I saw The Da Vinci Code last night was pretty underwhelmed by the flick. That said, it had a number of commendable qualities, notably the ever-amazing Ian McKellan as rather oddly named Sir Leigh Teabing. I also enjoyed the historical flashbacks, even if I didn’t always agree with the interpretation of history — and was delighted they did show the goddess Athena at the same time I’m finishing up a proposal to do my dissertation on that gray-eyed Olympian. I did cringe, however, when Roman Christians pulled her statue down.
And while I believe the movie got the Grail wrong and while Christians are upset that its misrepresented the history of their faith, I don’t think those misinterpretations accounted for the success of the book. I think its success had to do with the fact that it’s a good thriller which uses symbols from history, ancient faiths and classic art. And Dan Brown (the author) dared to say what too much modern scholarship has attempted to obscure — that these symbols have meaning.
I believe, particularly in this increasingly rational society, people hunger for such meaningful symbols in their lives.
I doubt that all the fans (perhaps not even a majority) of the book (and now movie) believe Teabing’s theories on Christianity, that is, that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife and was herself the Grail. They just liked the fast-paced story and shared Landon’s (Tom Hanks) fascination with ancient (and still meaningful) symbols. And perhaps, the same thing drew readers to this book that drew fifteenth century readers to Sir Thomas Malory‘s Le Morte D’Arthur, the first best seller in the English language, the archetypal fascination of the Grail quest.
Sir Leigh’s insistence on exposing how he believes the Catholic Church misrepresented its own history seems a bit nonsensical to me. He seems to want to expose the church for the atrocities it committed. To be sure, many of his accusations are historically accurate. But, they’re just that — history. The faithful did torture and execute many who did not accept the doctrines they espoused. But, this atrocities began to fade once Christianity began to reincorporate Græco-Roman elements during the Renaissance.
Today, we rarely (if ever) hear of Christians committing such atrocities. Findng the Christian myth to be a fraud wouldn’t undo those crimes — nor would it do much to prevent them in the present day.
Even if Jesus did have a wife, that wouldn’t change the fact that the faith has spread rapidly — and continues to attract followers — with the idea of a celibate Jesus as the son of God at its heart. And while Buddhism’s founder, the Buddha himself, was not divine in the sense that Jesus was, he too renounced family life to live, as Jesus did, preaching his “gospel” while remaining celibate.
Thus, the religions with the greatest appeal in the East as well as the West have a celibate man at their heart of their myth.*
I’m not a Christian, so I can’t speak to the accuracy of the Da Vinci Code‘s potrayal of Christian history. The fact remains that, as currently understood, Christianity has provided the backbone of Western civilization and has moved beyond the narrow faith of the Middle Ages. Would the faith have had the appeal it did if it had had a married man as its Savior? The experience of Buddhism suggests that it would not.
I believe that the greatness of Western Civilization has been its ability, since the Renaissance, to balance the strengths of the Judeo-Christian and Græco-Roman traditions. And to understand that greatness, we need to look at the traditions as they are — and not as they might have been.
The image of a celibate Jesus is essential to that tradition. Acknowledging that, let’s accept Dan Brown’s theory as just that, a theory which, even if true, would not undermine the positive influence Christianity has had on our culture or the impact it has had on hundreds of millions of people — in our era and throughout history.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*Before his enlightenment, however, the Buddha married the compassionate Yasodhara and had a child with her. After his epiphany under the Bodhi Tree, however, he did not again engage in conjugal relations with that wise woman.
And what did Yasodhara do to deserve that? Or did she get to get a new husband?
I don’t know why celibacy has such a mystique about it other than in relation to the idea that the spirit is good and flesh is bad and therefore sex is bad. One of the earlier heresies of the Christian church was that Christ did not actually become flesh which is why some of the confessions state absolutely that he did become flesh… either that or he *did* and that made him not-God, which is the same error only backward.
