- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted September 9, 2004
Gullibility Destroys Credibility
Cox sets out to give us 'the facts' behind Don Brown's Da Vinci Code. However, his gullibility and historical inaccuracies frequently get the better of him. Typical is the assertion that 'Solomon' derives from 'Sol' (Sun) and 'Amun' (Egyptian Sun god), thus casting doubt on the real existence of the man at all, making him only 'a symbolic reference and wordplay.' (p. 147). 'Sol' is Latin, while 'Amun' is Egyptian. Yet the name Solomon appears in Hebrew texts long before the Hebrews first had contact with the Romans, after the Maccabean Revolt (ca. 150BC). Furthermore, in Hebrew, the final -N is not even present; it was added to meet Greek language requirements (ca. 270BC). In Hebrew, he is King Sh'lomo. So it would be hard to find a more specious derivation than that offered by Cox, or by the 'many modern commentators' to whom he refers. The book is riddled with inaccuracies about Gnosticism, as well as historically false statements about the First Council of Nicaea (325). The books of the New Testament were NOT chosen by the Council. A general consensus had developed since early in the Second Century; but it was not until well after I Nicaea that we have 'finalized' lists. The motivation for finalizing them is far different than Brown or Cox allege. But the Four Gospels in particular were 'settled' before 110AD. There was no further dispute about them, except for Marcion, who tried to rewrite Luke for his own purposes. He did not succeed. Cox does not check his facts carefully enough to claim that he gives us a factual Guide to Brown's fiction. Cox's treatment of Pierre Plantard is hardly sufficient disclosure of the man's chicanery. Plantard is critical to Brown's phoney 'case.'
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 19, 2005
You're Better Off With Historic Archives
This 'book' (glossary) seems to be built on faith more than fact. The problem most harsh critics have with The Da Vinci Code is that it contradicts their beliefs. Worse, with the facts it used, it makes them question their beliefs. Which frightens them. Those with blind faith who read The Da Vinci Code look to Cracking the Da Vinci Code for comfort, telling themselves that it will all be all right, they're not wrong, they were always right. I think fact speaks volumes while faith has trouble scrounging up a paragraph. This 'book' proves it.
1 out of 2 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.