Difference between revisions of "The Da Vinci Code"

Revision as of 00:51, August 6, 2008

Introduction

The Da Vinci Code is a bestselling novel by author Dan Brown. It has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and has been translated into over 40 languages. (ParisInfo.com) It has been on the top of the NY Times Bestseller List since its release in 2003, often holding the coveted #1 spot for weeks on end. (Catholic.com) The book’s exciting storyline and interesting characters have contributed to its record sales—as has its highly controversial content.

The Da Vinci Code book cover (UK 1st edition)

The Da Vinci Code creates an alternate history of Christianity, leading to protests that the book is attacking the church. Although only a novel, Dan Brown feeds the impression throughout The Da Vinci Code of having meticulously researched the history of Christianity, although many assertions have been pointed out as spurious, including the existence of the Priory of Sion, an organization created in 1099 in the book, while in truth it was a hoax created in 1956. He includes a fact page in the beginning of the book and makes references to numerous historical sources, historians and scholars throughout to give an appearance of scholarly research.

In an interview on Good Morning America, Dan Brown stated with conviction that if he had been asked to write a non-fiction version of The Da Vinci Code he would change none of the historical material he included in the novel. (Bock 3) On the same interview he described an apparent religious experience while conducting research for the book. Brown told an audience of over 15 million viewers that although he started out a “skeptic”, by the end of the book-writing he had became a “believer”. "Almost sounding like an evangelist’s invitation, his confession asked us to ponder whether these things are so and why they might matter.” (Bock 4) Brown contends that the Da Vinci Code is often thought of as more than a typical work of fiction.

Plot Summary

The book is a thriller. Robert Langdon, a [Harverd] “symbologist” (a fictitious field of study), is summoned to help solve a murder committed at the [Louvre] . (.) Langdon and Sophie Neveu, a cryptographer with the French police, are left with a trail of clues to unravel, and with the help of resident scholar Sir Leigh Teabing, crack the codes to uncover groundbreaking secrets.

The first astounding thing Langdon discovers is "the truth" about the biblical figure Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Mary Magdalene was a Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple—in fact she was more than his disciple, she was his lover and wife, and the mother of their child, Sarah. She was Jesus’ female counterpart, if not entirely “equal” to him, she was pretty close, and meant to be worshipped as a goddess.

Furthermore, Brown reports, Mary was actually intended to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death (instead of Peter), but was demonized and diminished by Peter and his followers—the chauvinistic “winners"—until history saw her as nothing more than a prostitute. Although every historical document recording these so-called facts about Mary were destroyed by the “winners”, some groups of people throughout history knew and preserved the secret. Specifically, these organizations were the Knight’s Templar and the Priory of Scion—both real organizations, according to Brown, who were dedicated to preserving the truth of who Mary Magdalene was. One way of doing this was through the legend of the Holy Grail, which Brown states was in fact Mary Magdalene’s womb—the sacred vessel which bore the supposed blood line of Christ. Both organizations worshipped Mary Magdalene as a goddess.

The Mona Lisa

Jesus’ divinity, however, is another issue altogether. It wasn’t until 300 years after his death, Brown asserts, 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 gospels, 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, but instead a power-hungry Constantine’s deceptive compilation—and somewhere, Brown suggests, lying in ashes beneath the earth, is the truth about who Jesus was, who Mary Magdalene was, and what Christianity is all about. The allure of the Da Vinci Code lies in its promise to reveal some great, hidden, conspiracy.

Part I: Mary Magdalene, Wife of the Messiah?

Mary Magdalene is a good place to start, because she and her supposed marriage to Jesus are the cornerstones upon which Brown’s claims rest. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Mary Magdalene is a “royal” Jewish woman from the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus’ single most important disciple. She is not a prostitute—in fact this was a lie invented by the Catholic Church to demonize her. She is also his lover, wife, and the mother of their daughter, Sarah. She was supposed to be the leader of the church after Jesus’ death, but was forced by “Peter’s Party” aka “the winners” to escape to Provence, France with her daughter. Her womb is the “Holy Grail”, her bones are buried under the glass pyramid at the Louvre, the Priory of Scion and Knight’s Templar were dedicated to preserving her story and worshipped her as a goddess, she was the “Divine Mother” and represented the real purpose of Jesus’ life and teaching—to reintegrate the “Sacred Feminine” into society. However, Mary Magdalene is mentioned only a few times in the gospels—and never once is a single one of Brown’s claims about Mary supported by the Biblical record. (Welborn 63)

