Prostitute
- “Sophie turned. 'The prostitute?'
- “Teabing drew a short breath, as if the word had injured him personally.
'Magdalene was no such thing. That unfortunate misconception is the legacy
of a smear campaign launched by the early Church.'”
- (The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Chapter 58).
|
|
It's odd indeed that an author who finds pagan fertility rites the last
word in spirituality sputters so at this identification. That Mary of Bethany was a prostitute is not a "smear,"
but an inference drawn because of the ointment:
“Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. And
behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster
flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the
hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he
spoke to himself, saying, 'This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she
is a sinner.'” (Luke 7:36-39).
"Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where
Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead. There
they made Him a supper; and Martha served, but Lazarus was one of those
who sat at the table with Him. Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil
of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair.
And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil." (John 12:1-3).
On its face there is nothing impossible in two women doing this same thing.
Yet John does not speak as if it were common:
"Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. It was that Mary who
anointed the Lord with fragrant oil and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick." (John 11:1-2).
If this were of common occurrence, why not say 'Mary was one of those who
anointed the Lord'? There are differences in the New Testament accounts, but discrepancies only if one asserts
it is impossible to anoint both head and feet. The woman who poured ointment on the Lord's feet, and head, who is Mary, Lazarus'
sister, was a flagrant, public "sinner." Her line of work is
not stated. This woman is Mary of Bethany. This woman loved the Lord, and studied His teaching:
"And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word." (Luke 10:39).
Certainly there are many sins, and indeed we are all sinners: ". . .for all have sinned and fall short of the glory
of God. . ." (Romans 3:23). People criticize the 'Religious Right' for focusing on sexual sins to the exclusion of all other sins,
but in fact people have always homed in on these sins. It is unlikely that a woman who was branded a "sinner" was notorious
for avarice, say, or calumny. And yet she cannot have been a known axe murderer or bank robber, or she would not have been on the loose.
The idea that she was a courtesan fits the known facts.
Now, to the next issue: is Mary of Bethany the same woman as Mary Magdalene,
Mary of Magdala?
If it is not this woman whom the gnostic gospels portray as teaching others
what she had learned at Jesus' feet, then who? What other woman "sat
at Jesus' feet"? It appears that the gnostic authors identified Mary
Magdalene with Mary of Bethany; whence else comes Mary Magdalene's license
to teach? Though our author thinks highly of the gnostic authors, he dislikes their identification.
The argument that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are two different women is as follows: Luke brings up Mary Magdalene in
Chapter 8 of his gospel without any apparent awareness he has just told a long story about the same party. Moreover, Bethany and Magdala
are both place names. They are not the same place. Therefore Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala cannot be the same woman. But people move.
We talk about Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus of Bethlehem gives his natal place. Why not Jesus of Jerusalem? That is where He was put to
death, and the present-day bishop of Rome styles himself 'Peter' for no better reason than because Peter was put to death in that place.
Commentators who lived in that day and were familiar with how these tags work did not hesitate to identify Mary of Bethany with Mary
Magdalene. Modern commentators are more reticent.
The earliest commentators were biased toward identifying persons who turn up in the New Testament, if there is any basis
for so doing, such as the same name or similarities in the description of an incident. Modern commentators are biased against. In the
nature of things, these identifications cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we are talking about a public ministry
that spanned but three years. Though Jesus drew crowds of thousands, His inner circle was smaller. One hundred and twenty persons
assembled in the upper room (Acts 1:15). In a core group numbering one hundred and twenty, what are the odds that each 'Mary' you
come upon is new and not familiar? Is there actually an infinite pool of 'Mary's'? Looking to plausibility rather than to an unattainable
standard of proof, the strategy of identification is defensible.
This approach, though, is no longer popular, and with some reason. Archaeological
inscriptions show that 'Mary' was indeed such a popular name in first century
Judaea that, if you called out 'Miriam!' on the street, fully one quarter
of the female populace would have turned their heads. Had the early church
authors been fully aware of how common the name was, they might have seen
the futility in identifying Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany. But their
motives were not impure.
