|
|
|
|
Your right Deeej. I cant understand why everybody got so upset about the book when there were other books that should have been upsetting. Holy Blood/Holy Grail is one that comes to mind.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is another book much better than DiVinci code. Its Holy Blood/Holly Grail. Gives a lot of history and postulates the theory that Jesus fathered a child. The writers tell you up front that is just an idea a theory. I havent read the DiVinci code it was just more of what I had already read.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian,
>I cant understand why everybody got so upset about the book when there were other books that should have been upsetting. Holy Blood/Holy Grail is one that comes to mind.
As I understand it, (The) Holy Blood, (and the) Holy Grail was upsetting, and the only reason it is no longer terribly controversial is that it was published a while back (1982) and the churches and other historians have run out of unpleasant things to say about it.
I also understand -- though, as I haven't read it, I can't say with much personal authority -- that it has been widely discredited in much the same way as the Da Vinci Code, as it was based on forged documents, a hoax (the Priory of Sion does not exist), and flawed research. Many of the arguments against the Da Vinci Code also apply to Holy Blood, Holy Grail, precisely because Brown took most of his material from it. It's not an independent corroborating source.
"The reaction of the various churches to Holy Blood Holy Grail was actually a combination of outrage, derision and exasperation. This was not because the book had somehow uncovered a centuries-old attempt at suppression of information, but because its scholarship was so shoddy, its leaps of logic so wild and its piling up of conjecture and supposition so ridiculous that it was amazing that anyone could take it seriously."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Blood%2C_Holy_Grail
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I liked best about the book was the history of the Cathars and The Knights Templar. I was especialy wondering about the skylls they had and what their purpose was.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I'm knackered now; we've just gone through a three-and-a-half hour power cut. I've been obliged to consume a vast amount of malt whisky while the internet was unavailable and I was obliged to research by the light of a butane-gas lamp. Well, that's my excuse, anyway!
But (donning a tin hat and ducking below the parapet) I have to accept that the choice of books to be included in the New Testament was never the subject of formal discussion - it was more an accident of fate. The architect was Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria - who was indeed present at the Council of Nicea - but his instructions to his own Archdiocese were adopted without comment by the rest of the Christian Church.
And - just before I collapse in a heap on the floor - I must challenge Deeej's literary 'snobbery'. There is certainly a place for the 'easy read', and no real justification for condemning such novels on that account alone. In a thread a few months ago I defended Michael Jackson on the grounds that his 'Thriller' album was the best-selling album ever. Similarly, Dan Brown has created a publishing phenomenon, and it seems churlish to be critical of his success. I read for two distinct purposes - to increase my knowledge and to relax. Obviously, the books are different, but I appreciate them equally. If asked about the 'relaxation' books, I would have to say that, as a child and teenager, I was addicted to the 'Swallows and Amazons' series of novels by Arthur Ransome. As an adult, I have many favourites, but for sheer consistency (and for teaching me the meaning of 'thixotropic') I have never found anyone to beat the late Desmond Bagley. My father - 40 years my senior - loved him too!
If you think differently, post before midnight GMT tomorrow!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I agree 100%. The more I think about re-reading it the less appealing the whole premise of the book becomes.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... as promised! There's a huge amount of information (biased and unbiased) accessible through Google, but I've tried to summarise the important bits in a reasonably logical sequence - unbiased, and with some background explanations. If you want more detail, Google away to your heart's content, but allow at least six months for the exercise!
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament is essentially the same as the Hebrew Bible, which traditionally consisted of 24 books. In the Anglican Old Testament there are 39 books; this is simply because several single books of the Hebrew Bible are broken down into two or more books of the Old Testament. Some Old Testament books are arranged in a different order from the Hebrew originals.
