The Da Vinci Code
Truth is more a stranger than fiction"
The Da Vinci Code has become a literary hit and a cultural phenomena, with various television programs, interviews, and books coming forward to defend the theological premises that the author asserts as fact. I would like to state upfront that I have not myself read the book. And then you, my reader, may feel inclined to dismiss whatever I have to say out-of-hand. But I am familiar with the theological issues in the text itself via many second-hand reports that all corroborate with each other.
Now, as I understand it, the Da VInci Code stands upon the following premises for its theoligcal "secrets."
1) That Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelane were romantically involved, probably married, and conceived a child together. That bloodline is still with us today.
2) This secret was kept by the Cathars, a group of heretics routed in the Middle Ages.
3) The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon (The Knights Templar) also possessed this secret after discovering it themselves in some chambers beneath Solomon's temple. This also occured in the Middle Ages.
4) The "Priory of Sion" is the place/organization that conceals this bloodline begun by Jesus and Mary.
5) Leonardo Da VInci knew this secret, having been one of the heads of this Priory, and included clues in his famous painting "The Last Supper."
The author, I think irresponsibly, claims that every organization, ritual, secret society, etc. mentioned in his book really exists or did exist at the point he says it did. I only say irresponsibly because of the misinformation that is filling people's heads since reading his work. Now, in all fairness, the author might not have known that his work would become so wide-spread - but still I do not think this excuses someone from attempting to inspire many readers of a fictional (read: not real) account of history as, if you'll pardon the pun, gospel truth. Let us proceed to the premises under question.
Premise 1) Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelane were romantically involved and had a child together
There is no evidence for this kind of relationship anywhere in the Biblical text. Nor does the Biblical text describe her as a prostitute although (as there were many women named Mary) some have construed a certain prostitute named Mary to also be Mary Magdelane. The author, in his work, claims (in the voices of characters certainly) that the Church later denounced her as a prostitute and wrote her out of the gospel tradition. Now, Mary Magdelane is credited with being one of the first women to discover that Jesus Christ has risen from his grave, restored by God and the other disciples do not immediately believe her.
IF the Church were really just a bunch of old men with a strong bias against women, they would not have included this detail because it makes the men look like fools. If women are being "dominated" and "villified" by a supposedly anti-feminist organization (The Church), then they would not have left Mary in as the first to discover the truth of the Risen Lord - a truth concerning the Messiah that the disciples (men) did not yet understand! Why have a woman understanding things that you don't if you hate women, and are yourself a man? It makes no sense.
There is also an appeal to the GNostic Gospels discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, these "gospels" were supposedly repressed by the church because they threaten the Church. These gospels also ennoble Mary Magdelane as a very important figure. First of all, Mary Magdelane does not need to be ennobled by any other extra-Biblical work because, if women are less than men, then why did the CHurch Fathers (if they hate women so much) include the verses from Galatians where Paul writes "There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free; all are equal in the eyes of God." Why does Paul write of mutual submission of men and women in marriage as equal partners? Why do married couples, as written in Genesis, become "one flesh" and not a male-dominated partnership? Because in Christianity, once married, the couple becomes an entirely new entity (spiritually, but nonetheless still truly).
Furthermore, the gnostic gospels also villify women. The "Gospel of Thomas," which is often said to be prime evidence for Jesus' relationship with Mary as being romantic, also supposedly records Jesus as saying "Unless a woman makes herself into a man, she cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Hardly something Jesus would have said. Which is why these gospels are rejected by the Church - because if they were included, then we would have an *incoherent* Bible. We do not have one now, but we would if we included the Gnostic Gospels. Which, by the way, are the gospels that are dated sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ in origin.
Premise 2) This secret was kept by the Cathars, a group of heretics routed in the Middle Ages.
The Cathars were a dualist type of heresy in the church. For one, they believed that Satan, not God created the world and that everything in the world was intrinsically evil including marriage and having children. Which brings us to the first contradiction in The Da VInci Code, if the Cathars held Jesus in enough regard to bear his "secret" concerning the child he and Mary Magdelane had - why do they also hold such a thing as marriage as evil? The CHurch, which was ruthless in its eradication of the Heretics (and I'm not necessarily justiffying that kind of behavior on the church's part) is also claimed to have been so ruthless because the Cathars kept this secret. Well, if they didn't keep any of their beliefs secret that brought the Inquisition and Crusaders down upon them, why protect this one? And if they did possess this supposed secret of Jesus' bloodline, why did they not keep all of their heretical beliefs secret to avoid suspicion entirely?