When the Lord arose, on Sunday, the first day of the week, He appeared
to Mary Magdalene: "Now when He rose early on the first day of the
week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven
demons." (Mark 16:9). That this is the same woman who poured ointment
on the Lord's feet cannot be proven to forensic standards. But to suppose
she is not does require one to believe that Mary the sister of Lazarus,
who loved the Lord, deserted Him in His time of need, because if she is
not "Mary Magdalene," she is nowhere to be found at cross or tomb.
What kind of friend, knowing that her friend is suffering a tortured death
not far from her home, sits at home unmoved? To think that it was so is
sad. Certainly, you find out who your friends are when you're in trouble!
"Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." (John 11:5).
The moderns imply it was unrequited. The ancients could not bring themselves
to believe that. But this argument is not conclusive either, because Lazarus
was on Jerusalem's Most Wanted List: "But the chief priests plotted
to put Lazarus to death also, because on account of him many of the Jews
went away and believed in Jesus." (John 12:10-11). His sister may
have felt laying low was the only way to avoid leading the authorities
to her brother. So one really cannot prove the point one way or the other.
The traditional understanding is quite remarkable. A reformed prostitute
was the first person to see the risen Lord. Why is this author so uncharitable
that he assumes no woman who has ever been a prostitute can ever amount
to anything or be worth anything? The church authors were not so uncharitable.
In either case, the accusation of ill-will against those who identify the
two Mary's is unfounded. Those commentators who follow the strategy of
identification do so consistently, not just in this one case. They identified
Mary of Bethany with Mary of Magdala because they tended to identify personages
of the same name if it was possible to do so, not because they were smear artists.
Consumer Satisfaction
We are accustomed to artists 'doing their own thing.' But during the Renaissance,
patrons had not yet surrendered their bargaining power. This picture was
bought and paid for by the Dominicans. They would have expected to see
twelve men gathered around Jesus at the Last Supper, because there were
twelve men, to fill twelve thrones: “So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly
I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the
throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" (Matthew 19:28). So if the
figure to Jesus' right is not John, then where is he? Why did the purchasers not demand he be painted in?
Was Jesus Married?
The most controversial of author Dan Brown's claims are that Jesus married
Mary Magdalene and had a child with her. The author offers as supporting
documentation two gnostic gospels which do not report that Jesus was married,
nor that He had a child. Do the apostolic gospels leave room for these
speculations?
There is of course no Bible evidence in favor. In the negative,
"Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers
of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5).
If not only the Lord's brothers, but the Lord Himself, were married, then wouldn't that bolster Paul's case? Why would he
fail to mention it?
As to extra-Biblical evidence there is, again, none in favor. Against,
is the tradition that oversight of the Jerusalem church was passed down
'in the family:'
"AFTER the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which
immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples
of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with
those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority
of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to
succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of
Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal
throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For
Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
"HE also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave
orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought
out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews;
and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over
the Jews." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapters 11-12).
James, the Lord's brother, first held this office. Then it passes to a
cousin; if the Lord had lineal descendents, why not to them? Oh, I forgot,
they fled to France...
There were also, it would seem, descendents of Jude, the Lord's brother:
"BUT when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of
David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics
brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a
brother of the Savior according to the flesh), on the ground that they
were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus
relates these facts in the following words.
“OF the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of
Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.
Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they
were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared
the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if
they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then
he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned.
And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half
of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of
silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres,
and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their
own labor.” Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their
bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil
as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ
and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear,
they, answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a
heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when
he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto
every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass
judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them
go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when
they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses
and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they
lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus."
(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapters 19-20).
These are the closest surviving relatives known to history: the grandchildren
of a half-brother.
But Christians, unlike some gnostics, are not anti-marriage. The Lord's people are busy preparing for Jesus' wedding
date: "Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself
ready." (Revelation 19:7). Mary Magdalene will be there, but Sony's not selling tickets to this event. Their tickets purchase
seats looking out on less joyous scenes.
