His main contention that Jesus was with a woman was the painting..its not a photo..its a painting.
2006-09-27 11:41:22 · 8 answers · asked by the man 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Yeah, I get what you're saying. He's basing the whole grand theory on someone else's work of fiction (davinci's painting). That's hilarious.
I was so disappointed with that book. It's not even well written. I want my 8 hours back!
2006-09-27 12:48:47 · answer #1 · answered by star l 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think everyone here has read the book. Yes, obviously it was fictional however there are a TON of facts:
The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarter at 243 Lexington Avenue in NYC.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in theis novel are accurate.
There really are thirteen wine glasses at the last supper table instead of the one they all drank from as imagined by most. There is a person on the right hand of Jesus with "flowing red hair, delicate folded hands, and the hint of a bosom. It was without a doubt... female."
So that clears the air that this book was entirely fictional. To answer your question - I don't think he was treating it like a picture - he was merely interpretting the painting (painted in 1495-1497) to fit into his book. The painting was done by Leonardo the way that he had interpretted the last supper. So since Dan Brown is putting faith into what Leonardo painted and Leonardo painted what he believed then it must be true... at least that is what his fictional book is saying.
2006-09-27 20:29:32 · answer #2 · answered by THATgirl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The *fictional* evidence Dan Brown uses to support his theory is a painting by da Vinci. (spoilers ahead) If you've read "The da Vinci Code", it states that da Vinci was once Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, an organization dedicated to protecting the Holy Grail documents, which were the supposed proof that Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail. Her inclusion in "The Last Supper" reinforces this belief, since Leonardo da Vinci would have known about Christ's liasion.
In any case, this book is a work of fiction, meant only to entertain. No need to take it so seriously.
2006-09-27 18:52:07 · answer #3 · answered by eyanyo13 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why are you Christians so upset about this? He acknowledges that the book is fiction! Get on with life, there are more important things to worry about!
2006-09-27 19:41:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I recollect, Dan Browns book Is FICTION.
2006-09-27 18:49:53 · answer #5 · answered by Belladonna 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have never seen a 2000 year old photo.
2006-09-27 18:44:53 · answer #6 · answered by the_wire_monkey 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why can people not accept that this was a work of fiction. As in he made parts up. As in he's not the end-all authority on art and history.
Let's move on. Please. Really.
It's not even that good of a book!
2006-09-27 18:49:05 · answer #7 · answered by N 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My Man, it's called fiction!
2006-09-27 19:45:47 · answer #8 · answered by Sweetie Poo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