Impossibly complicated plot. Really, really, really bad writing. This book was forced upon me. I should have known better.

Don't Make Fun of the Renowned Dan Brown....

https://onehundredpages.wordpress.com...

NYT fact check....

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/bo...

Although my own life is glamorous, action-packed and filled with easy money, fast boats and beautiful women (or is it fast money, beautiful boats and easy women? I can never keep that straight) -- although, as implied above, my life is filled with perfectly-fitted tuxedos, stolen jewels and mysterious aristocratic contessas who will do anything to get out of this awful party, dahling, I cannot easily imagine writing a fictional version of myself and making myself into a hero. Which is why Dan Brown is a gazillionaire and I'm still running a shoeshine stand at the airport on weekends to make ends meet.

If our footwear is any indication, society is going straight to hell. I could tell you stories. But that's not why we're here.

So anyway, if I were the landlord of a few billion dollars' worth of Italian cultural treasures, and savagely mutilated bodies were impaled on my iconostasis, stuffed into my spandrels, dripping gore onto the unsuspecting public and generally turning up at the rate of two or three per day, I might run down my list of folks who could help me bring this tragic turn of events to a close. (Flipping through my Rolodex): Let's see, how about Selim, the vaguely beige-colored fellow with a dozen passports, his own global overnight air courier company and whose rivals simply seem to disappear? Or what about Signora Fanicetti, my highly-placed source within the Italian version of the FBI? (Flip flip flip) Or even, it it came to that, Mike Tyson?

No, no and no. What this situation calls for, clearly, is a Harvard professor, ideally toiling away in a discipline that nobody's ever heard of. Bonus points if he arrived in Cambridge via Philips Exeter Academy. Perhaps he has a bitter bitch of an ex-wife from Sarah Lawrence, if all the stars are aligned.

This book is stupidity served in buckets.

I read this decades ago, and details are hazy, which is the best way for them to be.

I read that it sold over 80 million copies ! Looks like it's an alternative history of christianity and the Catholic church didn't like it.

The subject matter was was certainly not to my interest.

I couldn't muster any enthusiasm and was bored quickly. I have stayed away from Dan Brown books eversince then.

Abandoned.

Where I got the book: I downloaded the audiobook on my Audible subscription back when The Da Vinci Code was a Big Thing, so I suppose I have to admit I technically bought it. A Bad Book Buddy Read with Crystal Starr Light.

Plot: The Divine Feminine, mystical messages, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei, secret societies, coded paintings, you name it - Dan Brown packs a Discovery Channel-load of what he gets one of his characters to call "pop schlock" around a puzzle to be solved by granite-jawed Harvard Professor of Symbology (still makes me laugh every time I think about it) Robert Langdon, a tweedy brainiac, and French police cryptologist Sophie Neveu, who is touted as brilliant but who spends most of the time playing second fiddle to Langdon's encyclopedic knowledge as they run around Europe (in about a 48-hour time period, I believe) being chased by the Evil Catholic Church, the French police, and assorted other baddies. This Europe-wide clue chase has been set in train by Sophie's grandfather who, while being murdered, somehow manages to set up a ridiculously elaborate trail to lead our heroes to the Big Secret.

Confused? Remember the movie, where Tom Hanks spends 99% of the time with a puzzled frown on his face and the dumbest hairstyle I have EVER seen him wear?

[image error]

That frown is reflected on my face as I try to figure out how in the world this novel got to be so popular. I think the answer lies in the fact that if you just give up on any attempt to analyze what DB is positing, don't worry about the writing and just go with the flow, you get a page-turner that hurtles you toward the point where you are mercifully done with the book. That's what that second star is for. And there are tons of people who love all that esoteric-mystery stuff, plus the book came to the attention of a certain type of Christian who is very easy to bait into perceiving any criticism of any aspect of Christianity as A HUGE THREAT, and the resulting kerfuffle must have had DB's publicist offering up heartfelt prayers of thanksgiving.