Kiss of Peace
The brethren of the early church greeted one another with a kiss:
"Greet one another with a holy kiss." (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians
16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26).
"Greet one another with a kiss of love." (1 Peter 5:14).
That the Lord and His disciples practiced this 'kiss of peace' appears
as Judas greets his master in the customary way to identify Him to the
guard (Mark 14:44). The institution of this custom is not described, though
Psalm 2:12 explains it in part: "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and
you perish in the way..." (Psalm 2:12).
The practice is mentioned in passing by orthodox writers:
"Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss."
(Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 65)
It would seem to have undergone a remarkable development with the gnostics:
"For it is by a kiss that the perfect conceive and give birth. For this reason we also kiss one another.
We receive conception from the grace which is in one another." (Gospel of Philip, p. 145, The Nag Hammadi Library in English,
edited by James M. Robinson.)
The intended meaning is unclear. The "we" who "kiss one
another" are the author's church.
In contemporary America a kiss between two adults is perceived as a sexualized
gesture. President Clinton reportedly perfected a kind of bear hug which,
while seeming a gesture of affection, held foreign politicians at bay and
prevented them from kissing him. Our author employs the American perception
in making his case that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. 'Philip'
says, "And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...loved] her
more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her [...]."
(Gospel of Philip, p. 148, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by
James M. Robinson.)
The author of 'Philip' does not claim to be the apostle of that name; he
situates himself outside this group when he says, "Mary is the virgin
whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are
the apostles and [the] apostolic men." (Gospel of Philip, p. 143,
The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by James M. Robinson.) (The
way the gnostics tell it, Eve was raped by the powers or rulers, a gang
which includes the God of the Old Testament. 'Philip' here describes Mary
as a second, undefiled Eve.) As has been seen, the claim this author does
not make is made for him by author Dan Brown, who sweeps this whole category
of literature into the realm of eye-witness accounts. It is difficult to
date this literature, but one red line is 70 A.D., when the temple at Jerusalem
was destroyed. 'Philip' says, "There were three buildings specifically
for sacrifice in Jerusalem." (Gospel of Philip, p. 143, The Nag Hammadi
Library in English, edited by James M. Robinson.) That he says "were,"
not "are," dates the text later than 70 A.D. The translator suggests
the third century. The author repeats a folk-tale ascribed to Philip the
apostle that Joseph planted the tree of the cross, which evidently gives
this sermon its title.
Imagine a supermarket tabloid were to report a secret marriage between
a starlet and a singing sensation. Suppose the tabloid claimed to have
documentary evidence substantiating their stunning scoop. Suppose the proof
turned out to be...an actual photograph of the singing sensation kissing
the starlet on the [blank]! Readers would have the right to feel cheated;
what about a friendly kiss, much less a holy kiss? If the first photograph
of the event should, upon inspection, turn out to be date-stamped centuries
afterwards, disappointment would increase.
The early church wanted to read accounts written by the apostles or those
in their immediate circle, who gave us our four gospels. The gnostics weave
an alternative transmission line, running through others, like Mary Magdalene,
whom, 'Philip' says, the Savior kissed, bringing about her conception as
one of the 'perfect.' Presumably they were obliged to weave an alternative
line because the orthodox one was unavailable.
The Sacred Feminine
Author Dan Brown reportedly wrote this work to celebrate the "sacred
feminine." What do women do that makes them sacred? Why, have babies,
of course: "Sex begot new life -- the ultimate miracle -- and miracles
could be performed only by a god. The ability of the woman to produce life
from her womb made her sacred. A god." (Chapter 74, The Da Vinci Code,
Dan Brown). One such sacred baby factory, he asserts, is Mary Magdalene,
who successfully bore a child even though her husband, Jesus, was a mere
mortal man. Our author's own religious convictions revolve around his preferred
sacrament: "Historically, intercourse was the act through which male
and female experienced God...'For the early Church,' Langdon explained
in a soft voice, 'mankind's use of sex to commune directly with God posed
a serious threat to the Catholic power base. It left the Church out of
the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God.'" (Chapter 74, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown).
One God is too few for this author, as monotheism leaves no room in the
heavenlies for his religion: "Early Jews believed that the Holy of
Holies in Solomon's Temple housed not only God but also His powerful female
equal, Shekinah." (Chapter 74, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown).
This set of ideas begins to run in a self-cancelling loop. Promoting Mary Magdalene to the status of wife of Jesus and
mother of His child celebrates the "sacred feminine:"...because a mortal woman was married to a mortal man? If the husband
is not divine, which is what our author claims, then why was the wife, any more than any other woman? For that matter, if a mortal woman
were loved by God incarnate, how would that be a triumph for the "sacred feminine" either? Neverthelss, Mary Magdalene is
a "Goddess," despite the mere humanity of her alleged consort: "The Priory of Sion, to this day, still worships Mary Magdalene
as the Goddess, the Holy Grail, the Rose, and the Divine Mother." (Chapter 60, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown). This fictitious 'secret
society' was astute enough to pick up on the author's direction that Jehovah has a consort and provide a divine consort for a divine
Christ...who is, however, a mere mortal. Let us hope the Goddess did not impose upon her mortal consort as did Jupiter, that great respecter
of the rights of women.
Evidently monotheism is unsuited for a society which makes sex the
end all and be all of life. What defines our author's life is an activity
he shares with our furry and flop-eared friends, but not with God. This
must be corrected, and the pantheon restored to its proper pagan configuration,
so that our author and his friends can find their lives duly respected.
Silly Season
Major publishing houses used to employ fact-checkers; it appears they no
longer do so. Some of the misinformation in this book is downright silly.
The Greek word 'heretic' occurs in the New Testament: "A man that
is an heretick [αιρετικος]
after the first and second admonition reject...." (Titus 3:10), referring
to the way tendentious doctrine 'divides' the church. Latin apologist Tertullian
wrote polemics against 'heresies' in the third century, as Irenaeus and
Hippolytus had earlier compiled digests of 'heresies' in Greek. Yet author
Brown helpfully informs us that we owe the word to...you guessed it, Constantine:
"Anyone who chose the forbidden gospels over Constantine's version
was deemed a heretic. The word heretic derives from that moment in history."
(The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Chapter 55).
In a similarly astute vein, author Brown, having himself previously described Jesus as the "Messiah," intones
that "Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of Church and state." (The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Chapter 55).
No doubt, given that 'Christ' is the Greek translation of the Hebrew 'Messiah:' "Know therefore and understand, that from the going
forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah [mashiyach] the Prince, there shall be seven weeks
and sixty-two weeks;..." (Daniel 9:25). The Septuagint translates 'Messiah,' the Anointed One, into Greek literally,
as 'Christos:' And thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building
of Jerusalem until Christ [Χριστου LXX] the prince there
shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks;..." (Daniel 9:25 Brenton
Septuagint). What information does this author imagine he is communicating
with his "Christ as Messiah," i.e., 'Christ as Christ'?
Likewise, we are advised that the vote at Nicaea, which according to this
author 'established' Jesus "as 'the Son of God,'" was close:
"A relatively close vote at that..." (Chapter 55, The Da Vinci
Code, Dan Brown). But the dissenting vote at the Nicene Council, which
did not establish Jesus "as 'the Son of God,'" a title already
belonging to the Messiah in the Old Testament, amounted to all of two,
as even an Arian witness testified: "Philostorgius also confesses
that all the bishops consented to the exposition of the faith made at Nicaea,
with the exception of Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais, and Theon, bishop
of Marmarica." (Book I, Chapter 9, The Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius,
epitomized by Photius).
More: "'A bit strange, don't you think, considering that both the
Bible and our standard Grail legend celebrate this moment as the definitive
arrival of the Holy Grail.'" (Chapter 55, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown).