The Church's ruthless eradication of the Cathars is also not an isolated incident, sadly. The Church also carried on such pogroms against the Bogomil Heretics in Eastern Europe, The Knights Templar, and anyone suspected of witchcraft several hundred years later following the publication of the Malleus Malificarum, or the "Hammer of Witches." Thus the argument that the CHurch was so thirsty for Cather blood because of its ruthlessness ignores every major heresy in history.
Premise 3) The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon (The Knights Templar) also possessed this secret after discovering it themselves in some chambers beneath Solomon's temple. This also occured in the Middle Ages.
Nope. The Temple was buried in the MIddle Ages, some 50-60 meters down and to dig it out enough to walk around in the ruins would have proven to be an impossible feat for a small order of militant monk-knights. The argument that they discovered some secret that amde them rich in the self-same temple is also misplaced. Yes the Templars became quite wealthy, but it was because of their great fame and status they won in service to Christian pilgrims venturing to the Holy Land. They were also some of the strongest and battle-ready Knights in all of Europe.
The book goes on to argue that The Templars were accused of heresy because they, too, possessed the secret of Jesus' bloodline being born in a child he had with Mary Magdelane. Obviously false. Philip the Fourth, King of France, brought up trumped up charges against the Knights Templar to get his hands on their accumulated wealth - hte King himself starting to look down the barrel of poverty. Within two years the Knights Templar had been disbanded. The official charges included many counts of pedophilia, sorcery and witchcraft, idolatry, practicing Islam, and on and on and on. When the Pope looked into the matter it was, unfortunately, too late - he was quite angry with his Inquisitors for the Pope himself found no trace of heresy within the organization.
Premise 4) The "Priory of Sion" is the place/organization that conceals this bloodline begun by Jesus and Mary.
Also false. There was a suppsoed interview with the "headman" of this priory some fifty years ago, wherein he alludes to documents that the author of "The Da Vinci Code" says traces the lineage of Christ to the lineage of the Maroviginian Kings (spelling?) who founded the nation of France. This dynasty was founded, I believe, by Charlemagne himself, the first Holy Roman Emperor. The actual documents only trace this "headman's" lineage to the blood of these Kings, and he later confessed that all the papers discovered were elaborate hoaxes trying to elevate himself in the eyes of the masses by portraying himself as a descendant of the first Kings of France. When word got out that these kings also supposedly bore the blood of CHrist, this "headman" flipped out and quickly confessed, not wanting to be suspected of claiming to be an actual descendant of Christ. THis has all been well documented by a French journalist some fifty to forty years ago.
Thus the Priory of Sion did exist, but it was not headed by such people as Leonardo Da Vinci or ISaac Newton, but only three people were ever its members and it was "founded" in the nineteen hundreds, not at the turn of the first millenium AD.
Premise 5) Leonardo Da VInci knew this secret, having been one of the heads of this Priory, and included clues in his famous painting "The Last Supper."
Well, see above for Leonardo himself having ever been head of an organization that post-dated him by some 600 years or so.
But Leonardo Da VInci, credited with many intriguing ideas concerning engineering marvels, was himself a questioner and general sceptic, not a mystic or man concerned with faith. For someone to claim that he hid clues as to the secret of this Jesus-Mary bloodline and its descendants flies into the face of everything that we know about this man.
Furthermore, for those who point out the "man" sitting next to Jesus Christ in Da VInci's painting "The Last Supper" is far too effeminate to be Saint John, please look at Da VInci's other works. He has other paintings where the same figure is painted, all by himself, and is depicted in a quite androgynous, if not strongly effeminate, figure. And no one doubts that Saint John existed with good reason.
The verdict? The theology of "The Da VInci Code" hasn't got a leg to stand on. It may make for an interesting read, it may even be a very good story, but its theology is pure and utter bunk. It is fiction. And it astounds, and disturbs me, that we are so willing to jump onto a band wagon that decries the gospel as myth, the church as women-hating conspirators through the span of two thousand years rather than look at the gospels and the figure of Jesus Christ himself as reliably portrayed by the coherent Bible and deal with his challenging questionJesus asked of Saint Peter:
"Who do you say that I am?"
