So my girlfriend is getting me some books for my birthday.

[Alucard]

The Jesus Quest, Ben Witherington III
The Gospel Code, Ben Witherington III
The Da Vinci Hoax, Carl Olsen and Sandra Miesel

Any good?

[JB]

I haven't read any of those three, but one can scarcely go wrong with Witherington, and I've heard some good things about The Da Vinci Hoax.

[Paintbucket]

I've read the Da Vinci Hoax. It's not bad, but I think that the whole Da Vinci Code thing was blown out of proportion. The Da Vinci Code is a story, not nonfiction. But some people took it a little too seriously.

[Alucard]

I've read the Da Vinci Hoax. It's not bad, but I think that the whole Da Vinci Code thing was blown out of proportion. The Da Vinci Code is a story, not nonfiction. But some people took it a little too seriously.

It's not that it's about the Da Vinci Code per se, rather the whole business about the Gnostic gospels and the canon of the New Testament is what I'm interested in.

[The Curtmudgeon]

The Da Vinci Code is a story, not nonfiction [sic]. But some people took it a little too seriously.

People keep saying this as though it's being non-fiction gives Brown a pass. But in his introduction to DVC he specifically says that all the 'historical bits' are historically factual, which is a complete crock and mis-representation. I can write an historical fiction piece about Churchill poisoning Chamberlain (historically speaking, for those not up on the time period in question, Chamberlain became very ill and died soon after Churchill became PM in 1940), and as long as I say no more than "It's historical fiction" I can get away with it. But if in the intro to that piece I specifically state that I based my work of fiction on actual historical documents that prove Churchill did exactly that, then of course I'm going to get called on it by every serious WWII historian. When challenged, if I pull out as my "actual historical documents" documents that have been proven forgeries for decades (*cough*Priory of Sion*cough*), then of course historians are going to hang a big "LIAR LIAR LIAR" sign on me. And rightfully so.

People get a lot of their ideas from fiction, especially when they don't read the corresponding non-fiction. Of the people who have read and/or watched DVC, how many of them are going to come away thinking that it's no more off-base than, say, The Great Escape? It's fictionalised, but it's based on true events -- never mind that that whole motorcycle thing was put into the movie because Steve McQueen just enjoyed riding motorcycles, when you boil it down it gives a very fair picture of what the real POWs did and had done to them. Most readers/viewers of DVC have much the same opinion, at least that it could have happened that way -- but since Brown has concocted his "historical facts" from thin air (his or someone else's), there is literally no correlation between his work and established historical facts. It's not historical fiction in the least -- it's historical fantasy, history as Brown would so desperately like it to have been but never was. But relatively few people see that distinction. Hence the need for good books like DVH to set the record straight.

The (sorry, that's a sore point you tapped) Curtmudgeon

[The Curtmudgeon]

People keep saying this as though it's being non-fiction gives Brown a pass.

-> (me). What a maroon! Immediately after I had just added "[sic]" to Paint's statement, I make the same typo. I need a -myself smilie here.

The (obviously, I'm just as [sic] as Paint) Curtmudgeon

[Edited to add:] It's worse than I thought. I just re-read Paint's statement, and my [sic] needs a [sic] of its own: Paint stated it correctly the first time, and I simply went brain dead on it. Never mind me, I obviously need to see the eye doctor.

[JB]

-> (me). What a maroon! Immediately after I had just added "[sic]" to Paint's statement, I make the same typo. I need a -myself smilie here.

The (obviously, I'm just as [sic] as Paint) Curtmudgeon

[Edited to add:] It's worse than I thought. I just re-read Paint's statement, and my [sic] needs a [sic] of its own: Paint stated it correctly the first time, and I simply went brain dead on it. Never mind me, I obviously need to see the eye doctor.

We love you, 'mudgeon.

[Paintbucket]

Hehe. I'm amused Curtmudgeon. I was slightly wrong, and I see the translation error. My bad.

[Alucard]

I'm also getting Witherington's Paul, Jesus, and the End of the World and John's Wisdom, as well as N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God and Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm excited :D

[JB]

I'm also getting Witherington's Paul, Jesus, and the End of the World and John's Wisdom, as well as N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God and Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm excited :D

Dang, that's a good run!

(My girlfriend plans to get me David Ulansey's The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries for my birthday. I'm hoping that my mother will be getting me something on the philosophy of time.)