You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Overrated: Dan Brown
 

I once debated with a feminist student at a leading Canadian university, who assured me that five million women were killed by the Catholic Church as witches in medieval Europe. I gave her documented evidence that in fact between 30,000 and 100,000 people, men and women, were executed for witchcraft in the period she was describing. When I challenged her to tell me where she found these numbers, she reluctantly admitted that it was in a Dan Brown book. "But," she stressed, "he is quoting from accurate sources." She wasn't stupid, and it's easier than you might think to be taken in by the mingling of thin, commonplace prose with ostensibly reliable historical references.

Dan Brown was once asked if he was a Christian since he claimed to know so much about it. In a rather long and pretentious answer he explained:  "I am, although perhaps not in the most traditional sense of the word. If you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers." Nor is he a novelist, in the traditional sense of the word. But what he is really saying here is that he's not a Christian at all, but prefers to sound enigmatic and mysterious in his response because enigma and mystery sells. I only hope Dan Brown's Purgatory isn't next, but I fear the worst. Perhaps my having had to read him will save me a few years in the real thing.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
October 5th, 2013
2:10 AM
The NT gives many examples of Jesus ambivalent statements about who he was. And his disciples and contemporary audience certainly have were puzzled most of the time. But more puzzling is why a Christian apologist should be concerned about the plot lines of aDan Brown potboiler work of fiction .

Anonymous
July 25th, 2013
6:07 PM
Very enjoyable critique that's right on the money. I liked the last couple of sentences in particular.

Stephen
July 23rd, 2013
7:07 PM
Brilliant! Dan Brown's books are truly awful, and it's ludicrous that he gets the exposure he does when so many other, far better, authors struggle to make a living.

Anonymous
July 20th, 2013
11:07 PM
Sky Don't quite agree with you. John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." Caiaphas and those who ran the Temple had no love for Jesus (they would later take advantage of the temporary absence of Roman authority in Jerusalem in the early AD 60s, to kill his brother, James). But the Temple authorities were aware that Jesus was no pretender to Earthly power and had probably heard Jesus preach in previous years and on previous Passovers (John seems to refer to frequent visits to Jerusalem by Jesus). But the Temple authorities were likely to be held responsible by the Romans for disorder at Passover time. Hence the comment in John about Caiaphas i.e. better Jesus be sacrificed than that the Romans see a potential insurrection, panic, and slaughter anyone in sight whilst Jerusalem was crowded at Passover.

MalcolmMcLean
July 15th, 2013
11:07 PM
It's harder than it looks to write a trashy thriller. Maybe not so difficult, but you should try it. After all, not many people would reject a million pounds for a few months' work. The books are trashy thriller, and the historical claims are largely nonsense, and not even original. The Mary Magdalene had Jesus' baby idea is in the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. The authors sued. That's kind of an admission that the theory is nonsense, serious historians don't try to protect their ideas from development and expansion by other historians, or from popularisation.

Sygurd
July 11th, 2013
10:07 PM
Dan Brown's popularity only reflects the abysmal ignorance of our times. If many of us are able to believe that two men or two women can marry one another, they can believe anything, even the poorly written, error-ridden potboilers.

sky
July 11th, 2013
12:07 PM
Anonymous, I think you need to read the Gospel a little closer. Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus for anything. He did so because the Jewish leaders insisted. They persuaded him that Jesus threatened Roman authority but it is clear their real motivation was they saw Jesus as a blasphemer for making Himself equal to God. There is no other interpretation possible. At His trial, the Lord clearly declares His divinity and it is then that the Sanhedrin, that did not for one moment consider His claim might be true, decided He had to die. Enough said.

spudnik
July 11th, 2013
4:07 AM
There are those who want the Catholic Church to be discredited and Christianity disproven. Brown allows them do believe that they have been so that they can feel safe in rejecting the Gospel and encouraging others to do likewise. That the whole enterprise depends on mendacity suggests rather the opposite.

JDJL
July 11th, 2013
1:07 AM
If we go by the Gospel accounts, Pilate had no legal justification for killing Jesus. Having told the crowd he believed Jesus to be innocent of any wrongdoing, Pilate crucified him anyway because that was what the crowd demanded. The question then is, why did the mob want Jesus dead? Not because he claimed to be a king, but because he claimed to be the Son of God.

MSewell
July 10th, 2013
11:07 PM
Anonymous, "King of the Jews" was written on the sign in mockery of Jesus' blasphemous statements in the eyes of the Jewish people. Crucifixion was indeed the Roman punishment of choice, and Jesus was a threat to the kingdom in their eyes, but it went a step further and was caused first and foremost by his claim.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.