Nope, I'm still puzzled. On my second time around I really paid attention to the writing, and came to the conclusion that The Da Vinci Code is a truly execrable piece of prose that manages to include just about every mistake wannabe novelists are told to avoid. I particularly love the way you're in the middle of an exciting chase-around and then the action suddenly GRINDS TO A HALT while Langdon launches into yet another of his explanations. And the bits where DB was obviously writing with a map of Paris and a guidebook at his elbow, so that you get turn-by-turn street nav and a guided tour of wherever they happen to be, down to the exact dimensions of the room.

And can you say plot illogicalities? And what about the Moving Body Parts ("Langdon's eyes followed her arm to the structure ahead")? And DB's cringeworthily bad understanding of British, well, everything, as personified in Sir Lee Tebing ('twas an audiobook so the spelling may be wrong, I personally like Surly T-Bing). The other characters, even those who should have known, kept calling him Sir Tebing (it should be Sir Lee) and even, at one glorious moment, "your knightship". And he put clotted cream in his tea... please see this discussion so I don't have to go over it again. Last but definitely not least, there was supposed to be some sexual attraction between Langdon and Neveu but any time DB went there it was as awkward as watching your brother come on to your BFF. There's something eerily virginal about Langdon which, I swear, manages to communicate itself to Hanks. Never have I seen the Tom look less attractive.



This is definitely not the best book to listen to as an audiobook unless you are very, very masochistic. The narrator has to do huge chunks of the story in a French accent and then there's Lee Tebing, who got a ludicrously overblown stage British heehaw voice in my version. Then there was the pronunciation of Louvre as LOOV and Tuileries as TOOLERIES but you know, I've got to hand it to this guy - to wade through a reading of this scab on the body literary must be quite the endurance test.

As a Bad Book read, it's superb. I had to stop about every two minutes in some chapters because there were just so, so many things wrong with this book. See here for the full roundup. I did, however, fall asleep in a couple of places, as I have done EVERY TIME I have attempted to watch the movie.



Finding the Hanks images has been about the only thing that's kept me going through this review. The success of this loose stool of a novel remains one of the Great Mysteries of the Age.

You know how people are always asking you which famous person you'd like to invite to your fantasy dinner party? I think I'd like to invite Dan Brown.

You know how, in the first season of American Horror Story, Constance makes those cupcakes with the spit and poison in them for Violet, and brings Vivian uncooked pig pancreas under the pretence that it'll help keep her unborn babies healthy?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Okay, okay. Maybe that was faintly harsh. Sorry, Dan Brown. Just refund my time and I'll be on my way. Oh - oh, you can't? Well, then, that changes things, doesn't it? Because here I am, cracking open a book that I've been told is eye-opening and thought-provoking when in fact it's like peeling open a date and finding fly eggs inside it. Not only does it turn your stomach, because it's motherfucking disgusting (and so is the capitalist fakery that saw this book flying off the shelves by the truckload) but it makes you feel cheated, too. It does, doesn't it? You were ready for a good date, or for a good book, and you got insect carcasses. Or, more appropriately, you got a convoluted waste of paper that a chimpanzee could have written if it had sat down on a typewriter.

Never again, Dan Brown. You hear me? Keep your books - your fucking rehashed, recycled, pointless, soulless, money-grubbing piles of pure fail - the hell away from me.

Oh, and to anyone late to the party who's thinking of giving this a shot? Don't say that like 4633546573847934758 people didn't warn you.

Alternate history, uchronias, and indirect criticism of faith and ideology combined into one of the most successful thriller series of all time.

The separate parts were already there
Everything was already on the table, many authors had dealt with the different ideas Brown is mixing together, and finding and recombining conspiracy theories isn´t that complicated. It´s the mix of different topics that interest many people stirred together that make it entertaining for the ones who like art or thrillers, for atheists and religious people, for the ones interested in plot or characterization, it´s just difficult to find someone who would immediately say that she/he isn´t interested in one of the plot vehicles.

Uchronia, dystopia, or big history?
It doesn´t just relativizes general history, but religious and political history in a way that makes it a prime example of the fact that history and holy texts are written by the winners. Widening the range, questioning the status quo, and making people skeptical regarding omniscience, commandments, and whatever is something of huge importance. Brown did more than Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens combined and multiplied could have done in centuries by reaching so many people and making them think about the legitimation of any kind of belief.

Religious fan fiction
Imagine many people would start writing fanfiction like that about different religious texts, expanding universes with new and alternative prophets, letting the whole thing collapse into a parody of itself within years.