The Da Vinci Code has become a literary hit and a cultural phenomena, with various television programs, interviews, and books coming forward to defend the theological premises that the author asserts as fact. I would like to state upfront that I have not myself read the book. And then you, my reader, may feel inclined to dismiss whatever I have to say out-of-hand. But I am familiar with the theological issues in the text itself via many second-hand reports that all corroborate with each other.
Now, as I understand it, the Da VInci Code stands upon the following premises for its theoligcal "secrets."
1) That Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelane were romantically involved, probably married, and conceived a child together. That bloodline is still with us today.
2) This secret was kept by the Cathars, a group of heretics routed in the Middle Ages.
3) The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon (The Knights Templar) also possessed this secret after discovering it themselves in some chambers beneath Solomon's temple. This also occured in the Middle Ages.
4) The "Priory of Sion" is the place/organization that conceals this bloodline begun by Jesus and Mary.
5) Leonardo Da VInci knew this secret, having been one of the heads of this Priory, and included clues in his famous painting "The Last Supper."
The author, I think irresponsibly, claims that every organization, ritual, secret society, etc. mentioned in his book really exists or did exist at the point he says it did. I only say irresponsibly because of the misinformation that is filling people's heads since reading his work. Now, in all fairness, the author might not have known that his work would become so wide-spread - but still I do not think this excuses someone from attempting to inspire many readers of a fictional (read: not real) account of history as, if you'll pardon the pun, gospel truth. Let us proceed to the premises under question.
Premise 1) Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelane were romantically involved and had a child together
There is no evidence for this kind of relationship anywhere in the Biblical text. Nor does the Biblical text describe her as a prostitute although (as there were many women named Mary) some have construed a certain prostitute named Mary to also be Mary Magdelane. The author, in his work, claims (in the voices of characters certainly) that the Church later denounced her as a prostitute and wrote her out of the gospel tradition. Now, Mary Magdelane is credited with being one of the first women to discover that Jesus Christ has risen from his grave, restored by God and the other disciples do not immediately believe her.
IF the Church were really just a bunch of old men with a strong bias against women, they would not have included this detail because it makes the men look like fools. If women are being "dominated" and "villified" by a supposedly anti-feminist organization (The Church), then they would not have left Mary in as the first to discover the truth of the Risen Lord - a truth concerning the Messiah that the disciples (men) did not yet understand! Why have a woman understanding things that you don't if you hate women, and are yourself a man? It makes no sense.
There is also an appeal to the GNostic Gospels discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. Now, these "gospels" were supposedly repressed by the church because they threaten the Church. These gospels also ennoble Mary Magdelane as a very important figure. First of all, Mary Magdelane does not need to be ennobled by any other extra-Biblical work because, if women are less than men, then why did the CHurch Fathers (if they hate women so much) include the verses from Galatians where Paul writes "There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free; all are equal in the eyes of God." Why does Paul write of mutual submission of men and women in marriage as equal partners? Why do married couples, as written in Genesis, become "one flesh" and not a male-dominated partnership? Because in Christianity, once married, the couple becomes an entirely new entity (spiritually, but nonetheless still truly).
Furthermore, the gnostic gospels also villify women. The "Gospel of Thomas," which is often said to be prime evidence for Jesus' relationship with Mary as being romantic, also supposedly records Jesus as saying "Unless a woman makes herself into a man, she cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Hardly something Jesus would have said. Which is why these gospels are rejected by the Church - because if they were included, then we would have an *incoherent* Bible. We do not have one now, but we would if we included the Gnostic Gospels. Which, by the way, are the gospels that are dated sometimes several hundred years after the death of Christ in origin.
Premise 2) This secret was kept by the Cathars, a group of heretics routed in the Middle Ages.
The Cathars were a dualist type of heresy in the church. For one, they believed that Satan, not God created the world and that everything in the world was intrinsically evil including marriage and having children. Which brings us to the first contradiction in The Da VInci Code, if the Cathars held Jesus in enough regard to bear his "secret" concerning the child he and Mary Magdelane had - why do they also hold such a thing as marriage as evil? The CHurch, which was ruthless in its eradication of the Heretics (and I'm not necessarily justiffying that kind of behavior on the church's part) is also claimed to have been so ruthless because the Cathars kept this secret. Well, if they didn't keep any of their beliefs secret that brought the Inquisition and Crusaders down upon them, why protect this one? And if they did possess this supposed secret of Jesus' bloodline, why did they not keep all of their heretical beliefs secret to avoid suspicion entirely?
