It was an enjoyable read. And interesting. I guess now I understand why all the Christians are so agitated about it. But maybe it's just because they're worried that it's true.
Dan Brown has a good point about the subjectivity of what went into the gospels, but his intellectual dishonesty about the book has ruined it for me. His title page asserts all sorts of unfactual things as fact (the existence of the Priory of Sion, for example), which is one reason the book has sold as well as it has. But when he's confronted with this, he hides behind the fact that it's a novel, so he can say things are true that aren't true.
Well, yes, there's that. But at least it has spurred conversations about the arbitrary nature of Biblical literalism, especially when it comes to the gospels. And that's a good thing.
2 comments:
Dan Brown has a good point about the subjectivity of what went into the gospels, but his intellectual dishonesty about the book has ruined it for me. His title page asserts all sorts of unfactual things as fact (the existence of the Priory of Sion, for example), which is one reason the book has sold as well as it has. But when he's confronted with this, he hides behind the fact that it's a novel, so he can say things are true that aren't true.
Well, yes, there's that. But at least it has spurred conversations about the arbitrary nature of Biblical literalism, especially when it comes to the gospels. And that's a good thing.
Post a Comment