Rating: 
Summary: The other side of "The DaVinci Code"
Review: The fact that "The DaVinci Code" has been a spectacular financial success is beyond dispute. It has perched at or near the top of the Best Seller List for many weeks. In his book, under the guise of fiction, Dan Brown makes some phenomenal assertions. He refutes the basis of the Christian religion, namely that Jesus is the son of God and He is the only way to salvation. In this book, two Christian theologians dispute this viewpoint and defend the Christian faith. They assert that the sources which Dan Brown uses to make his claim are faulty and have been proven to be so. Some of their arguments are a little "soft", such as the fact that the Bible contains the stories of Deborah, Tamar, Rahab, and Mary, and therefore Christianity is not anti-female. A more compelling argument is the treatment of women by Jesus himself, who showed love and concern for all people, regardless of gender or status. Many people say that this debate is not important, that "The DaVinci Code" is merely cleverly-written fiction. Dan Brown has give numerous interviews that show that he clearly had an agenda for writing the book. Garlow and Jones point out his agenda and demonstrate the danger which "The DaVinci Code" gives in presenting paganism and gnosticism as a viable alternative to Christianity. They make a point that people have two choices in their religious beliefs: they can either worship the Creator or that which He Created. The authors also show that in our "feel-good" society, the allure of these ancient relgious practices is very enticing. Dan Brown uses his characters in a convincing way to demonstrate what he sees as the validity of his beliefs. Garlow and Jones are less successful with their fictional character, Carrie. Nonetheless, their message is an important one and will hopefully serve as a warning to those who embrace the tempting and charmismatic beliefs of Dan Brown.
Rating: 
Summary: A biased, poorly written book
Review: This is just a terrible book. Don't waste your money. There are few facts in this book, mostly just preaching. The "narrative" story line about a confused college call with a chain-smoking women's liberation Mom, and a lesbian roommate is offensive in its use of negative stereotypes.
An unintentionally humorous part is when the author manages to brag about being a friend of John Lennon's and claims that he might well have become one of the Beatles. It has no reason to be in the book of course.
Rating:
Summary: Christian attempt at damage control
Review: Title says it all.If the bible-thumpers have nothing to hide, why are they having a conniption over The Da Vinci Code? Makes you wonder....
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent scholarship
Review: Truly the best rebuttle that I have read thus far to the DaVinci Code.
Rating:
Summary: Instructive, Balanced, Honest, & Revealing
Review: Unlike some of the other reviewers, I enjoyed reading this book and highly recommend it to those who might be reading Brown's book as if it were fact (when it is actually just faction [fiction intermixed with the facts of settings, some truths, but lots of fabrications, etc]).
Garlow and Jones (the former was educated at Asbury Theol. Sem., Princeton Theol. Sem., Drew Univesity; the latter educated at University of Wales, Harvard Divinity School, and Princeton Theol. Seminary) offer the facts behind what Brown has created fiction out of...
The sad part is, that many are being swayed from what is truth (not even talking about theological truth here but truth as revealed and known in history and what is truly known [and not mass conjecture+fiction])....
I hope everyone who wants a balanced writing rebuttal of the novel will get a used copy for themselves...to at least have a counter-understanding to Brown's biased anti-Christian, worldview.
~Sean
Rating: 
Summary: A "Historical" reaction to a "Historical" Novel
Review: While James Garlow and Peter Jones do present certain factual data, they do not extend much beyond repeating the very ideologies they are defending. They do not succeed in discrediting Brown's novel, rather, they are closer to strengthening it. Their primary source of contention to Brown's work is the Bible, which they present as a historical document. There may or may not be some historical value to the Bible, but they are arguing that there is no basis for Brown's postition that the Bible was contrived by the Church as a method of propagating their own power. The problem with this is that they cannot offer any proof that what Brown contends is anything but the truth. It is true that Brown offers no concrete data to support his claim about the Bible, but they can neither offer any concrete evidence that the Bible is historical fact. The problem with this book is that it is written by two fundamentalists who have no more evidence than the man they are trying to discredit. Frankly I think that Dan Brown and James Garlow and Peter Jones need to all sit down and argue this with each other, because they are both simply preaching to those who want to listen. This is nothing more than a religious difference of opinion, and since they both claim to be using "Historical Fact," obviously one of them has to be wrong, but this book does not offer a way to decide which it is. Simply put, while the authors do offer a small amount of concrete data, it is nothing that someone with an internet connection could not find out for himself in a matter of a couple of hours; this book does not do all that it sets out to do.