Hard vs soft science
I tend to equate religious, economic, and political science texts for the simple reason that, as soon as there is one more truth, or in hard science, formulas, and equations, the others or even the own one must the wrong. The more open criticism and sarcastic to profound interpretations of all those one hit wonders are made by sophisticated, young people, the less power all of those charlatanries can generate in their stupid quest towards the one and only variation of reality they want to establish.

Blasphemy in a  Why can´t JC have a daughter, what´s your problem dudes? It´s so ridiculous, if any prophet would be a woman or, gosh, a lesbian (or even a gay male prophet), they would of course completely freak out even more.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...

A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real life outside books:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...
Sakrileg ist der Titel der 2004 erschienenen Übersetzung eines

This book, this book, this hopelessly stupid book. It's okay. It's something to read. It's not the worst book I've ever read. I did get through the whole thing. But, simply, it is not THAT good.
I will now proceed to quote from another reviewer, Mer, who has said exactly what I have been saying for years -albeit she does it far more eloquently than I:

"The characters are weakly drawn. The dialog is excruciating. The research is shoddy and self-serving at best. The plot, no matter how open-minded you are, is beyond ludicrous.(...)
"I'm all for fictional subversion of the dominant Catholic paradigm, but only if the subverter knows what the hell they're talking about. Brown DOESN'T. He's all "la la la, connect the dots" but the picture he comes up with is awkward and unconvincing.
"The DaVinci Code is a dead easy, nay, downright lazy read, and yet droves of people are patting themselves on the back for having read and *gasp* actually understood it. Like this is some spectacular achievement? WHY? What, because the slipcover describes it as "erudite"? Are you fucking kidding me?
"Don't believe the hype, kids. You are profoundly more intelligent than this holiday page-turner gives you credit for."

So, so, so true. And if you've read "Angels and Demons" you'll see that it starts out precisely the way "Code" does, nearly word-for-word, even using the dreaded looks-at-himself-in-the-mirror character description cop-out.

This, and the man (the author, that is) looks like a troll. A self-aggrandizing oh-so-clever stuffed pompous troll. All he did was capitalize on a theme that's been out there for years, insist that it was all 100% factual, and put a pretty red cover on it. He's created a sensation and got himself a movie, I'll give him that. I bet he swims around in vaults of money every night cackling at his deluded readership.

But the book is just NOT THAT GOOD. Get over it. Want something historical? Read Anya Seton. Something thrilling? Read Thomas Tryon. Richard North Patterson. Jon Krakauer. Croikey, even Clive Cussler! Anything but that damn Dan Brown.

This wasn’t nearly as awful as I had feared. I had lots of reasons to believe this would be pretty awful, but actually, the story moved along nicely and there was enough to the story to sustain my interest nearly up until the end – in much the same way that any good murder mystery sustains interest. This isn’t the best murder mystery novel I’ve ever read – but it is not a terrible one either.

Having said that it might seem a little strange that I’ll spend virtually all of this review talking about the things I didn’t like about the book. Oh well, if being ‘a little strange’ is all I get accused of I can say with confidence that I have been accused of much worse.

It does not take long for the book to do something I think is nearly unforgivable in any book. I’ll quote the first time this happens in full:

Saunière held up his hands in defense. "Wait," he said slowly. "I will tell you what you need to know." The curator spoke his next words carefully. The lie he told was one he had rehearsed many times... each time praying he would never have to use it.

Needless to say, the lie told here is somewhat important to the plot and we only find out more about it later in the book.

This quote is from the very start of the book, a mere thirteen paragraphs in. This sort of writing happens early and then repeats for much of the rest of the book. This sort of writing really annoys me.

When you read a book there are a number of people who you find are talking to you. There is the voice of the book itself (the narrator), there is often the person whose story this voice is telling you, there are other relatively incidental characters who chime in now and again and, of course, there is the author. Now, each of these people know a bit more or a bit less about what is actually going on in the story. And that’s okay, that’s also the way life works. But you might notice that I’ve made a distinction between the narrator of the story and the author. Obviously, there are times when this distinction if absolutely necessary – for example, where it is necessary to tell a story where the narrator of the story (the voice doing the talking) can’t in anyway be considered the same person as the author. In The Catcher in the Rye, for example, it is obviously a character, Holden Caulfield, who is supposed to be doing the talking – but no one would argue that Holden is Salinger. Holden is clearly a creation of Salinger’s and for the book to make sense it is important to keep that distinction clear. But behind the voice of Holden, if you listen carefully enough, you will hear the whispering voice of Salinger.