Where did all of these ideas come from? According to The Da Vinci Code’s resident scholar, Teabing, “the royal bloodline has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians,” citing The Templar Revelation and Holy Blood, Holy Grail as sources. Interestingly, these books (which are also found in Dan Brown’s official bibliography) are dismissed by all serious historians, and described as being “schlock pseudo-history and conspiracy-theory.” (Welborn 63) Teabing also mentions The Woman with the Alabaster Jar and The Goddess in the Gospels, both by Margaret Starbird, who uses, among other things, numerology (the sum of the numbers in her name), to conclude that Mary Magdalene was worshipped as a goddess. Additional sources for Brown’s claims lie in the Gnostic gospels (Welborn 63)

In TDVC, Brown gives credence to Margaret Starbird’s idea that Ariel, the ‘Little Mermaid’ in the Disney film, is not just a fictional fairy tale character, but a symbol representing Mary Magdalene. According to Brown, Walt Disney was a believer in the Sacred Feminine and purposefully filled the movie with hidden codes about Mary Magdalene, including Ariel’s red hair (supposedly MM’s was red as well) and the painting she finds at the bottom of the sea (Georges de la Tour’s Magdalene with the Smoking Flame). (Starbird) These claims seem to be disproven given that Walt Disney had been dead for over 20 years when The Little Mermaid was made in 1989.

Even with these incredulous sources to occasionally back him up, most of Brown’s claims about Mary Magdalene have no historical evidence behind them whatsoever. There is no record anywhere to even suggest that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin—and this would not have made her “royal”. (Ehrman 160) It is true that in the gospels there is no mention of Mary Magdalene as having been a prostitute. This idea first came into existence 500 years after the gospels were written, and became popular in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. In 1969, the Catholic Church issued a formal statement clearing Mary’s reputation, and separating her from Mary from Bethany, the “sinful woman.” (Van Biema)

The idea continually perpetuated by Brown throughout The Da Vinci Code that the church demonized Mary Magdalene (and women in general) for centuries is also highly inconsistent with historical record. Incidentally, this idea is not an original one—in fact, it is quite popular among feminist scholars and professors. (Welborn 68) They teach that Christianity is about men being “the winners” and women being suppressed and diminished and “use a few Gnostic gospels (written over 100 years after Jesus’ death) to speculate [their] ideologically-motivated interpretation of Christianity.” (Welborn 69)

This is totally incompatible with historical evidence, however. During the time period that Mary was supposedly being subdued by Peter’s party, prominent church leaders such as Hippolytus, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine were writing her praises in their literature, describing her as “the new Eve” and “the apostle to the apostles”. If the mainstream Christian church—the winners—were trying to eliminate Mary’s influence and reputation would they at the same time be extolling her virtues and cherishing the fact that she was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection? (Welborn 69-70)

The single shred of evidence upon which the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married is found in a portion of the Gnostic gospel of Philip, written a full 200 years after Jesus’ death, which states, “and the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. […] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […].” Brackets indicate where holes exist in the original manuscript, and clearly any interpretation of this passage requires much guesswork. Many assume [mouth] was the place where [Jesus] used to kiss Mary [often], however, it could just as likely have been forehead, cheek, arm, hand, or foot—we have no way of knowing if it was even speaking of Christ. (Bock 21) Teabing apparently is of the belief that Jesus used to kiss Mary on the mouth, and reports this to Sophie and Langdon as a fact without any explanation. He then goes on to inform a spellbound Sophie and Langdon that “as any Aramaic scholar can tell you, the word ‘companion,’ in those days, literally meant spouse.” (Ehrman 142) Unfortunately for our scholar, this is simply not true. First of all, the word is not Aramaic—the gospel of Peter is written in Coptic, and the word used here for “companion” is actually a loan word—borrowed from Greek—koinόnos. In Greek the word for “spouse,” “wife” or “lover” would have been a form of gyn—koinόnos is a word used for friends and associates. (Ehrman 143)

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 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) 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, P.H.D. writes about this evidence against Jesus’ marriage in the following excerpt:

First Corinthians 9:4–6 may be the most important text for this topic. It reads, “Do we not have the right to the company of a believing wife, like the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I lack the right not to work?” Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married—had He been. Such a point would have sealed his argument, but he did not make that point…This 1 Corinthians 9 passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married—or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus if He had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, there would have been no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul’s case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it because Jesus had not been married.

