, the biggest problem with Brown's book is that - well - he's just not a very good writer.

There is no point being pat... (Below threshold)
Cantankerous Callinectes:

There is no point being patient, no point even to bother with somebody who won't budge an inch from his position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Nor is there a point in attempting a dialog with a smug condescending asshole who would be unable to appropriately distinguish "theory" from "fact".

Q: Are Paul's arguments regarding evolution right or are they wrong?
A: His arguments are so bad, they are neither.

Hopefully, this clears matters up for the Commisar and others who futilely attempt rational discussion with the irrational among us.

"Come now, the biggest prob... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Come now, the biggest problem with Brown's book is that - well - he's just not a very good writer."

I have to agree. If action adventure type books are your thing, there are better authors to choose from.

And when I read Angels, I couldn't help but think as I read it that I was in some ways reading a screenplay for an action/suspense movie. Makes me think Brown had Hollywood in mind as he wrote.

Also, I don't know that the problem of belief comes so much from knowledgable protestants, but from the secular people, or C and E Christians, who don't read much of the Bible, and don't know much about church history.

Usually when authority figu... (Below threshold)
Amelia:

Usually when authority figures in the Church such as this Cardinal offer advice or a warning about something like this book, they are addressing members of their own Faith, in other words other Catholics. I do not really think the Cardinal was directing his words of caution at you in the first place, Jay. This is a discussion between a Cardinal and his own congregation and fellow Catholics.

If we chose not to read the book, it is really none of your business. With the exception of the very small number of Evangelicals, Catholics do not proselytize. What makes you think the Cardinal gives a rip whether or not you accept "his book"? Faith is a gift from God that some of us received and perhaps others did not. I think you greatly flatter yourself if you think the Cardinal owes you any sort of explanation of the Bible or anything else. And his advice to other Catholics is really none of your business, either.

He is issuing a warning about Di Vinci and advice for members of his own faith. You are not effected by it one way or another. You are just launching an unprovoked attack on the faith and beliefs of others and injecting your own opinion into advice from one of our spiritual leaders. Mind your own business, why don't you? You are not under any obligation to take his advice and are not likely even included in those to whom it is directed.

Since when did the Bible become the property or responsibility of one Cardinal? Why do you think he would even care if you read it, believe it or not? I seriously doubt that he does. Don't believe it if you do not want to, take it literally, disregard it entirely or accept the traditional interpretations offered by the Church. Who cares? Up to you. No one is forcing anything on you at all and certainly not this Cardinal whom you have targeted for this unwarranted attack.
He's not talking to you, Jay, so you can relax. He has his own with whom to be concerned. And the interpretations of the Scriptures offered by the Catholic Church have had just a tad more thought and scholarship invested in them than your comments. I think I shall stick with the Church's explanations as they do seem a bit more polished than your childish questions and arrogance that you are even capable of challenging centuries old dogma, studies and people who have devoted their lives down through the ages to these things. Trust me, your little queries are not going to cause any of them to lose sleep.
Amelia

I am a Christian, not a Cat... (Below threshold)

I am a Christian, not a Catholic, but I felt I should comment on your concerns.

I disagree with what the Cardinal said. It is stupid for someone to try to order people not to read a fiction book, however Brown did insinuate that while the story was fiction it came from real events, which is blatently false. Google and you can find dozens of books refuting the claims.

As to your examples of mistakes in the Bible.

First, as a Christian I believe the original manuscripts to be "the infallible Word of God," but it is impossible to think that today's version are the equivilant to the original because of the shift from one language to another. We simply don't have all the words to match the Greek and Hebrew language (ex. we only have love, the Greek language had 3 different words to describe three different types of love). But they are remarkablely accurate (well over 95%, better than any other book of it's time) and no major theological issue is in doubt.

As for your specific accounts. On Exodus 22:18, I am wondering how it is "pretty much agreed that "witch" was a mistranslation." I use the NASB, which many scholars say is probably the most accurate word for word translation availabe and it translates the word to "sorceress." It probably depends on the "scholar" you ask. Many scholars who already have their mind made up that the Bible is wrong or just stories, will say things like that to discount scripture.

In Song of Songs, that whole book as has already been said is basically a love poem between a husband and wife full of imagery that makes no sense to us today. There are countless examples in the books of compliments that would sound stupid today (ex. hair like a flock of sheep).

As to the geneologies in Matthew and Luke, the suggestion of Mary and Joseph has already been given. I don't think it can be so quickly dismissed because it ends with Joseph because the Jews were basically only concerned with the male ancestors, so they would probably not have ended with Mary as the last name. It could also show the physical ancestory as opposed to the lineage ancestory. In most cases when a Jewish husband dies and leaves no children, the next brother was to come along and father a child that would be considered the deceased brother's child (all other children would be the current husband's, but the first born was considered the son of the dead husband). This could also be a possible explanation to the issue.

I hope this helps you with your questions. If you have any more I would love to discuss them. I surely do not have all the answers, but this is one of my favorite things to discuss.

Have a blessed Easter!

"I disagree with what the C... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"I disagree with what the Cardinal said. It is stupid for someone to try to order people not to read a fiction book, however Brown did insinuate that while the story was fiction it came from real events, which is blatently false."

I agree with this.

The Cardinal would have done better to have told members who read the books and had questions to discuss them with their priest, than to tell them to avoid the book entirely.

Sometimes books like these, that while factually incorrect, can be a good place to start for people who have questions about events and doctrines.

But then I understand that fiction is fiction and sometimes even nonfiction is fiction.