In this book that might seem to be a less important distinction to make. This is because the text is written in what is called ‘omniscient narration’. In this book the narrator is a kind of God and he can see into the hearts of all of the characters in ways we lesser mortals can never do in the real world. When he says that a character is happy or confused or lustful – then there is no possibility that that character can be anything else. If the Christian God really is interested in giving us free will, then an author of a piece of omniscient narration has even more power than God. But even so, I think it is important to be able to distinguish between the author of a book and the omniscient narrator within the book – even in cases where they would seem to be very closely aligned.

Let’s go back to the quote above and why it does something that really annoys me. When I read a mystery story I want the mystery to be intrinsic to the story. The writer should know where the story is going, but I don’t need the narrator to necessarily know. All the same, I do need to be able to trust the narrator.

I want to trust that the narrator will tell me something like the truth (or not, but in a way that can be fun for me to see where the narrator is distorting the truth), but I really don’t want the narrator to mess me about. I want the voice of the book to tell me stuff that the voice knows and to be clear with me about that.

So, in the quote above where Saunière tells his captor what he knows BUT WE ARE NOT TOLD what he says, there can be only one reason for this – the narrator has decided that telling us what is being said at this point in the story will somehow spoil the mystery. And, to me, that is the weakest form of mystery story telling. To me, the mystery should be in the story itself, something deeply embedded in the very nature of the story and how the story needs to be told. In this case it is as if the narrator is saying, “I’ll explain to you what gets said here in my own good time”. And look, that would be fine, except that a mystery that needs the narrator to effectively tell the reader that they are keeping something secret from them to create the mystery is, to quote my daughters, a bit lame.

Actually, there can be two reasons for this kind of secret keeping, the other is more likely in this case – it is to ‘heighten suspense’. This is a very dangerous game for a writer to play. Suspense that is artificially created, not by the story, but by how the story is told can quickly become very irritating.

The distinction between the writer and the narrator is perhaps best shown by this little piece of self-congratulation in the book. "A brilliant ten-digit code that Saunière would never forget." Now, think about what is actually being said here. The narrator has explained a code that was created by one of the characters called Saunière – all well and good – except, of course, we all know that really Dan Brown actually created the code. The code’s brilliance is that it links in with some mathematics that is seen as somewhat important to the plot (Fibonacci sequences). But behind the voice of the narrator congratulating Saunière on his brilliance is the author who came up with this plotting point in the first place. So hearing the narrator say how brilliant Saunière has been is really nothing more than the writer saying how terribly clever he thinks he has been in coming up with this idea in the first place. If you are thinking of writing a novel, avoiding this sort of self-congratulation would be one of my main pieces of advice.

This is a work of fiction, and so I guess it makes little sense to criticise it for the historical or factual inaccuracy of large slabs of its subject matter – nevertheless, I prefer my fiction to be in the story, rather than in what are presented as historical facts.

The one that annoyed me the most was this bit about the Mona Lisa:

Langdon nodded. "Gentlemen, not only does the face of Mona Lisa look androgynous, but her name is an anagram of the divine union of male and female. And that, my friends, is Da Vinci's little secret, and the reason for Mona Lisa's knowing smile."

Effectively we are told that Da Vinci was very clever in naming the painting because it fits nicely with one of the main themes of this book, the union of the male and female. The only problem is that Da Vinci never called the painting the Mona Lisa. As my mate Wiki points out:

The painting's title stems from a description by Giorgio Vasari in his biography of Leonardo da Vinci published in 1550, 31 years after the artist's death.

