The Da Vinci Disclaimer
On Wednesday, everyone on the radio was frothing about The Da Vinci Code movie's premier at Cannes. Larry Mantle had some Christian theologians on AirTalk to get their perspective.
There was a particular priest, whose name I didn't catch, who was very reasonable about the whole thing — said Christians need to be able to have a productive dialog with non-Christians about moral and other issues, mainly — but one of his additional comments really got my goat: He said he would have been more comfortable if the book had included a disclaimer that all the historical gibberish described within is ficticious. Otherwise, he worried, uneducated people were prone to become confused about what's history and what's not.
I have two rebuttals:
(a) That's retarded. Paperback bestsellers are works of fiction. They're shelved with the fiction. They contain made up stuff. Everyone knows this.
Now, that said...
(b) I'll endorse a disclaimer on The Da Vinci Code if he'll endorse a disclaimer on the Bible. Because let's be honest, a lotta, lotta more damage has been done by credulous and uneducated people who believe the Bible is literal historical truth (or, worse, the His-mouth-to-your-ears Word of God) than by people who think that The Da Vinci Code is a textbook.
So, if he's up for that, I'll give the Gideons a call and we'll get on it.
Comments
Excellent, excellent plan.
What's really a shame is that the perfect rebuttal is: If people are intrigued by the historical details presented in the book, they should do some research. Dig into some art history and theology. They'd learn what's true and what's fictionalized, and - more interestingly - what's in dispute. They might even learn something new about their own beliefs. It's this sort of discovery (and ensuing dialog) that Brown was aiming for, second to his primary aim of collecting bazillions of dollars.
But suggesting extra reading to most people is as ludicrous as suggesting a disclaimer on the Bible.
What about a child-proof cap?
It's catching on! http://newsbusters.org/node/5402
Thank goodness someone's out there "exposing and combating liberal media bias."
Dammit! Checking the date, he beat me to the punch, the crafy old wizard.
I hope the statements of Mr. McKellen (and Mr. Tidball, to a lesser extent) are not meant in their most literal terms - that the Bible is fiction.
Even if one concedes the religious point - that is, approaches the Bible as an atheist - much of the Bible is still relevant as a historical document.
An excellent book setting out the various strands of history is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Friedman. (Despite its title, the book actually covers only the first several books of the Old Testament.) In checking today, I see that Mr. Friedman has now prepared the book which I wanted to have after reading Who Wrote the Bible? -- this is The Bible with Sources Revealed, which attempts to present the first five books of the Bible with attribution to their sources.
Unfortunately, I can't comment on The Da Vinci Code, having neither read the book nor seen the movie.
No, I'm not saying that the Bible is fiction just like The Da Vinci Code is fiction. I'm saying that if the latter should be disclaimed because some people might get the wrong idea, than so should the former, because the wrong ideas that one gets from the Bible are really, really dangerous. Because even Biblical scholars and mainstream theologians (including Friedman, probably) don't subscribe to the dangerous (read: wrong) Biblical interpretations that smaller minds are likely to come to, if they lack all the facts.