The Bible celebrates the "arrival of the Holy Grail"? "Even
Da Vinci's enormous output of breathtaking Christian art only furthered
the artist's reputation for spiritual hypocrisy. Accepting hundreds of
lucrative Vatican commissions, Da Vinci painted Christian themes..."
(Chapter 8, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown). "Enormous output"?
The many errors of fact in 'The Da Vinci Code' are in the main inconsequential.
The one that matters is the author's denial of Christ's deity. That Jesus
claimed to be God is, to coin a phrase, a matter of historical record. Denying
this much is no more defensible than the author's other blunders, though
unfortunately more popular. Jesus was accused of blasphemy by those who
heard Him because, "'...You, being a Man, make Yourself God.'"
(John 10:33). When a student of twentieth century history learns that Wallace
D. Fard identified himself to the Detroit Police as the Supreme Being on
earth, who would praise as 'objective' the investigator who flatly denies
that such a thing is possible?
Secular Bible scholarship has been pursued, not as objective study, but
as a religious quest, and Jesus' reported claim to be God is denied a priori because this claim offends some folks' religious
sensibilities. Unitarians laud Jesus as a great moral teacher; by their lights, He should not have claimed to be God, and
therefore He did not. The scholarly pursuit of the historical Jesus aims to embrace uniformitarianism,
but fails. The principle of uniformitarianism expects things to happen
in the past as in the present, in Constantinople as in Cincinnati. To be
sure uniformitarianism meets a dead end when reality is 'lumpy:' the viewer
is disappointed who concludes that, because Contestant 1 and Contestant
2 on the old game show 'What's My Line' are manifestly not brain surgeons,
therefore neither is Contestant 3.
Nevertheless secular Bible students would benefit by applying uniformitarianism
in earnest, instead of continuing to serve as the secular arm of the Unitarian
Church. Father Divine was happy to hear his followers laud him as God,
and President Teodoro Obiang Nguema of Equitorial Guinea has been adored
on that nation's state-sponsored radio as "the country's God."
(BBC, July 26, 2003.) Since all available evidence reports Jesus claiming to
be God, the objective historian notes down this fact.
Typical Jewish Male
Author Dan Brown explains that "Jesus was a Jew," and that "the
social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried."
(Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, Chapter 58). Having shortly before advised
the reader to consult the Dead Sea Scrolls for a gospel record unerased
by Constantine, it is odd that he neglected to follow his own advice. Had
he done so he would have noticed an entire army of unmarried Jewish males.
These men looked to imminent holy war, for which the rules are, "When
you are encamped against your enemies you shall guard against any impropriety.
If one of you becomes unclean. . .then he shall go outside the camp; he
must not come within the camp. When evening comes, he shall wash himself
with water, and when the sun has set, he may come back into the camp."
(Deuteronomy 23:9-10 NRSV). Engaging in sex while on campaign violated
the holiness code. The army was to maintain ceremonial cleanliness, which
leaves no room in the ranks for practitioners of our author's religion
of Hieros Gamos: "If a man lies with a woman. . .both of them shall
bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening." (Leviticus 15:18 NRSV).
The first century Jewish historian Josephus knew of thousands of these
unmarried Jewish males:
"It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and
this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians,
no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will
not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who
hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous
to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live
by themselves, they minister one to another." (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter 1.5)
The modern Rabbis, however, share author Brown's disapproval of celibacy.
Which side did Jesus come down on? He certainly disagrees with the stringent
Essene views on the Sabbath; what about marriage? Let's let Him speak for
Himself, as Dan Brown rarely does:
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are
eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let
anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:12).
But this is no doubt one of the many corruptions in Constantine's Bible,
as is proven by our author's dislike for the concept. Indeed, under our
author's religion, this is blasphemy, as is also Moses' holiness code.
The Birthday of a King
“By the way, December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus.”
(Chapter 55, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown).
|
|
Is that so?