There are other historical inversions of this kind in the book, but my personal favourite is the fact that Catholicism is held up to scorn for its rejection of the ‘sacred feminine’. But of all of the Christian sects, I would have thought the Catholic Church, with its idolatry of Mary, the mother of God, would be the least deserving of this charge. The other Christian Churches seem to refer to ‘the Mother Church’ as the ‘Cult of Mary’. I would have thought the Catholic Church would have been a much more difficult target for the charge of rejection of the female than any of the Protestant Churches as they are purely interested in male divine beings with no mediation of the feminine possible or permissible at all.

I don’t think I’ve included any spoilers in this review, although that might depend somewhat on what you want to read this book for – I don’t think I’ve said anything that would destroy a reading of the book as a murder mystery, which is where I believe this book works best. I mean, as philosophy it is nonsense, as theology it is a smile on a doll and as Symbology (even if that is a ‘discipline’ Dan Brown made up all by himself) it is pretty shallow stuff. The bit at the end where Langdon needed the Star of David explained to him really did make the premise that Langdon is an expert in this field ring somewhat hollow.

It may be that I am the last person in the world to have read this book – as such the whole question of spoilers is somewhat academic. All the same, if you have not read it already I need to stress that it is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. Sure, some of the writing will make you cringe, but at least the story moves along at a decent clip – and of what is pretty well trash, there is little more you can ask than that.

Oh, and by the way, I like to collect ‘best first lines in novels’ – Calvino’s If On a Winter's Night a Traveler comes close to the best, but Jolley’s Miss Peabody's Inheritance has a good first sentence as does Carey’s Bliss. But this book has given me a new hobby, that is in finding the worst last line of a book. How is this for terrible? “For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice... the wisdom of the ages... whispering up from the chasms of the earth.” I know what you were thinking Dan, but unfortunately, I don’t think it quite came off there.

"الجهل يعمي أبصارنا ويضللنا
أيها البشر الفانون ! افتحوا أعينكم !"
ليوناردو دافنشي

n
في رواية الكاتب البوليسي "دان بروان" الثالثة, والثانية لشخصية "روبرت لانجدون" عالم الرموز, يحدثنا عن الأصول التاريخية لوضع المرأة في ثنايا قصته البوليسية المحبوكة جيداً, والمرصعة بالأعمال الفنية لفنانين تمركزت أعمالهم عن هذه القضية

"الكريبتكس"

"جزء من لوحة العشاء الأخير لـ ليوناردو دافنشي"


ففي عالمنا الحالي ينظر للنساء نظرة دونية, فلا يوجد حاخامات يهوديات ولا كاهنات كاثوليكيات, ولا شيخات مسلمات
وهذا الحال كان مختلفاً تماماً في الأديان الوثنية القديمة, فقد كانت المرأة هي رمز الخصوبة والحياة, كانت المرأة مقدسة وكانت الآلهة نساء

ولكن متى وكيف حدث هذا التحول في نظرة الأديان الرئيسية للمرأة؟

"جزء من لوحة الموناليزا"


يعود الأمر, كما يحكي لنا دان بروان, للصراع بين الكنيسة المسيحية والأديان الوثنية في الدولة الرومانية

وكان آنذاك الدين الرسمي في روما هو عبادة الشمس التي لا تقهر, وكان قسطنطين هو كبير كهنتها.
لكن لسوء حظه, كان هناك اهتياج ديني متزايد يجتاح روما. فقد كان عدد أتباع المسيح يتضاعف بشكل مهول, وذلك بعد مرور ثلاثة قرون من صلبه
عندئذ بدأ المسيحيون والوثنيون يتحاربون وتصاعدت حدة النزاع بينهما حتى وصلت لدرجة هددت بانقسام روما إلى قسمين
فرأى قسطنطين أنه يجب أن يتخذ قرار حاسم في هذا الخصوص. وفي عام 325 قرر توحيد روما تحت لواء دين واحد, ألا وهو المسيحية

ولقد كان قسطنطين رجل أعمال حاد الذكاء, فقد استطاع أن يرى أن نجم المسيحية كان في صعود فقرر ببساطة أن يراهن على الفرس الرابحة
واتبع طريقة ذكية لتحويل الوثنيين عن عبادة الشمس إلى اعتناق دين المسيحية, حيث أنه خلق ديناً هجيناً كان مقبولاً من الطرفين وذلك من خلال دمج الرموز والتواريخ والطقوس الوثنية في التقاليد والعادات المسيحية الجديدة