While the idea of Jesus being married tends to upset people the doctrine that he was without sin and therefore could die for our sin rather than his own (not having any of His own) is only offended by his potential marriage if sex within marriage is sinful. Protestants generally don’t believe that sex in marriage is any sort of sin at all.
#1: I think you’re extending the notion of “sin” wrongly to Buddhist beliefs. Buddhism teaches a path to enlightenment which essentially is the release from suffering caused by “attachment”, “clinging” or “craving.” Obviously, being in a relationship, even if married, is going to result in attachment and craving if not lust and hence will result in suffering. It is not “sinful” to suffer but if you want to achieve enlightenment, you need to eliminate your suffering and that requires eliminating its causes. However, Buddhism does not label you a bad person if you don’t become enlightened.
Not having read the book, I liked the flick too. Though I thought the film was disjointed at the begining, I felt it hit its stride about a third of the way through. Ian McKellan was great, as he usually is. I even went with one of my Repulican friends to see it, hehe.
As for the story, I thought it seemed as believable as the original. I suspect that’s why the church despises it so. Because of its simplicity, this notion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife is probably an idea that will stick.
Leigh Teabing is named after 2 of the authors of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent, which Brown based his book on (They are the guys who sued him in London recently). Have yall seen McKellan on TV recently? He said the Bible needs a disclaimer at the front saying that it’s a work of fiction and on Bill Maher’s show said he believes what the character he plays in the movie says regarding Jesus having a wife etc. to be true….
Sic em Magneto!
I can appreciate why some Christians are alarmed by the book and movie.
I had the same reaction to Ollie Stone’s “JFK” –where it’s implied the military was involved in the murder of Kennedy– or Spike Lee’s movie on Malcolm X where blame for his death seems shifted from the Nation to the FBI.
For most Americans, seeing it on the screen tends to make one believe that it’s true or real. It’s why Micheal Moore and Al Gore understand that if they can gain the legitimacy of the screen and the credibility of a docu-drama format, it’ll be believed by most viewers.
The flick U93 proves the point about the compelling nature of docu-drama formats.
I like the comment of our parish priest last week about his lack of concern over the film’s success… he said, “The people going to see it and whose faith is changed because of it, don’t deserve to be called religious or Catholic. A film like this can influence those of weak spirit or faith –but not the righteous or true. It’s a film for the ChrisEasters and those suspicious of and intolerant of religion in the first place”.
ChrisEasters (pronounced KREE-sters) are those Catholics who come out of the closet for Mass on Christmas and Easter and fail to live a faith-based life the other 363 days of the year.
I liked the movie for the same reason I like Ludlum novels, LeCarre books, T Harris, Tami Hoag, Grisham and Patterson… thrillers that strain reality in all the right places –but works of fiction nonetheless.
“alarmed ” by fiction. gimme a break.
A major tenet of Christianity is personal salvation. Each individual can find it within themselves, regardless of their social station in life. The same is true of Buddhism, which negates Hinduisms caste system.
If either Jesus or Buddha had children that continued their legecy, it would throw off the uniqueness of the founders of these great religions. Those decendents would be much more special than any one else, throwing a wrench into the salvation for anyone.
On a political note, what if George Washington had children, would he have been able to turn away from the idea of being King? Would he have had the personal strenght to say: I’ve done my duty, now it is time for others to take over.
” I think you’re extending the notion of “sin” wrongly to Buddhist beliefs. Buddhism teaches a path to enlightenment which essentially is the release from suffering caused by “attachment”, “clinging” or “craving.” ”
AMEN! Oddly enough, a lot of contradictions between various Christian doctrines just go away when you look at them through buddhist terminology and concepts. One example – “Clinging” and the deluded sense of ego it arises from turns out to be a very good analysis of Original Sin, and it dispenses with all the nonsense about why a loving god would create people one way (sinful)and then damn them for it.
