Changes

[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]

[[Image: monalisa2.jpg|thumb|left|200px|''The Mona Lisa'']]

   

   

Jesus’ divinity in the novel is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death that his divinity was invented by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical [[Gospel]]s, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most. The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God as many believe.

Jesus’ divinity in the novel is another issue altogether. It wasn't until 300 years after his death that his divinity was invented by [[Constantine]] at the [[Council of Nicaea]]. His disciples did not view him as God in the flesh, but instead as a mere mortal prophet. As for the Biblical [[Gospel]]s, well they were four of “over eighty” which were selected at the Council of Nicaea—the four gospels that emphasized Jesus’ divinity and demonized women the most. The rest were destroyed, and the canon as we know it today is not the inspired Word of God as many believe.

It is story above revealing this fictional conspiracy that gives ''The Da Vinci Code'' its allure.

It is story above revealing this fictional conspiracy that gives ''The Da Vinci Code'' its allure.

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the Bible, women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary Magdalene was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives—not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

There is no evidence anywhere that indicates that Jesus was married. (Bock 32) In the Bible, women are often identified by the men whom they are associated with. (Mary the mother of Jesus, the mother of Mark, and the wives of several of the apostles are mentioned.) Mary Magdalene was never tied to any male when she was named. Instead, she was identified by her hometown, Magdala. (Bock 41) While the Bible talks in great detail about Jesus’ other relationships—his mother, father, siblings, aunt, uncle, disciples’ parents, disciples’ wives—not once is Jesus’ wife mentioned. (Welborn 60)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc., wouldn’t he be slightly worried about her well-being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn’t his wife. (Bock 44)

Additionally, when Jesus was dying on the cross, he turned to John and instructed him to take care of his mother. He shows no concern whatsoever for Mary Magdalene in his last moments, which seems odd. After all, if she was his wife, pregnant with his child, his last hope for restoring the sacred feminine, the future leader of his church, etc., wouldn't he be slightly worried about her well-being? Widowed women in those days had little hope of anything but a destitute future with no caretaker. Perhaps the reason why Jesus did not mention her is because, well, she wasn't his wife. (Bock 44)

Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], Ph.D., writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:

Further evidence that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not married is the fact that in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul cites reasons why men should marry. [[Darrell L. Bock]], Ph.D., writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:

If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument, but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

If it were true, Jesus’ marriage would have been a significant addition to Paul’s argument, but it is not mentioned. Perhaps this is because Jesus was not married.(Bock 42)

''The Da Vinci Code'' assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53)  Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If ‘social decorum’ had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn’t have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

''The Da Vinci Code'' assumes Jesus must be married “because Jesus was a Jew and the social decorum during that time virtually forbade a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned.” Actually, celibacy was not condemned, nor was it even looked down upon. (Bock 53)  Several Jewish sects—most notably the Essenes—lived celibate lives dedicating their time wholly to their religion. Additionally, many Jewish prophets and teachers were unmarried and chose to remain celibate: Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and many scholars believe, Paul. It was a way of expressing total devotion to God, but those who did choose to marry were not viewed as any less. (Welborn 60) In an article, [[Archbishop George H. Niederauer]] points out that when Brown talks about Jesus’ marriage, he “stresses the importance of the social decorum at that time. If ‘social decorum’ had been a high priority for Jesus he wouldn't have healed people on the Sabbath, talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, or socialized often with public sinners.” (Niederauer 2)

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history.  OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere… except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps.  Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage.  This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels.  (Ehrman 153)  In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains… in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print.  The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

Teabing states that Jesus’ marriage is “a matter of historical record,” and has been meticulously documented by “scores of historians” throughout history.  OK, so where might these historical records be found? The answer is, nowhere... except in Dan Brown’s imagination, perhaps.  Essentially, in every single early Christian writing combined there is not one single reference to Jesus’ marriage.  This includes the canonical and non-canonical texts—the Constantine-approved, biased selection of scripture known as the Bible as well as the unaltered, censored Gnostic gospels.  (Ehrman 153)  In his book, Darrell L. Bock explains... in my office there are 38 volumes or early church documents, each several hundred pages, double columns, in small print.  The fact that out of all this material only two texts can be brought forward as even ancient candidates for the theory shows how unlikely it is..

===Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”===

===Part II: “Peter’s Party” vs. “Mary’s Party”===

Third, Brown makes this startling claim: “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal.”  This is entirely incorrect.  In their book, ''[[Cracking the Da Vinci Code]]'', [[James Garlow]] and [[Peter Jones]] list a dozen examples of church leaders—apart from the Bible—who spoke directly of Jesus’ divinity from 105 A.D. to 305 A.D.—historical proof of Christians who believed Jesus was divine at least two centuries before the Council.  [[Clement]] said in 150 A.D., “It is fitting you should think of Jesus Christ as God,” and [[Novation]], “He is not only man, but God also.”  (Garlow and Jones 94)

Third, Brown makes this startling claim: “until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet... a great and powerful man, but a man nevertheless. A mortal.”  This is entirely incorrect.  In their book, ''[[Cracking the Da Vinci Code]]'', [[James Garlow]] and [[Peter Jones]] list a dozen examples of church leaders—apart from the Bible—who spoke directly of Jesus’ divinity from 105 A.D. to 305 A.D.—historical proof of Christians who believed Jesus was divine at least two centuries before the Council.  [[Clement]] said in 150 A.D., “It is fitting you should think of Jesus Christ as God,” and [[Novation]], “He is not only man, but God also.”  (Garlow and Jones 94)

Fourth, Brown states that "Establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base…"  Brown states that the divinity of Christ was an invention by power-hungry Constantine seeking to unify the Roman Empire under the banner of Christianity.  If it hadn’t been for Constantine, Christianity would never have survived throughout history.  We certainly would not have the great and powerful establishment know as [[“the Vatican”]] (which Brown apparently thinks is the sum total of Christianity) that we have today.  Gradually, Christianity would have fizzled out and died and few would even remember the mortal prophet Jesus today.

Fourth, Brown states that "Establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman empire and to the new Vatican power base…"  Brown states that the divinity of Christ was an invention by power-hungry Constantine seeking to unify the Roman Empire under the banner of Christianity.  If it hadn't been for Constantine, Christianity would never have survived throughout history.  We certainly would not have the great and powerful establishment know as [[“the Vatican”]] (which Brown apparently thinks is the sum total of Christianity) that we have today.  Gradually, Christianity would have fizzled out and died and few would even remember the mortal prophet Jesus today.

Now, even if it were true that Constantine invented Christ’s divinity, it is highly doubtful that this would have had any effect on the power and success of Christianity…just look at Islam.  Muhammad was a completely mortal prophet, yet the religion he founded “unified empires and gave great power to religious authorities.”  (religiousfacts.com)  According to Brown, the success of Christianity was the result of Constantine’s endorsement of the religion.  However, the opposite was true!  It is very likely that Constantine’s motive was “to enlist the cooperation of what had become the strongest element in the empire: Christianity”.  Christianity would have survived with or without Constantine’s endorsement.  (Latourette 105)

Now, even if it were true that Constantine invented Christ’s divinity, it is highly doubtful that this would have had any effect on the power and success of Christianity...just look at Islam.  Muhammad was a completely mortal prophet, yet the religion he founded “unified empires and gave great power to religious authorities.”  (religiousfacts.com)  According to Brown, the success of Christianity was the result of Constantine’s endorsement of the religion.  However, the opposite was true!  It is very likely that Constantine’s motive was “to enlist the cooperation of what had become the strongest element in the empire: Christianity”.  Christianity would have survived with or without Constantine’s endorsement.  (Latourette 105)

The last claim Brown makes is that Constantine personally compiled that Bible as we know it today at the Council.  He included books that emphasize Jesus’ divinity, and excluded books that mention his humanity.  We have already seen that the books excluded from the Bible, including the Gnostic texts, do not emphasize Jesus’ humanity whatsoever.  In fact, they do the opposite.  What Brown fails to note is that the Bible itself speaks much more, and in great detail about Jesus’ humanity.  Once again, perhaps if Brown had bothered reading the Bible while conducting research, he wouldn’t have made this flagrant error.