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)

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”

Dan Brown proves Mary Magdalene to be the true goddess, while at the same time he shows how the early church did not believe Jesus was divine, and in fact, definitively justifies how Jesus himself did not claim to be the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is a myth invented by the “winners”, beginning with Jesus’ chauvinistic disciple Peter. After Jesus’ death, Mary Magdalene was intended to be the leader of the church, but the men of the time refused to let this happen, they would not consider a woman as their leader and guide into salvation. Thus, Mary was forced to flee to France with her child. The church, although not formally created at the time yet, then proceeded to suppress the truth about who Mary was, the wife of Jesus and mother of his child.

This idea appears inconsistent with Biblical record because in fact the Bible and all records kept of it were written and decided upon by the chauvinistic male authorities of the time. In four of the chosen Biblical gospels Mary Magdalene is the first witness of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the single most important events in the history of Christianity, the resurrection of Christ was first witnessed by Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that the early church fathers made no attempt whatsoever to hide this, and in fact they did not. Yes, the writers of the Bible the incredible honor of being the first to witness the resurrected Jesus is attributed to Mary Magdalene. Some may argue that this makes no sense at all; it is the only argument that they have. in reality it fit perfectly. Mary Magdalene was such and intricate, critical, important part of the life of Jesus that it was impossible to completely eradicated her from memory. The theory goes that if they included her in a positive light other that her true being they could always have a reasonable defense for their heinous immoral actions and lies, they could present them as their truth. There is also continuing criticism that the Bible had not been used while conducting research for The Da Vinci Code, however Dan Brown being a devout Christian himself is very fammilur with the Bible and its gospel and use the lost, abolished, forgotten and conveniently neglected byt the church, gospels of John and Mary herself!

This passage from gospel of Mary Magdalene (conveniently rejected in during the Nicene Creed - the writting of the Bible) Shows the view of Jesus toward Mary Magdalene and her true position within the Church.. (Welborn2)

And Peter said, 'did the savior really speak with a woman without our knowledge? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us? And Levi answered, 'Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like an adversary. If the savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us.

This gospel was written over a century after the events it speaks of because of the persecution and destruction of women within the church. (Welborn 69) While some may argue that this gospel, and other like it, are not traceable to a single person who knew Jesus so is true for all the gospels as the only real evidence linking them to Jesus is the writings themselves - a very convenient way to one's point (proof by simply stating you are telling the truth!). (Welborn 55) This therefore is just as credible a source as the Bible itself. In The Da Vinci Code, after hearing this passage, Sophie remarks, “I daresay Peter was something of a sexist,” and indeed he was. To refute this other gospels were written depicting Jesus wit the same chauvinistic tendencies as Peter, in some gospels the Gnostic Jesus did not have very different views on women thus vindicating Peter and proving his was a true gospel; review words from the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, and two scholars’ explanation of it.

"Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (Gospel of Thomas 114) “Jesus is not suggesting a sex-change operation, but is using 'male' and 'female' metaphorically to refer to the higher and lower aspects of human nature. Mary is thus to undergo a spiritual transformation from her earthly, material, passionate nature (she is a free thinking human which is ultimately a danger to power hungry men) to a heavenly, spiritual, intellectual nature (which the evangelist equates with the male, however males have historically proven time and time again that they are the least intellectual, more rash and violent sex).” (Funk and Hoover 532)

In reality, Brown refutes this gospel with several others and is showing how the true position of man and women is that of equality in all aspect according to numerous other gospels. "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of the church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene." -Sir Leigh Teabing TDVC 248)

Part III: The Gnostics

Film adaptation

Director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer and actor Tom Hanks teamed up to make a film adaptation of the novel. It opened at the Cannes Festival and was conformed of an enseble cast. It failed to live up to box office expectations which called for a super blockbuster and was critically lambasted for its pacing and ridiculous sounding dialog.