The Church's ruthless eradication of the Cathars is also not an isolated incident, sadly. The Church also carried on such pogroms against the Bogomil Heretics in Eastern Europe, The Knights Templar, and anyone suspected of witchcraft several hundred years later following the publication of the Malleus Malificarum, or the "Hammer of Witches." Thus the argument that the CHurch was so thirsty for Cather blood because of its ruthlessness ignores every major heresy in history.
Premise 3) The Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon (The Knights Templar) also possessed this secret after discovering it themselves in some chambers beneath Solomon's temple. This also occured in the Middle Ages.
Nope. The Temple was buried in the MIddle Ages, some 50-60 meters down and to dig it out enough to walk around in the ruins would have proven to be an impossible feat for a small order of militant monk-knights. The argument that they discovered some secret that amde them rich in the self-same temple is also misplaced. Yes the Templars became quite wealthy, but it was because of their great fame and status they won in service to Christian pilgrims venturing to the Holy Land. They were also some of the strongest and battle-ready Knights in all of Europe.
The book goes on to argue that The Templars were accused of heresy because they, too, possessed the secret of Jesus' bloodline being born in a child he had with Mary Magdelane. Obviously false. Philip the Fourth, King of France, brought up trumped up charges against the Knights Templar to get his hands on their accumulated wealth - hte King himself starting to look down the barrel of poverty. Within two years the Knights Templar had been disbanded. The official charges included many counts of pedophilia, sorcery and witchcraft, idolatry, practicing Islam, and on and on and on. When the Pope looked into the matter it was, unfortunately, too late - he was quite angry with his Inquisitors for the Pope himself found no trace of heresy within the organization.
Premise 4) The "Priory of Sion" is the place/organization that conceals this bloodline begun by Jesus and Mary.
Also false. There was a suppsoed interview with the "headman" of this priory some fifty years ago, wherein he alludes to documents that the author of "The Da Vinci Code" says traces the lineage of Christ to the lineage of the Maroviginian Kings (spelling?) who founded the nation of France. This dynasty was founded, I believe, by Charlemagne himself, the first Holy Roman Emperor. The actual documents only trace this "headman's" lineage to the blood of these Kings, and he later confessed that all the papers discovered were elaborate hoaxes trying to elevate himself in the eyes of the masses by portraying himself as a descendant of the first Kings of France. When word got out that these kings also supposedly bore the blood of CHrist, this "headman" flipped out and quickly confessed, not wanting to be suspected of claiming to be an actual descendant of Christ. THis has all been well documented by a French journalist some fifty to forty years ago.
Thus the Priory of Sion did exist, but it was not headed by such people as Leonardo Da Vinci or ISaac Newton, but only three people were ever its members and it was "founded" in the nineteen hundreds, not at the turn of the first millenium AD.
Premise 5) Leonardo Da VInci knew this secret, having been one of the heads of this Priory, and included clues in his famous painting "The Last Supper."
Well, see above for Leonardo himself having ever been head of an organization that post-dated him by some 600 years or so.
But Leonardo Da VInci, credited with many intriguing ideas concerning engineering marvels, was himself a questioner and general sceptic, not a mystic or man concerned with faith. For someone to claim that he hid clues as to the secret of this Jesus-Mary bloodline and its descendants flies into the face of everything that we know about this man.
Furthermore, for those who point out the "man" sitting next to Jesus Christ in Da VInci's painting "The Last Supper" is far too effeminate to be Saint John, please look at Da VInci's other works. He has other paintings where the same figure is painted, all by himself, and is depicted in a quite androgynous, if not strongly effeminate, figure. And no one doubts that Saint John existed with good reason.
The verdict? The theology of "The Da VInci Code" hasn't got a leg to stand on. It may make for an interesting read, it may even be a very good story, but its theology is pure and utter bunk. It is fiction. And it astounds, and disturbs me, that we are so willing to jump onto a band wagon that decries the gospel as myth, the church as women-hating conspirators through the span of two thousand years rather than look at the gospels and the figure of Jesus Christ himself as reliably portrayed by the coherent Bible and deal with his challenging questionJesus asked of Saint Peter:
"Who do you say that I am?"
posted by Brian at 7:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home