عملية تشويه في الشكل, فأثار الدين الوثني في الرموز المسيحية شديدة الوضوح ولا يمكن نكرانها. فأقراص الشمس المصرية أصبحت الهالات التي تحيط برؤوس القديسين الكاثوليكيين, والرموز التصويرية لإيزيس وهي تحضن طفلها المعجزة حورس أصبحت أساس صورنا الحديثة لمريم العذراء تحتضن وترضع المسيح الرضيع
وكل عناصر الطقوس الكاثوليكية مثل تاج الأسقف والمذبح والتسبيح والمناولة وطقس "طعام الرب", كلها مأخوذة مباشرة من أديان قديمة وثنية غامضة
ولا يمكن أن تكون صدفة أن الإله الفارسي مثرا - والذي كان يلقب أيضاً بابن الرب ونور العالم - كان قد ولد 25 ديسمبر, وعندما مات دفن في قبر حجري ثم بعث حياً بعد ثلاثة أيام.
حتى أن يوم العطلة الأسبوعية قد سرق من الوثنين عابدي الشمس, ففي البداية كان المسيحيون يتعبدون مع اليهود في يوم السبت, ثم انتقلوا للاحتفال بيوم الأحد Sunday, أي يوم الشمس.


وأثناء عملية دمج الأديان تلك, كان قسطنطين بحاجة لتوطيد التعاليم المسيحية الجديدة, فقام بعقد الاجتماع المسكوني الذي عرف بالمجمع النيقاوي نسبة إلى مدينة نيقة
وفي هذا الاجتماع تمت مناقشة العديد من مظاهر المسيحية والتصويت عليها, مثل اليوم الذي سيتم فيه الاحتفال بعيد الفصح ودور الأساقفة وإدارة الأسرار المقدسة وأخيراً إلوهية يسوع المسيح

حتى تلك اللحظة في تاريخ البشرية, كان المسيح في نظر أتباعه نبياً فانياً... رجل عظيم ذو سلطة واسعة, إلا أنه كان رجلاً ... إنساناً فانياً
ليس ابن الرب, ففكرة ابن الرب قد اقترحت رسمياً وتم التصويت عليها من قبل المجلس النيقاوي, وكان الفرق في الأصوات يكاد لا يذكر.
غير أن تأكيد فكرة إلوهية المسيح كان ضرورياً جداً لتوطيد الوحدة في الإمبراطورية الرومانية ولإقامة القاعدة الجديدة لسلطة الفاتيكان
ومن خلال المصادقة الرسمية على كون المسيح إبناً للرب, حول قسطنطين المسيح إلى إله مترفع عن عالم البشر ... كينونة تتمتع بسلطة لا يمكن تحديدها أبداً

وهذا الأمر لم يعمل على وضع حد لتحديات الوثنيين للمسيحية فحسب, بل بسبب ذلك لن يتمكن أتباع المسيح الآن من التحرر من الخطايا إلا بواسطة طريق مقدسة جديدة وهي الكنيسة الكاثوليكية الرومانية

إن المسألة كلها كانت مسألة سلطة ونفوذ لا أكثر
وبما أن قسطنطين قد قام برفع منزلة المسيح بعد مضي حوالي أربعة قرون على موته, فقد كانت هناك الآلاف من الوثائق التي سجلت حياته على أنه إنسان فان
وعرف قسطنطين أنه لكي يتمكن من إعادة كتابة التاريخ, كان بحاجة إلى ضربة جريئة
فأمر قسطنطين, بإنجيل جديد وقام بتمويله. أبطل فيه الأناجيل التي تحدثت عن السمات الإنسانية للمسيح وزين تلك التي أظهرت المسيح بصفات إلهية وحرمت الأناجيل الأولى وتم جمعها وحرقها

وكان كل من يفضل الأناجيل الممنوعة على نسخة قسطنطين, يتهم بالهرطقة وكلمة مهرطق تعود إلى تلك اللحظة التاريخية, وإن الكلمة اللاتينية هيريتيكوس haereticus تعني الاختيار ولذا فأولئك الذين اختاروا التاريخ الأصلي للمسيح كانوا أول (المهرطقين) في التاريخ