CANTANKEROUS! You are posti... (Below threshold)
julie:

CANTANKEROUS! You are posting in the wrong thread. Or, are you doing that on purpose? Maybe Paul is right, you are all nuts.

I agree with what Sean expr... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I agree with what Sean expressed, early on in this thread, and also Henry, Rightwingsparkle and Jim...(thanks)...

And that is that there are many persons who really do need directives such as this, who associate as Catholics but remain secular (not just Catholics, that's a condition among many Christian organizations by some, just saying that a lot of people really do depend on firm leadership and a delineated set of 'rules' and such that they're influenced otherwise by humanism and the secular if not also the profane, such that the Cardinal's statement is necessary inorder to clarify position and lack of regard for this fictional work)...

The book (and others) are trendy and receive a lot of media focus, unfortunately. I write, 'unfortunately,' because it's easy by media exposure to mislead people about what is truth in a religous sense and what isn't and here you have people authoring works of fiction employing Biblical names and identities and then weaving those into and toward fictional conclusions and, presto, gullible or even academically unsophisticated persons are misled.

I value what the Cardinal said and easily understand why he issued the statements he did and why and don't at all find anything in what he's said offensive or presumptuous or even annoying. Not like it's a bother to me to take his directive and insights into consideration, is what I mean.

I am a Catholic and I have read many times and overheard even more times persons of Protestant association asking for guidance and such in understanding some aspect to this book, as if it was an instructional work (which it isn't).

Jay, if you want explanations about Scripture, have questions about passages and more, then you might consider attending a Bible study group.

Actually, in Judaism, the m... (Below threshold)
Red Five:

Actually, in Judaism, the mother is just as important in the lineage as the father. IIRC, one can't be considered Jewish unless your mother was Jewish; dad doesn't matter here. Note that Rahab and Ruth are both noted in Jesus' lineage; even more important is the fact that neither one of them was Jewish!

Aaron, New Testament Greek actually has 4 different words for love: eros, where we get our word erotic (no further explanation necessary); agape, the word for God's love for us; philos, as in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love; and storge, which is a rather obscure word basically describing parental love for offspring.

Exodus 22:18: the NIV also translates the word as sorceress; NIV is generally regarded as more accurate to the thoughts and ideas of the original manuscripts, rather than word-for-word accurate.

As to the genealogies: Matthew and Luke rub them in opposite directions, for starters. And as has already been mentioned, Luke runs his all the way back to Adam, whereas Matthew only runs as far back as Abraham. Since Matthew was writing to other Hebrews, and Luke was writing to Greeks (possibly one in particular; look at Theophilus), there would be differences in the focus and range of the writing.

Finally, the reason it is taken as fact that Luke wrote the Gospel bearing his name as well as the book of Acts is that he mentions the same name in the opening of both books, Theophilus. This might be an actual person, or simply a way to refer to a "God-lover". We may never know the answer to that question, but it's not important anyway.

OBTW, there is not a "Gospel of Jesus" because He was a rabbi, and rabbis didn't usually write down their own sayings, I think. That's what the scribes were for, in part. He didn't need His own Gospel anyway because He always intended His witnesses to spread the word, rather than He Himself.

Everything has been well di... (Below threshold)

Everything has been well discussed so far, so I can't add much.

I will point out though that even if your discrepancies arguments were valid (highly debatable, as evidenced by the thread), there's a difference between "discrepancies" and "deception". As in one may have been accidental, the other is purposeful.

Quite a few books have been written (by Catholics and Protestants) that do quite well in discrediting the "facts" asserted by the DaVinci Code. There are in fact so many deceptions, that refuting them requires separate books.

That's a far cry from a (possible) mistranslation, a (potential) prudish censorship, and discrepancies between to geneaology accounts.

On the other hand I understand the point made about Church censorship of the book, I don't agree with it (not that I have to, i'm not catholic).

Err, me again. I just notic... (Below threshold)

Err, me again. I just noticed how you asserted that "you've read" vowels were omitted in ancient Hebrew - but I don't believe that's correct. I know that in certain words the vowels were omitted - such as what we would pronounce as Yahweh - the word for LORD.

The scribes and priests had such a reverence for God that they wouldn't even pronounce the word completely nor write it out completely. That's a far cry from having a complete written language that omits all vowels.

I think you may need to re-read some information before you put forth that assertion.

I'm just curious if you've ... (Below threshold)

I'm just curious if you've actually studied any Christian theology. The Tora, (including Exodus), is generally thought of as both a chronicle of Earth's history and a direct word to the Jewish people of the time.

And the Puritan's who incurred the Salem Witch Trials had other things going on.

SoS is a very sexual book, but I fail to see what your point is. That Christian's should watch more sexual things on TV or something?

The Lineage of Jesus, however, has been talked about for a long time. For more, look here.

Now I think it interesting that a Cardinal would tell people not to read the Da Vinci Code, but its not like its outrageous advice for a religious leader to suggest people not participate or partake in something they find particularly bad. I'll give you that in this case its for the Catholic Church's sake, and not the people attending, but that doesn't change the principal itself which you seem to have disdain for.

Just thought I'd try and shed some light on the things you brought up.

Also, <a href="http://www.t... (Below threshold)

Also, this is a much quicker explaination of why the lineage isn't a problem.

"Err, me again. I just noti... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

"Err, me again. I just noticed how you asserted that "you've read" vowels were omitted in ancient Hebrew - but I don't believe that's correct"

Actually ancient Hebrew was without vowels, but there were ways to figure out what vowel sound you were supposed to use (sorry I am not a Hebrew scholar, but my husband knows rudimentary Biblical Hebrew).

Also, you dirived the meaning from context as well.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy