« Serious amusement | Main | Founder's doubts? »
February 06, 2005
The Da Vinci "Code"
Some people, it seems, especially in the media, have difficulty with the terms "fact", "fiction", and "fac-tion". I recently heard the book "The Da Vinci Code" being touted on radio and later on television as "historical fact", which it is not. It certainly raises a number of interesting questions, but fact it is not.
Part of the problem with books like this is that there is a very large body of people who, for whatever reason, wish to see Christianity brought down, or at the very least, to see the structure that we call the church discredited and destroyed. I can only speculate as to why they wish to do this, but it is certain that books like the Da Vinci Code certainly provide fuel for their vendetta. In fact, I will not be surprised to see this "promotion" of the otherwise interesting fictional postulations become the "accepted truth" in much the same way that the "blood libels" are seen by the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish lobby as "fact".
So what is the origin of much of the source material for this book?
Well, the author draws heavily on the New Testament and on the Extra- canonical books rejected by the Council of Nicea because they were from the Gnostic heresy or tended towards that position. Most of those that I have read do not tell me anything I didn't already know and certainly don't change my faith. The problem is that most of the people who will read this work of fiction will not have read the sources and will not bother to check the blurred boundaries of fact versus fiction. This is what makes the book disturbing. Even more disturbing is the automatic assumption that anything not included in the Bible, such as the Acts of Pilate, the Gospel of Thomas, or any other extra-canonical book must have more provenance or truth than those included in the Bible. This reverse logic is not healthy, it betrays a willingness to believe anything that supports a negative opinion or view, and precludes sensible and clinical examination of the evidence. And the evidence does not support all the postulations of this book.
The book postulates that Jesus was married and that his descendents are still among us. It also puts forward the interesting hypothesis that Judas Iscariot was his brother. So, let's take a look at those suggestions.
The New Testament writers simply did not include in their writings anything they considered to be "common knowledge", so it is very likely that Jesus of Nazareth was married; I would even go so far as to suggest that a good candidate for a wife would be Mary or Martha of Bethany, the latter being the more likely. Magdala was a place - it still is, but has changed its name several times in the last two millenia - a small town located on the shores of Lake Galilee, and it is probably there that Simon, James, and John, and possibly others, were first recruited. Christ himself lived a little further along at Capernaum and not in Nazareth as many assume. There is no secret about any of this; it has been known for some time - in fact from the very beginning - but was never considered as significant as the message He brought us. Does any of this change the validity of that message?
Of course not!
Yes, there was a power struggle within the early church; in fact it was a three- and possibly even a four-way split. The faction led by James (identified in scripture as the brother of Jesus) wanted to remain purely a Jewish Sect; Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, and a majority saw that it must outgrow Judaism and the "traditions" of Temple and Synagogue, and there was another faction called the Gnostics who saw things in much the same manner as the Muslim faith does today. Other factions, such as the Docetists, also contributed to the confusion, and the Coptic Church claims to have been founded by Mary Magdalene herself.
By the 6th Century most of these factions had either died out or been absorbed - or, as many of the 8th Century "Fathers" believed, found a new Prophet in Mohammed. The separation of the "Christian" church from its Judaic roots added another complication, particularly as it became more a "Western" religion, in that much of the scripture became overlaid by European interpretation of what it says, and the gaps where it doesn't! Thus virginity, poverty, and a number of other words which have been interpretted by the Western Church in one way actually have a different meaning in the roiginal Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek.
Even the imagery we have of Christ, the disciples, and the Holy Land is all coloured by Medieval interpretation of the scriptures and the fact that the artisits seldom had any idea of the scenes or the people they were painting. There is a lovely story about the models painted in the Last Supper which says that Leonardo had painted all the figures bar Judas Iscariot and went out into the highways and byways to find a suitably evil looking man. He found one, and asked him to pose, whereupon the man burst into tears and said, "Master, I have posed for you before - but the last time I was your Christ!"
If, as the book asserts, the figure next to Christ is a woman, it may well be a case of Leonardo's quirky sense of humour rather than some coded message. The artist was known to poke fun at some of his patrons and this would be one way of doing it which would really bug the Abbot and his Chapter! Besides, they probably wouldn't notice until someone pointed it out!
I am rather saddened by the fact that this otherwise well written story will become, for years to come, yet another weapon in the arsenal of lies, half truths, and propaganda used against the Christian Faith by so many who find it necessary to mock, deride, or denigrate anyone who believes that there is a God. The Church is not and never has been a perfect vehicle; it is, after all, the instrument of humanity and is not infallible. In fact, I rather think that it proves there is a God and that He has a sense of humour. Our antics in worship must afford Him huge amusement - but equally our squabbling and dogma must cause Him huge pain!
Read the book if you must, but do remember that the sources were rejected with good reason and not malicious whim. If you can seek them out and read them, too, at the very least they will cause you to examine your faith. As to the claim that Judas was Christ's brother, let us just say that you will find nothing in any of the literature to support this. If He did father children and their descendents are today walking the Earth, I would hope that they have found and kept the faith as He would have wished. It changes nothing in my own faith - in fact it excites me to think that any one of us could bear the genes and the bloodline of this Son of the Living God!
Every Christian should take the time to examine carefully all the source material and to ponder deeply on what lies in plain view if you interpret it as the Jewish and Helenic converts would have understood it all in the first century. Perhaps it is time to put aside the Medieval European overlays and consider what this Eastern Mystic religion has been trying to say to us for centuries!
May your journey be rewarding!
Posted by The Gray Monk at February 6, 2005 11:54 AM
Comments
I should preface by stating first that I really, really enjoyed reading this book.
But other than that, I have to agree with you. Far too many people know far too little about the sources he's pulling upon to separate the truth from half truth from fiction. As all "historical fiction" writers do (or would it be better to call this book "present fiction"?), Mr. Brown rides a very blurry line between the three in this book.
I would take a very different tack though. I'd encourage people to read it - but take the time to learn about the sources, too (and preferably first).
Posted by: Russell Newquist at February 7, 2005 10:38 PM
That would certainly help. There is one other point that the book fails to take account of - John the Baptists is known to have been a member of the Essene Sect, as was Iscariot and probably several of the others. Paul was certainly a member of a sect of Pharisees that chose to follow a celibate path and there is some evidence that Christ was also an Essene, hence his choice of disciples and of the ritual practiced by John to mark the beginning of His ministry.
Pity, that removes any possibility that there are descendents of His among us today. Readers of this book should really take time out to study the reality of the history and the source materials before leaping to any conclusions drawn from it. It is a work of fiction, not fact.
Posted by: The Gray Monk at February 8, 2005 10:08 AM
I truly believe that it is a sign of a healthy religion to question its accuracy, particularly since the Bible has been changed, interpreted and sometimes abused to meet others agendas. I believe whole-heartedly in God but not in the way that I was taught (by rabid Irish priests at a strict Catholic school) and the main problem I have nowadays with the Bible is the insistance by so many to take it either literally (I'm sure that much if not most of it is metaphoric) or to extract alternative meanings (which is how the neo-cons justify whats happening in the Niddle East for example). How difficult is it for people to get on with their lives in a decent fashion without over-analysing something which is supposed to be accessable to all, not just an intelectual few?
Posted by: Chris at February 8, 2005 07:00 PM
I know I'm a bit late, but there was a very good documentary on Sky One in the UK recently, which started with Dan Brown's assertion on TV that the Priory of Sion was a factual organisation. The rest of the unusually long documentary consisted of a large number of people listing all the reasons why the Priory had been created as a hoax to fool a couple of English grail hunters. I bet the French have enjoyed this one!
Apparently the Church of Saint-Sulpice has had to go to the trouble of printing a leaflet for tourists stating that:
1. The candlesticks are too big to be moved by less than three men and are therefore unlikely to be used to murder nuns.
2. The line through the church was never, ever, called a "Rose line"
The guides also spend a lot of time preventing some tourists from tapping the floor tiles at the base of the obelisk to see if they can find the hole underneath. They also think that if they look closely enough, they'll find the blood of the nun on the floor...
Maybe the Abbey should hire Dan Brown to invent a murder there in his next book - imagine the tourist revenue! And you could sell the leaflets explaining that none of what Brown said was true for 50p a go! It all adds up...
Posted by: groendraak at February 15, 2005 02:23 AM
IN ALL THE COMMENTS LISTED ONE LITTLE FACT GETS IGNORED, THIS BOOK WONT PUT A DENT IN THE BELEIVERS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, BUT THE CHURCH HAS BEEN MAKING UP ITS STORIES AS IT GOES ALONG.HOW LONG AGO IS IT THAT THE INFALABLE CHURCH TORTURED AND BURNED PEOPLE ALIVE FO DARING TO DISAGREE WITH THEM. THESE ANCIENT TIMES ARE STEEPED IN MYTH - SO LIGHTEN UP-SO MUCH EVIL HAS BEEN CAUSED BY THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THERE WAY IS THE ONLY WAY
Posted by: ROB at March 16, 2005 06:44 AM