“I don’t know why celibacy has such a mystique about it other than in relation to the idea that the spirit is good and flesh is bad and therefore sex is bad. ”
Synova, that is obviously a very valid way of looking at it, but remember that Shiva was a celibate ascetic for whatever number of eons, and he is anything but a goody-goody.
hank #7 “alarmed” because they don’t believe average movie goers are discerning enough to understand the movie is fiction. As Erik wrote above: “As for the story, I thought it seemed as believable as the original.”
Some movie goers don’t know it’s fiction, hank. That’s the point of alarm for some Christians.
You can be sure however, that the majority of audiences in the Islamic Middle East will not regard the movie as “fiction”. Paranoia about sinister conspiracies is a cultural pastime.
Opening statement of the DaVinci Code:
“FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
But they aren’t. How would you feel if a “fiction” book came out with the above statement emblazoned on the front page, and then the backstory involved the following “facts” – that homosexuals were not targeted for execution by the Nazi party, that the Stonewall riot was the plot of a secret cult of pedophiles and infanticists, that every homosexual who ever lived was part of a vast conspiracy to undermine society as we know it?
Just some fun fiction? How about if the backstory also ascribed secret rituals and verifably false histories to gay advocacy groups?
But it says “novel” on the cover, so anything is fair game?
Like that bit about Mona Lisa being an anagram for Egyptian gods? Trouble is, Da Vinci never named the portrait Mona Lisa.
Folding up the “Virgin on the Rocks?” It is painted on wood. It can’t be done.
The list of verifiable historic errors in the novel are too numerous to list. This is fine for a very loose work of fiction, not one that begins with the claims that the DaVinci Code does.
The Qur’an and Da Code
This truth is stranger than these fictions
Dan Brown, quite unwittingly I’m sure, has done us a great service – he has made known to the general population the existence of certain ‘stories’ about Jesus.
The Qur’an’s portrayal of the ‘Virgin Mary’ and Brown’s Da Vinci Code share a common genesis and will eventually meet up at the same destination.
How can this be? Well…a couple of millenia or so, ago, a thirst to know more about Jesus than the gospels revealed gave rise to the concoction of various ‘fables’.
These ‘fables’ were tailored specifically to resonate with certain audiences and to meet perceived needs and prevailing ‘expectations’. Naturally therefore, they were riddled with historical errors.
The Da Vinci Code and part of the Qur’an’s ‘Virgin Mary’ story borrowed material from this ‘fabled’ library and, living up to time-honoured tradition, tailored their own ‘fables’ to resonate with certain audiences and to meet perceived needs and prevailing ‘expectations’. Naturally therefore, they also are riddled with historical errors.
Being only a ‘lending’ library, however, these ‘fables’ based on ‘fables’ will eventually be called in by their rightful owner – the great ‘fable’ library of history.
“Some movie goers don’t know it’s fiction, hank. That’s the point of alarm for some Christians.”
You give no credit at all to the movie going public? What are they ” morons”? They don’t know it’s fiction?
Please. Then they get what they deserve.
Years before Dan Brown published “The Da Vinci Code” there were Christian scholars raising the possibility that Jesus was married. At that time, and on occasions since, I discussed the issue with ministers in my church — one of the mainline Protestant denominations. Every one of those pastors said the same thing: while a non-celibate married Jesus might give the Catholic church heartburn, it would not alter the foundation of our faith (the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ).
Michigan Matt: you are catholic? and gay?
My parish ran me out because I was a gay Eucharistic Minister. How can you defend them?
DaVinci Code is hogwash, but I can’t defend the Roman Catholic faith.
hank –I don’t have the same level of cynicism and distain for the movie going public that you seem to hold –I doubt most movie goers have the intellectual tools or grounding in history to be able to discount the fictional nature of The Code. They just don’t and hazarding them to their own device seems like a prescription for failed moral leadership. The problem isn’t how I view the movie going public; it’s how YOU view them.
