It's a great book. Un-put-downable, and written with the big screen in mind, and that screen will be on your mind on every page. It is in effect, the book version of the movie-to-be.
Whether you are interested in theology or not, and regardless of your religious bent or lack thereof, you will enjoy the story, and if you do happen to be one of those benighted souls who knows who Mithra is, and for whom a wild par-tay is likely to involve a long-winded Rabbi, a couple of dueling Imams, and at least one drunken Jesuit and the obligatory smirking Zoroastrian, you will heartily enjoy this book, and find in it ample fuel for future nights of fine Burgundy and fragrant hookahs.
I have no intention of joining the chorus of those who claim to separate fact from fiction in this book. The separation is obvious to those familiar with the material, and a matter of faith for those who are not.
That said, it is reasonable to assume that the historical person of Jesus was not a bachelor, as to have been one within the historical and cultural context of the time and place in which he lived would have caused more of a stir than his preaching did.
It is also true that all sacred texts were written by human beings; whether as a result of divine inspiration is again, a matter of faith, but the Nicean council is neither fiction nor myth, nor are those texts which the Council chose not to include in the Bible.
The same can be said of the Koran. Some time after the Prophet's death, a group of human beings, relying on human memory, wrote down for the first time, the Koran.
In ancient times, as now, religion and politics were intertwined and interdependent, and then as now, were kept so for the equally intertwined and interdependent, though quite secular, causes of war and wealth.
Article comments
1 - geo
My first reaction was to investigate the issues Brown presented in his introduction. A quick Internet search revealed one of the purported sources is a well-known hoax. I thought I'd missed something in the reviews I'd read. The book had to be speculative fiction. The Rev. Paul Roumanet is pastor of Saint-Sulpice church in Paris, which plays a major role in the thriller's plot. Visitors there are asking ridiculous questions, based on their belief that the book depicts real events. Rev. Roumanet said, "It's very unpleasant, everything that (Brown) scooped out of the trash cans of history". Jean-Manuel Traimond, who operates what he calls the "Da Vinci Con Tour" in Paris, says that Brown "invents bridges that don't exist."
2 - ahmed elnabarawy
I believe some claims in the book (the da vinci code). i believe that jesus is not divine, only a great powerful teacher and messenger lead by god, the only one who is to be called divine. jesus is not the son of god, god ,the one, is holy and divine from having a son. having a son abolish the very meaning of divinity anbd diety,completion. so it's logically besides historically wrong to describe god in human terms and aspects i.e having a son. jesus might've been married.
3 - joy
I too believe in some of the claims in Dan brown's book. Jesus was born a jew and yet the pagan rituals in christianity is what I dont get(Which are still practiced by some budhists and hindus in the subcontinent).Examples are the Holy trinity, the ringing of bells in church which is not found in synagogues, reciting the rosary, and many instances in christ's life to name a few. The events of jesus's birth is exactly similar to mithras birth. I feel Jesus was probably a good human being and a great teacher who guided the ignorant masses to a better life and enlightenment. Like him we are all children of god irrespective of our religious belief.