ولحس حظ المؤرخين, فإن بعض الأناجيل التي حاول قسطنطين محوها من الوجود تمكنت من النجاة. فقد تم العثور على وثائق البحر الميت عام 1950 مخبأة في كهف, كما عثر على الوثائق القبطية 1945.
وقد تحدثت تلك الوثائق عن كهنوت المسيح بمصطلحات إنسانية تماماً بالإضافة إلى أنها روت قصة مريم المجدلية الحقيقية
وقد حاول الفاتيكان كعادته في إخفاء الحقيقة وتضليل البشر, أن يمنع نشر تلك الوثائق. حيث أن الوثائق تلقي الضوء على تناقضات وفبركات تاريخية فاضحة تؤكد بشدة أن الإنجيل الحديث كان قد جمع ونقخ على يد رجال ذوي أهداف سياسية تتجلى بنشر أكاذيب حول إلوهية الإنسان يسوع المسيح واستخدام تأثيره لتدعيم قاعدة سلطتهم ونفوذهم


إن الكنسية كانت بحاجة لإقناع العالم بأن النبي الفاني يسوع المسيح كان كائناً إلهياً
ولهذا فإن أي إنجيل من الأناجيل كان يتضمن في طياته وصفاً لمظاهر إنسانية فانية من حياة المسيح, كان يجب حذفه من الإنجيل الذي جمع في عهد قسطنطين
لكن من سوء حظ المحررين الأوائل, كان هناك موضوع بشري مزعج يتكرر في كل الأناجيل, وهو موضوع زواج يسوع من مريم المجدلية
والتي حسب إنجيل مريم المجدلية, هي من اختارها يسوع ليعهد إليها بتعاليم بناء الكنيسة المسيحية في حالة تم اغتياله, واعترض بطرس المتعصب للرجال, والذي كان يغار منها, بشدة.
وتحولت مريم المجدلية من سيدة غنية من السلالة الملكية, إلى فقيرة مومس في العهد الجديد, لكي يحطوا من قدرها, ومن بعدها قدر كل أنثى.

كان أحد أساسات الديانات القديمة مفهوم أن المرأة هي المانحة للحياة. حيث أن عملية الولادة كانت حدثاً سحرياً ومؤثراً
ولكن ذلك كان يتعارض مع مصالح رجال الكنيسة, كمحتكري طريق الخلاص, والتعاليم التي تمنح للبشر أفضل حياة. كما أن فكرة الأنثى المقدسة تغذي فكرة الآلهة الأنثى المقدسة في مقابل الإله المسيحي يسوع.

فقررت الكنيسة أن تسرق قوة المرأة الخالقة من خلال إنكار الحقيقة البيولوجية وجعل الرجل هو الخالق. يخبرنا سفر التكوين أن حواء خلقت من ضلع آدم. وبذلك أصبحت المرأة فرعاً من الرجل والأسوأ هو أنها ارتكبت خطيئة من أجل ذلك. كان سفر التكوين هو بداية النهاية بالنسبة للآلهة الأنثى.

قسطنطين وخلفاؤه الذكور نجحوا في تحويل العالم من الوثنية المؤنثة إلى المسيحية الذكورية وذلك بإطلاق حملات تشهير حولت الأنثى المقدسة إلى شيطان مريد ومحت تماماً أي أثر للآلهة الأنثى في الدين الحديث

ولم يتوقف الأمر عند الأنثى فقط, فقد قامت الكنيسة بتشويه كل رموز الديانات القديمة وشيطنتها

فالنجمة الخماسية رمز فينوس آلهة الأنوثة الحب والجمال, تم تعديلها بواسطة الكنيسة الرومانية الكاثوليكية القديمة لتصبح رمز للشيطان
ورمح بوسيدون الثلاثي أصبح شوكة الشيطان
وقبعة العجوز الحكيمة المدببة أصبحت رمز الساحرة الشمطاء
وبافوميت, إله الخصوبة والإنجاب, الذي يتمثل برأس خروف, هو تصور الشيطان ذو القرنين الحالي
وأصبحت كلمة بيجان – عبادة الطبيعة – ترادف تقريباً عبادة الشيطان, والبيجانز هم حرفياً سكان القرى, والذين لم يؤمنوا بمذهب معين وتمسكوا بالأديان القروية القديمة التي تقوم على عبادة الطبيعة. ووصل خوف الكنيسة منهم لدرجة أن كلمة "فيلان" أي القروي, والتي كان يوماً بريئة, أصبحت تعني اليوم الأرواح الشريرة.


