Davinci Code
stjohnsbluepoint
since this is the biggest contoversy in the Davinci Code, you should
read this article.
The Da Vinci Code: Decoding the Agenda
Rev. Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th.D.
Literature and film, as all art, do not merely entertain. It is in
their nature to convey the principles and values of their creators and
so they instruct in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. Much has been written
and said about Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Potential viewers, as
they evaluate the film for themselves, ought to be mindful of the
whopping historical falsehoods on which the book is based.
The literary merits of the book cannot be disputed. It flies along with
its many threads, and seems to lag only in the final chapters. Nor can
one question the advocacy of ideas and convictions through the
respectable literary form of historical fiction. What is confusing
about the book, and Brown's public statements, is the fudging between
fiction and historical fact, and therefore also the consequent moral
implication of misleading people unaware of the details of history.
Brown says that he wrote the novel to generate discussion about faith,
religion, and history, and that is all well and good. But why the
apparently deliberate ambiguity between fact and fiction? Why the
flagrant twisting of the major historical facts on which the book's
story line is built?
Was Jesus married, as Brown contends? No historian, ancient or modern,
and no follower or enemy of Jesus has ever seriously considered such a
thing until Dan Brown at the end of the second millennium. Jesus'
prominence, the open nature of his life and work, and the public
mission of Christianity all preclude the possibility of the Church
keeping such a grand secret throughout the ages. Of course, if on the
basis of historical evidence Jesus was not married, as historians
support, the edifice of Brown's tale crumbles. I have yet to read or
hear Brown say clearly that this cornerstone of his novel is without
historical basis. Startling at it may seem, however, the question can
be reversed. For mainline Judaism and Christianity marriage was and is
honorable and holy. What would be so scandalous, as theologian Eugenia
Constantinou recently wrote, about Jesus being married as part of all
the other human attributes he shared with humanity apart from sin? Why
would the Church need to conceal such a thing and perpetrate a hoax had
Jesus actually been married?
Was Mary Magdalene Jesus' "beloved disciple" depicted on the right hand
of Jesus in Da Vinci's famous painting of The Last Supper? No serious
art historian has backed up Brown on this claim. It is known that in Da
Vinci's time artists' portrayed figures according to stock forms. For
example students were depicted beardless and with long hair, exactly
the portrayal of John the Evangelist, the youngest and beloved
disciple, found in a number of Last Suppers painted over the centuries.
Besides, Da Vinci has left several preliminary sketches of his famous
painting which leave no doubt that he was depicting the youthful St.
John, the beloved disciple, according to the received tradition. If art
historians refute the claim about the presumed woman in Da Vinci's
painting, Brown's story line concerning Mary Magdalene collapses to
dust.
Who was Mary Magdalene? One can either go by the evidence of the
canonical Gospels written in the first century or that of the
apocryphal Gospels of Philip and of Mary Magdalene written in the late
second or even the third century. The picture of Jesus and his ministry
in these two sets of documents is so radically different that one
cannot cherry pick from both sides. An objective historian would rely
on the sources and related witnesses closest to Jesus and the events
involved. On that basis Mary Magdalene was one of the women healed by
Jesus and apparently of such courage and wealth as to accompany and
support Jesus along with the male disciples (Luke 8:2-3). She was not,
as is sometimes thought, the sinful woman who anointed Jesus. Mary
Magdalene is one of the most prominent women in the traditional
Gospels, a leader privileged to be the first witness of the good news
of Christ's resurrection, but in no way a rival to St. Peter or to
anyone else. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philip
deserve no more credibility than the so-called Gospel of Judas recently
in the news. For the historian the bits of information about Mary
Magdalene in the apocryphal Gospels, which in part inspired Dan Brown,
come, as all fairy tales, from the realm of pure fantasy.