Rating:
Summary: Denominational bias strikes again
Review: While reading this book if found it very poorly put together. The book is written by two authors with very few clues as to what was written by whom. Occasionally one of their first names will appear in parenthesis, but there is little clear delineation who wrote what. To simplify I'll just refer to them as he. Each chapter is prefaced by a progressive symbol of half a circle which he refers to as the Divine Arc next to a full circle which he doesn't refer to at all. Near the end of the book he gives a weak explanation of his symbolism, which is within a few pages of writing about paganism in which he devaluates the importance of symbols in religion. At the beginning of each chapter he has a "after school special" type drama for a couple of pages. He also repeats the points he wants to make twice at the beginning of each chapter. I found this annoying chapter after chapter. Though the "after school special" is supposed to be a college age drama, it is written so poorly I suspect that most college age people will gloss over it quickly.
The body of the book is written trying to defend traditional Christianity from the evil of feminine paganism. His references to Da Vinci are actually very few. He presents the theory that Dan Brown is not writing a novel based on "secret hints" that can be found in Da Vinci's work, but that Mr. Brown is actually hoping to seduce our youth into ancient paganism. Paganism is generally pictured by modern people as hedonistic tribal affairs with lots of drinking, sex, and dancing in a circle around a fire. He tries to give an objective description of paganism but fails to point out that it is a very ancient and noble religion that predated Christianity, and probably Judaism. He doesn't mention that Aristotle and Plato were pagans. He puts comments about Da Vinci in column sidebars in each chapter. That means you have to stop reading the body of the chapter to read about Da Vinci. It makes for very choppy reading.
Though he apparently intends the book to be used as a study guide, he leaves out an index. This makes it very difficult to look back for previous references. I see this as a very irresponsible deletion. As far as the body writing itself, it is apparent that it was written very quickly and with little overview. He misguides the reader into thinking he knows the true facts about history, however checking his footnotes reveals that "facts" should be substituted with "opinions". It leads me to believe that he is "proof-texting" history (the art of only choosing what reinforces your case) to build his case. The subtitle of this book is very misleading in that very little in ancient history can be proved now. Most "facts" from that period are still really theories. He really has it in for the Gnostics, and writes about them as though he went back in a time machine to observe them. It's apparent that his views are shaded by his religious background, and not really an objective historical observation. This is typical of denominational based authors.
He takes some very risky shots at Hillary Clinton connecting her with Jean Houston implying that Hillary will be trying to bring the "sacred feminine" into the White House in the future. His source is a Time article about the book. It's ironic that he didn't mention Nancy Reagan and her astrologer. He views the "sacred feminine" as a threat to Christianity in general, however the Roman Catholics have revered "the Virgin Mary" for centuries. The main "mystery" of the Brown book is that Mary Magdalene had a closer relationship with Jesus than Christians are comfortable with. Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper shows the apostles and Jesus lined up behind the table. Dan Brown points out that the person to Jesus' right (a position of great honor in Jewish tradition) is actually Mary Magdalene. Garlow (or Jones) points out that Da Vinci had specific notes about the painting and that the person to Jesus' right is an apostle. I've looked at pictures, posters, JPEG's, and the foldout that's in their book. Sorry guys, "the dude looks like a lady."
It's of little importance to me what little pranks Da Vinci put into his art. Most brilliant creative minds play with their work. The Mona Lisa may be a disguised self-portrait of Da Vinci, a prank. It doesn't have to represent a diabolical subversive plot. It did make a very interesting novel. The Mason's have always been secretive, but the biggest secret is probably how much alcohol they consume each meeting.
Garlow (or Jones) does make one very offensive reference to Da Vinci's mirror writing.
"Da Vinci didn't do this in order to hide information or as part of some trickery or deceit; rather, he may have had some form of dyslexia or other difficulty with perception."
This statement alone causes me to really doubt this man (men's) intelligence. First, he's claiming he can read a genus's mind. Second, Da Vinci's writing was too neat to be a dyslexic's work. His comment reflects his own hidden agenda to ridicule his opposition with "made up" facts. He obviously can't out think them.
My recommendation: Read "The Da Vinci Code" if you haven't already. It's a well-written book, and though it has snippets of little known history, its purpose is fiction. My recommendation on "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" is pass, and wait for the sequel "Cracking-Cracking Da Vinci's Code."
And in ending the beginning of the book has a recommendation from our favorite facts man Tim LaHaye glorifying the book and accusing Dan Brown of "outright lies." This from a man who co-authored a series has made over 60 million dollars by fictionalizing Revelations. (Shouldn't the church be calling that series heresy?--a word Garlow/Jones like to use.)
|