The last claim Brown makes is that Constantine personally compiled that Bible as we know it today at the Council.  He included books that emphasize Jesus’ divinity, and excluded books that mention his humanity.  We have already seen that the books excluded from the Bible, including the Gnostic texts, do not emphasize Jesus’ humanity whatsoever.  In fact, they do the opposite.  What Brown fails to note is that the Bible itself speaks much more, and in great detail about Jesus’ humanity.  Once again, perhaps if Brown had bothered reading the Bible while conducting research, he wouldn't have made this flagrant error.

The Gnostic Jesus ”shares wisdom, reveals secrets, and wanders around in a gently spiritual fog, and talks, and talks.  And talks.”  (Welborn 57)  In the Bible, Jesus is described as “eating, drinking, being angry, frightened, lonely, grieving, suffering, and dying.”  The poignantly human descriptions of Jesus found in the four Biblical gospels starkly contrast to the mystical, unapproachable and verbose Jesus of the Gnostic gospels.  Only someone totally ignorant of the Bible would dream of saying its depiction of Jesus ignores his humanity. (Welborn 57)

The Gnostic Jesus ”shares wisdom, reveals secrets, and wanders around in a gently spiritual fog, and talks, and talks.  And talks.”  (Welborn 57)  In the Bible, Jesus is described as “eating, drinking, being angry, frightened, lonely, grieving, suffering, and dying.”  The poignantly human descriptions of Jesus found in the four Biblical gospels starkly contrast to the mystical, unapproachable and verbose Jesus of the Gnostic gospels.  Only someone totally ignorant of the Bible would dream of saying its depiction of Jesus ignores his humanity. (Welborn 57)

This school of thought holds that it was not until Indo-European invaders arrived that these egalitarian, matriarchal societies were brought to an end.  Warfare, weapons, male warrior gods, and patriarchal society were introduced and the age of the mother goddess ended.  (Welborn 74)  Dan Brown presents this view of ancient civilization as historical fact, and states that Jesus’ main goal was to restore the sacred feminine by introducing Mary Magdalene as the new female deity, bringing things back to their natural order.  However, there is one problem with this: numerous recent archaeological finds have proved the mother goddess theory to be nothing but a myth.  There is no evidence that such a period in time ever existed.  (Welborn 74)   

This school of thought holds that it was not until Indo-European invaders arrived that these egalitarian, matriarchal societies were brought to an end.  Warfare, weapons, male warrior gods, and patriarchal society were introduced and the age of the mother goddess ended.  (Welborn 74)  Dan Brown presents this view of ancient civilization as historical fact, and states that Jesus’ main goal was to restore the sacred feminine by introducing Mary Magdalene as the new female deity, bringing things back to their natural order.  However, there is one problem with this: numerous recent archaeological finds have proved the mother goddess theory to be nothing but a myth.  There is no evidence that such a period in time ever existed.  (Welborn 74)   

Another area in which Dan Brown misconstrues facts to further the feminist cause is when, through the character Teabing, he makes the following declaration: "the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women" over a three-century time period (he doesn’t specify which three centuries, but it can be assumed he meant 1500-1800).  Considerable recent research on this subject states the number to be around 40,000.  Dan Brown is not even close.  

Another area in which Dan Brown misconstrues facts to further the feminist cause is when, through the character Teabing, he makes the following declaration: "the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women" over a three-century time period (he doesn't specify which three centuries, but it can be assumed he meant 1500-1800).  Considerable recent research on this subject states the number to be around 40,000.  Dan Brown is not even close.  

The church certainly would not have felt threatened by any of these women, as Dan Brown suggests; they were poor and unpopular—not powerful, freethinking women.  Furthermore, it was rare that church authorities accused witches; it was almost always ordinary citizens, and often other women!  Interestingly, 20-25% of witchcraft charges were made against men and more than half of witch-trial defendants—male and female—were acquitted.  As Amy Welborn puts it, “the witch-trial hype was apparently a nuisance to authorities.”  (Welborn 77)

