I recommend seeing the movie first, and if you like it, read the book to fill in the details. There was a lot in both which MIGHT be true, each viewer or reader has to decide for themselves how much they can accept. If you look up the title on Amazon, you'll find many reviews by people who have seen the film and read the book, which may offer some additional insight about what features people liked and disliked about the film and book. I saw the film and read the book, and enjoyed both. As one reviewer noted, even if you don't believe them to be factual, they are still entertaining, in the same way that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Star Wars" are entertaining, or for a closer analogy, in the same way that "National Treasure" is entertaining.
the da vinci code
by Sam87 22 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
OUTLAW
Saw it before I went back to the wilderness..Loved it...OUTLAW
-
Alpheta
Agreed that the book is an entertaining read, and it reads "fast" too, it's not the kind of book where you put it down after a chapter and go "hmmmmm". I haven't seen the movie, but I'm a Tom Hanks fan and if the movie is available for rental on DVD I'll definitely give it a look. As for historical accuracy, as I understand it, the "Priory of Zion" is a crock, invented in the early 20th's century by a Frenchman. I did find it interesting that the person alleged to have concocted the background for the "institution" lived in a part of France that is historically known as an ancient center of goddess worship and there are, I believe, several great cathedrals and churches - all dedicated to "Mary, Mother of God" (just another name for the ancient mother goddesses of old, who were all "mothers of gods, mothers of the universe, mothers of the earth, etc. etc., Mary being the Christian incarnation of the mother goddess).
I find the subject of Mary Magdalene more interesting than any theory about her being married to Jesus. There is enough research and information available now about how the early church attempted to usurp the authority of female evangelists (that whole Pauline thing) and, once the church was hijacked by the emperors of the remainder of the Roman Empire ruling out of Constantinople, a deliberate obfuscation campaign was undertaken to erase MM's prominent role in the early church as much as possible.
As for the feminine-looking John in Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper - that is entirely due, in my opinion, to some really poor prior "restoration" jobs and it would be, today, basically impossible to restore that figure back to what it was as originally painted and portrayed. I don't believe that the figure traditionally identified as the Apostle John is really MM. If it's true the figure is MM, she would have been the only woman there, and that doesn't sound like Jesus at all; wasn't he always mentioned in the bible as having his particular followers around him, even in his most "private" moments - and we KNOW even from the biased biblical accounts that Jesus' followers included SEVERAL women, some - evidently - of wealth and perhaps influence. If Da Vinci was such a rebel, would he not have chosen to paint Jesus at that last Passover surrounded by many women, as well as men? Nah - I'm sure he didn't seek after being burned at the stake as a heretic - so, he painted the Last Supper with the "traditional 12 men" around Jesus.