Did the Emperor Constantine virtually proclaim the divinity of Jesus in
the fourth century? Brown claims that the Church, under Constantine's
heavy hand, suppressed the apocryphal documents, promoted the canonical
ones favoring the divinity of Jesus, and arrived at the decision that
Jesus was the Son of God for the first time First Ecumenical Council
(325 AD), and by a narrow vote at that! As history, these claims are
nothing but rubbish in the eyes of an honest scholar. The divinity of
Christ was already a firm teaching of St. Paul who was an eye-witness
of the risen Christ and one directly connected with St. Peter and other
original disciples of Jesus (Galatians 1:12-18; 2:1-10; Philippians
2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-18; Acts 15:1-29). The collection of the New
Testament books, while it occurred over a long period of time, was
mostly complete by the end of the second century and was the valued
documented harvest of the apostolic tradition kept within the
mainstream Church. In this collection process some books, such as the
Book of Revelation and the Epistle of James, were disputed. The
radically different apocryphal books, however, were never even part of
the debate for inclusion.
The accusation about suppression is absurd because the persecuted
Church had no power to suppress anyone. The apocryphal books and the
people who wrote them had as much opportunity for success in the
Greco-Roman society as the canonical books and the communities that
fostered them. If they failed, they did so because of lack of substance
and appeal. And as far as the Council vote is concerned, it was never
over Jesus' divinity, which even the Arians gladly proclaimed, but
about the adequate language to articulate this long held apostolic
belief. That language was found in the word homoousios ("of the very
essence or being of the Father") that precluded the false Arian
understanding. The final consensus among the bishops was 348 for and 2
against, hardly a close tally-and it was a vote understood only to
safeguard the received faith, not to invent (!) a radically new form of
it as Brown contends.
Where does all this leave us regarding Brown's book and the new film?
Those who have read the book and those who may see the film would do
well to go beyond its story line to the agenda Dan Brown and others in
our culture bring to the table. We all have our agendas, of course. Let
the agendas clash honestly in open discussion in a free society. "We
cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth" (2
Corinthians 13:8). Free and honest discussion can bring people closer
to what is right and good for humanity because that is the nature of
truth. The problem with Brown's story, if I may put it plainly, is its
lack of sufficient intellectual honesty, and that misleads people.
Without honesty, genuine dialog is impossible.
Fact or fiction? Neither in his book nor in his public statements does
Brown seem to make up his mind. He cunningly mixes the two. He claims
to be writing fiction but on the basis of facts. But what kind of facts
and of what magnitude? The foundations of his story, as indicated
above, have been debunked again and again by historical scholars. What
then remains of Brown's imaginative work? Why does Brown not come clean
and address the issue of the historical falsehoods that have been
exposed? It is one thing to write fiction and advance whatever views
one desires. It is quite another to promote views invoking historical
events and historical figures, and then twist and falsify them to
promote an agenda, because such a thing moves from fictional novel to
intellectual dishonesty, from freedom of speech to moral cynicism, by
confusing or misleading people. If this is all true, and it seems to be
so, then one must draw the conclusion that Brown respects neither his
subject matter, nor his readers.
What remains is Brown's real agenda having to do with our cultural
wars. His book, a captivating web of fantasy, exploits the magnitude of
Jesus and the influence that traditional Christianity still has on
culture, in order to stealthily undermine both! The book bears a
message sinister in the attempted cover-up of its real intent and
foisted on unaware readers by appeals to half-truths and falsified
historical events. When decoded, the message is a broadside against the
Roman Catholic Church. It is an attack on traditional Christian beliefs
and values centered on the person of Jesus Christ, human and divine. It
repudiates the New Testament as a hoax in favor of the apocryphal
books. It advocates unencumbered feminism, egalitarianism, and
sexuality of all types. It is a message about an alternative so-called
Christianity that much resembles the post-modern, new age ideology
pervading today's media and Western culture. It is a philosophy of
those pilgrims who submit to no authority but the self, commit to no
abiding truth but their own predilection, and live by no absolute value
but that of what has been called the "do-it-yourself-kit" of
self-discovery.
Rev. Dr. Theodore Stylianopoulos is the Archbishop Iakovos Professor of
Orthodox Theology and Professor of New Testament at Holy Cross Greek
Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts.
Copyright: 2006