Egypt was a major political force in the Middle East in the three centuries before the start of the Christian era. It was conquered by Alexander the Great, and subsequently ruled by a dynasty founded by his general Ptolemy. Greek became the prevalent language, even among Jewish residents, and there was a demand for a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The demand was met during the third to the first centuries BC. However, this Greek translation (there were others), known as the 'Septuagint', included additional writings not found in the Hebrew Bible. Some of these are additions to existing books of the Old Testament; others are wholly separate books. These additions are generally known as the 'Apocrypha' - 'Things hidden away'. Most Orthodox Churches include some or all of these additional writings as part of the Old Testament, as does the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther and his collaborators included the Apocrypha in the German translation of the Bible, published in 1534, but separated it from the Old Testament. Shortly afterwards, the Council of Trent confirmed that in the Roman Catholic Church the Apocrypha was an integral part of the Old Testament.
Versions of the Septuagint from the fourth and fifth centuries are the oldest surviving substantially complete copies of the Old Testament; the oldest surviving Hebrew copy was written more than five centuries later. This is the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, transcribed by a Jewish sect known as the Masoretes between 600 and 1000. It does not include the Apocryphal writings. The Old Testament of the King James Bible of 1611 is largely based upon this Masoretic Text. Following the lead of Luther's Bible, it included the Apocrypha but separated it from the Old Testament. Over the years, the word 'apocrypha' acquired a negative connotation, suggesting something probably untrue; the tale of George Washington and the Cherry Tree was described as apocryphal. Increasingly, English Language Bibles were printed without the Apocrypha. However, in recent years the validity of the Apocryphal Scriptures has been supported by corresponding elements in documents recently discovered, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are no contemporary written accounts of Jesus' life; at first, the Gospel was presumably handed down orally. The earliest sections of the New Testament are some of Paul's Epistles; the Epistle to the Thessalonians may date from only twenty years after the Crucifixion, but the earliest Gospel (Mark) did not appear until at least twenty years after that. Some scholars argue for earlier dates, but it seems signinficant that purely linguistic scholars tend to agree the dates quoted above, whilst the religious scholars are those who favour earlier dating. It is open to everyone to make up his own mind, but it does seem inherently unlikely that dialogue could have been orally transmitted with no loss of accuracy over a period of forty years or more. Furthermore, the linguistic scholars believe that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are based in part upon the earlier Gospel of Mark, and that the Acts of the Apostles is in fact a continuation of Luke's Gospel, written by the same author. John's Gospel is even later. We should also remember that the Romans, under the future Emperor Titus, invaded Jerusalem and destroyed Herod's Temple in 70, annexing Judea as a completely dependent Roman Province by 73. Such turbulent events must have caused a great deal of disruption throughout the area.
In 325, the Emperor Constantine, who was an extremely shrewd politician, though not himself a Christian until he was baptised just before his death, summoned the Christian Bishops to a Council at Nicea, on the Black Sea coast of modern Turkey. Constantine presided, but did not vote. Possibly as many as 318 Bishops attended - the records are inconsistent - and together with their Deacons an Presbyters the total attendance was probably around 1500. The hot topic was the Arian Heresy - I won't bore you with the details, but throughout its existence the Church has tended to lose itself in metaphysical issues at the expense of its ministry. One of the attendant bishops - Alexander of Alexandria - was a strong and outspoken critic of the Arians, and he won the day resoundingly. Among Alexander's entourage was the presbyter Athanasius - of whom more later! The next hot topic was the date of Easter - an issue that dogged the Church for centuries. Obviously, the logical date was the Sunday following the Jewish Festival of the Passover, but at this point the Jews were very much out of favour and the consensus was that Easter should be wholly dissociated from any sort of Jewish shenanigans. The Council decided on what, in modern terms, would be the Sunday next following the first Full Moon after 21 March (the Vernal Equinox) - but it approved a theoretical calculation of the moon's phases rather than an actual observation. Reading between the lines, this went above the heads of most of those present, and it was resolved that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be responsible for determining the date of Easter and distributing the glad tidings to the rest of the Christian world. At the time, the Greek Egyptians were the astronomical elite. As the Council was determined to move away from any connection with the Passover, we may wonder why it didn't simply settle for - say - the third Sunday in April, but it didn't, and we've been stuck with the complexities ever since. Even now, there are very occasionally years in which the theoretical moon is full the day before or the day after the real moon - in which case theory wins over reality!