ثم كان أكثر كتاب دموي عرفه تاريخ البشرية على الإطلاق, وهو "مالوس مالفيكاروم" – أو مطرقة الساحرات - هذا الكتاب الذي لقن العالم فكرة "خطر النساء الملحدات ذوات الأفكار المتحررة"
وعلمت الإكليروس كيفية العثور عليهن وتعذيبهن وقتلهن
ومن بين اللواتي كانت تحكم عليهن الكنيسة بأنهن "ساحرات" كن كل العالمات والكاهنات والغجريات والمتصوفات ومحبات الطبيعة وجامعات الأعشاب الطبية
وكان يتم قتل القابلات بسبب ممارستهم المهرطقة حيث يستخدمن الخبرة والمعرفة الطبية لتخفيف آلام الوضع – وهي حسب ادعاء الكنيسة آلام فرضتها العدالة الإلهية على النساء عقاباً لهن على ذنب حواء التي أكلت من تفاحة المعرفة, وهذا الإدعاء كانت فكرة نشوء الخطيئة الأولى
ولعلكم تذكرون أن هذا المنع استمر للعصور الحديثة, حيث أنه عندما اكتشف المخدر في أول الأمر حظرت الكنيسة استخدامه في الولادة

وفي النهاية أثمر تشويه الحقيقة وإراقة الدماء, وتم التخلص من خمسة ملايين ساحرة في خلال الثلاثة قرون الأولى


**

و يبدو لي أن الحديث التاريخي مثل الجزء السابق من المراجعة, تمت كتابته كمقال أو بحث عن الموضوع, ثم أدخل عليها الحوار, فإذا أزلت تعليقات "صوفي", ستجد موضوعاً مفصلاً. وبهذه الطريقة أحسست بوجود نقص ما كان قد كتبه دان براون ولكنه اقتطعه لاحقاً. جزء عن حياة المسيح الأولى. ربما لم يكن متأكداً وربما أراد حصر ردود الفعل الغاضبة في زاوية ضيقة.

لقد قدّم الكاتب كتابه في أكتر صيغة من الممكن أن يرضي بها المسيحيين, لقد قدّم الكثير من قرابين المودة ليكسبهم في صفه ضد الكنيسة الكاثوليكية, التي قدمها وكأنها قد خدعت المسيحيين.

لقد قدّم تاريخ موازي, مخالف لما يرويه الفاتيكان, فما كان من الفاتيكان إلا أن أمرت المسيحيين بعدم قراءة الكتاب.
تعم, نحن في الألفية الثالثة وهناك من يظن أنه يستطيع أن يمنع الناس من قراءة شيئاً. وتتوهم الفاتيكان بأنه عندما تخبر الناس بأن قراءة هذا الكتاب حرام, فسيمتنعون عنه.
كما أنها تتعمد التزييف بأن دان بروان يتناول المسيح بسوء, والواقع أنه إنما يتناول الكنيسة الكاثوليكية الرومانية (الفاتيكان) فقط بالسوء.

"كثيرون هم الذين اتخذوا من الأوهام
والمعجزات الزائفة وخذاع البشر تجارة لهم"
ليوناردو دافنشي

n

**
ترجمة الدار العربية للعلوم لـسمة محمد عبد ربه, جيدة وأمينة, وتحاكي أسلوب الكاتب لأقصى حد ممكن

Čitav svet je poludeo za ovom knjigom... I dalje mi nije jasno zašto... Mislim da je pisana za prosečnog neobrazovanog Amerikanca kome je autor sažvakavao istoriju i ti delovi su me bolno smorili... Uvek sam pre za čitanje knjige nego gledanje filma po istoimenoj knjizi... U ovom slučaju prednost dajem Tomu Henksu i filmu... Film kraće traje i preskočene su lekcije iz istorije :)

The writing 2/5

The unexpected acknowledgment of the rise of the sacred feminine in this ultimate dad book 5/5