The church certainly would not have felt threatened by any of these women, as Dan Brown suggests; they were poor and unpopular—not powerful, freethinking women.  Furthermore, it was rare that church authorities accused witches; it was almost always ordinary citizens, and often other women!  Interestingly, 20-25% of witchcraft charges were made against men and more than half of witch-trial defendants—male and female—were acquitted.  As Amy Welborn puts it, “the witch-trial hype was apparently a nuisance to authorities.”  (Welborn 77)

Georgetown art historian Diane Cappadonna states,  

Georgetown art historian Diane Cappadonna states,  

<blockquote>''I do not believe there is a woman in The Last Supper, and I do not believe in any way that it is Mary Magdalene.  The ‘V’ shapes”—not a single ‘M’ as Brown interprets—“that are there serve a solely artistic purpose—to place emphasis in the composition on Christ and to emphasize perspective.'' (Burnstein 229-230) </blockquote> Brown also argues the case that the figure must be a woman because “Da Vinci was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.”  It certainly is true that Leonardo was a skilled painter; however all Renaissance artists depicted the disciple John as decidedly effeminate… Leonardo included.  In fact, most young men were painted with very womanly features.  In Leonardo’s painting St. John the Baptist; the face is astonishingly similar to John in The Last Supper—and equally feminine.  Are we to suppose that this also is secretly Mary Magdalene?  

<blockquote>''I do not believe there is a woman in The Last Supper, and I do not believe in any way that it is Mary Magdalene.  The ‘V’ shapes”—not a single ‘M’ as Brown interprets—“that are there serve a solely artistic purpose—to place emphasis in the composition on Christ and to emphasize perspective.'' (Burnstein 229-230) </blockquote> Brown also argues the case that the figure must be a woman because “Da Vinci was skilled at painting the difference between the sexes.”  It certainly is true that Leonardo was a skilled painter; however all Renaissance artists depicted the disciple John as decidedly effeminate... Leonardo included.  In fact, most young men were painted with very womanly features.  In Leonardo’s painting St. John the Baptist; the face is astonishingly similar to John in The Last Supper—and equally feminine.  Are we to suppose that this also is secretly Mary Magdalene?  

In addition to The Last Supper, Brown states that "…works like the Mona Lisa and Madonna of the Rocks al[so] …seem to be whispering the same cryptic message.  He goes on to describe the Mona Lisa as an androgynous self-portrait.  Shelley Esaak explains Brown’s reasoning behind making such an assertion:  

In addition to The Last Supper, Brown states that "…works like the Mona Lisa and Madonna of the Rocks al[so] …seem to be whispering the same cryptic message.  He goes on to describe the Mona Lisa as an androgynous self-portrait.  Shelley Esaak explains Brown’s reasoning behind making such an assertion:  

The compromise Latourette speaks of did not come without a price, and that was the loss of the purity of original, organic Christianity as nothing but the worship of Jesus Christ and a desire to emulate his character, his example of self-sacrifice, love and mercy.  Jesus’ message had nothing to do with restoring the sacred feminine—but it had everything to do with restoring and redeeming all of humankind.  Brown fails to grasp this basic meaning of Christianity.

The compromise Latourette speaks of did not come without a price, and that was the loss of the purity of original, organic Christianity as nothing but the worship of Jesus Christ and a desire to emulate his character, his example of self-sacrifice, love and mercy.  Jesus’ message had nothing to do with restoring the sacred feminine—but it had everything to do with restoring and redeeming all of humankind.  Brown fails to grasp this basic meaning of Christianity.

In addition to getting the historical facts wrong about the origins of Christianity, Brown also gets the message of Jesus Christ wrong.  In spite of his seeming desire to make the truth known, Brown contradicts himself by having the attitude that, when all is said and done, it doesn’t really matter what the Bible says, or what history says… “what matters is what you believe.”  (The Da Vinci Code, the movie)  In an official interview on his website, Dan Brown states:

In addition to getting the historical facts wrong about the origins of Christianity, Brown also gets the message of Jesus Christ wrong.  In spite of his seeming desire to make the truth known, Brown contradicts himself by having the attitude that, when all is said and done, it doesn't really matter what the Bible says, or what history says... “what matters is what you believe.”  (The Da Vinci Code, the movie)  In an official interview on his website, Dan Brown states:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

''Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.''

''Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress.''