What has this got to do with the books of the Bible, I hear you say! Be patient, lad, be patient! In 328, Athanasius - who, as mentioned above, was with Alexander at the Council of Nicea, succeeded his mentor as Patriarch of Alexandria. He was obviously a dogmatic and argumentative soul, as he was driven from office several times during a confrontational lifetime. However, it was his custom to issue a pastoral letter at the beginning of each year (unless of course he was in exile at the time!) This letter gave details of the date of Easter for the coming year, and was thus of great importance in the Christian world. His letter for 367 also specified a list of the 27 books he considered to form the canon of the Christian religion. Those are the 27 books in today's New Testament. There was no discussion, no agreement; it was simply a gradual acceptance of his view. Athanasius also approved some of the Apocrypha as 'reading material' for those seeking membership of the Christian Church, though such material was not to be regarded as scripture. But he dismissed out of hand any other Christian writings. We know from the historical record that Athanasius was argumentative and opinionated, so it seems logical to assume that he dismissed any text which did not reflect his views.
In recent years, a considerable number of fragments of early Christian writings not included in Athanasius's list have come to light, particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library. Several of these writings were mentioned by early Christian writers. In the final analysis, it's a question of belief, but the recorded dogmatic and argumentative behaviour of Athanasius must - at the very least - cast doubt upon his selection.
If you've read this far, I hope you've found the foregoing paragraphs interesting, and an unbiased summary of our present state of knowledge!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
OK, I accept that the authors fell for the Prieure de Sion hoax, and I'vegot no strong feelings on the descendants of Jesus issue - but the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau remains, and it's prettu damn' intriguing!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egypt bans Da Vinci Code, MP says film based 'on Zionist myth'
Egyptian authorities will confiscate copies of the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code and ban the film based on the book from showing in Egypt, the culture minister told parliament on Tuesday. To applause from members of parliament, minister Farouk Hosni said: "We ban any book that insults any religion ... we will confiscate this book."
Parliament was debating the book and film at the request of several Coptic Christian members who demanded a ban. Georgette Sobhi, a Coptic member, held up a copy of the book and the Arabic translation and said it contained material which was seriously offensive. "It's based on Zionist myths, and it contains insults towards Christ, and it insults the Christian religion and Islam," she said. (Reuters)
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13798
|
|
|
All this hype for a novel that was ok and a film that was overlong. What is the point?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said,
>What is the point?
Dog in the manger?
Sour grapes?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... damn' cunning, these Zionists!
Seriously, I had hoped that the days of book-burning were behind us.
The book was a good read as an example of the genre to which it belonged, and the author is not responsible for the film. OK, I can appreciate that Messrs. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln might feel a touch pissed of at the extent to which their book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' (US title: 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail') was used as source material, but nonetheless Dan Brown wove the material into what was never presented as anything other than a good story. Yes, some of the suggested 'facts' were invented - but hey, this was fiction! For example, as a language freak I knew that the suggestion that 'Rosslyn' as in Rosslyn Chapel (sometimes the word has only one 's') was linked to 'Rose Line' was absolute rubbish, but that didn't spoil the story for me.
I am reminded of a discussion we had a few months back about Michael Jackson. I am certainly not going to dismiss the talent of an artiste who made the best-selling album ever - even if it didn't appeal to me. In fact, I have to admit that it DID appeal to me! Likewise, I am not going to knock Dan Brown; I suspect that most novelists who enjoy critical acclaim but poor sales would, in their heart of hearts, change places with him gladly!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