The truth is that when something makes it up on the screen –it connotes a false truth and credibility to many. Just like with Last Temptation, JC Superstar, and the Passion –people take away from these emotional films falsehoods that are packaged as truth. Ollie Stone’s films, Stevie Segal’s anti-corporate drivel, the “cops are crooks” genre, and countless other examples make the point.
Just like another post here about Mikey Moore’s current trouble over F-911 or, after it has been better dissected, like with Al Gore’s upcoming docu-drama pseudo-science film on global warming… truth sometimes evades the movies as easily as it does DanRather’s producers.
I never have subscribed to the notion that “…They don’t know it’s fiction? Please. Then they get what they deserve.” Even lemmings, dear hank, deserve to be saved from the cliff’s edge.
It’s why I still have marginal hope for the GayLeft.
mike-gay at #16: “Michigan Matt: you are catholic? and gay? My parish ran me out because I was a gay Eucharistic Minister. How can you defend them? DaVinci Code is hogwash, but I can’t defend the Roman Catholic faith.”
I didn’t know I was defending the Catholic Church. I was sharing what our parish priest offered as his perspective last Sunday… no, he didn’t get clearance from Rome before talking. I think he nailed it.
Not to put too fine a point on it… but if I were you and had been “run out” I would have run back in via another door or found an alternative parish because I know the people INSIDE church as sinners (just like me) working toward salvation.
I know gay Catholics. I know black Catholics. I know Republican Catholics. I know pro-choice Catholics. I know anti-war Catholics. Every last one of them shares a common bond with you and me: sinners all.
Church isn’t a political party. It isn’t a sports team. It isn’t an investing group. It isn’t a book club. It’s isn’t meant to be a convenient association.
You don’t quit your Faith anymore than you quit your Country. If your Faith isn’t strong enough to confront bigotry, then your “faith” isn’t worth exercise.
With all due respect, you didn’t get “run-out” by someone or something; YOU ran out, fled. The Church is still there, still filled with sinners and bigots, still filled with people trying to work toward salvation –and a few others who aren’t sure why they are there.
I’d rather be in there mixing it up with fellow sinners than take comfort at “having left” and now being able to toss bricks.
Now does it sound like I’m defending the Catholic Church? LOL, I guess now I am.
My name is Jacob Jenkins and I am currently doing a “virtual book tour”.
I’ve stopped at this blogsite because I have recently written a book on Christian spirituality, and it appears that many of you might be interested in joining the national discussion it has begun.
The book is entitled:
“Buried Alive – A Discussion on Overcoming the ‘Seven Lifeless Sins'”.
Its premise is that most of Christians are not evil.
Must of us don’t have 12 mistresses. We aren’t serial killers.
Rather, it is the the sly and subtle sins of life – sins like fundamentalism and materialism and comfort and busyness – that keep us from the life we were intended.
By referencing over 2600 Scripture verses “Buried Alive” discusses how each of us can overcome the hidden dangers of lifeless living.
“Fresh, bold and convicting.” – Jason Pollack,
Project Coordinator, Soderquist Center for Leadership & Ethics
“…will shake you out of a business-as-usual faith walk. A must read.” – Ivan Max Dunn,
Retired US Navy Captain
“Buried Alive: A Discussion on Overcoming the Seven Lifeless Sins” is available now at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com
Come join the discussion!
(Upon reading the book I would love to hear your personal feedback. You can reach me at: jenkinsbookinginfo@yahoo.com)
I just came across your blog while doing some research online. I think it must have been because of the mention of heartburn in one of your posts because that is what I was researching. Anyway, I don’t see what all the fuss is about in regard to the Da Vinci Code. People of faith take these things too seriously. Witness the recent palaver about the Pope. Did Jesus even exist? To my mind they’re arguing over a work of fiction.
When people you know start questioning their faith because of a work of fiction, then you know it’s having an impact, unintended or not.