The Secret that Everybody Knows
The dramatic tension in author Brown's pot-boiler simmers over an explosive
'secret' whose unveiling will blow the lid off Christianity as we know
it: that the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene produced...the Merovingian
dynasty. But when it comes time to prove his case, author Brown pulls out
an argumentum ad verecundiam (a fallacious appeal to authority): it's true because experts agree it's true: "I
shan't bore you with the countless references to Jesus and Magdalene's union." (The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Chapter 58).
According to author Brown, this "part of the historical record" is so well known to scholars as scarcely to require substantiation.
It's a good thing thing, too, because the evidence he can be bothered to advance is a bit thin: two gnostic gospels which do not say that
Jesus was married, and the enterprises of a twentieth century French forger who thought that people should give him money because he was
a lineal descendent of Jesus. (Have I mentioned, I am Anastasia?)
But if everyone already knows this information, how is it a secret? Why
would the Roman Catholic Church commit murder to conceal a fact...which
everybody already knows?
In their lawsuit against author Brown, the authors who first concocted
this idea admitted it was so eccentric that, they claimed, it could actually
be copy-righted. What everyone knows cannot be copy-righted. (As these
litigious benefactors of mankind discovered, copyright does not protect
ideas, however unique, but only their expression.) Yet the actual eccentricity
of the concept is no argument against it, any more than its fictitious
universal acceptance would be argument in its favor.
This is not to deny that the argumentum ad verecundiam is a powerful argument. This argument is so powerful it proves that the
sun revolves around the earth, as experts agreed against Copernicus' novel
and controversial thesis; it proves that lobotomy is sound medical procedure,
as experts agreed in the era of the ice-pick's ascendency; it proves that
surgeons need not wash their hands, as experts once agreed. Indeed, this
argument is so powerful that perhaps its use should be regulated by treaty,
as are other fearsomely lethal weapons like poison gas. No field of inquiry
can advance if we stipulate that unfamiliar, novel ideas with which experts
in the field do not already agree are invariably false. Given that daily
life could not go on without judicious use of the argumentum ad verecundiam,-- why do you floss your teeth? Because experts
agree you should,-- its rejection by philosophers seems harsh, but in fact this fallacious argument
has no place in discussion of ultimate issues. Rather, those who promote
a claim should advance substantive evidence in its favor, where it can
be examined in the light of day rather than concealed beneath the veil
of someone's supposed expertise.
The Da Vinci Code is part of a booming niche of the publishing industry: the explosive exposé of Christianity. But
while author Brown and other members of his fraternity, like the Jesus Seminar, agree that the Jesus of
history was not the Jesus of the Gospel, they agree on nothing more. Was Jesus a wandering Jewish healer?-- no, because
He was a Gentile cynic philosopher. Few features of their portrayals are
shared. By the procedure of exaggerating certain features of the gospel
account and suppressing others, they dial up the Jesus of their heart's desire.
This book's success demonstrates the never ceasing hunger for this product,
a market demand which fuels the endlessly proliferating Jesuses of the
nations' desire. Jesus obviously troubles these people, and they respond
by 'editing' Him, cutting out what is troublesome and demanding. Rather
than scholarly inquiry, this field falls under the heading of a religious
quest, whose aim is not the Christian's hope for a seat in heavenly places,
but somewhere south of there.
Author Dan Brown
Author Brown has surfaced recently, not to defend the bogus "facts"
his book imposes upon the credulous reader, but rather to lament that everyone
is just so mean to him:
"...he never imagined the tenor of his critics would be so harsh or
the controversy so sharp." (Maine Sunday Telegram, April 30, 2006,
page E3).
No doubt this author will now be championed by the media as an apostle
of tolerance. How does author Brown himself characterize those who do not
share his view of the person and work of Jesus Christ? As liars. Not even
as common-place liars, but as liars who are willing to murder to ensure
that the truth never comes to light. Those who aspire to tolerance should
do as this author says, not as he does.
Author Brown condemns his critics for their "moral certainty:"
"Brown's only quibble with his critics is the level of moral certainty
with which some of them operate...'I was not born with the luxury of absoluate
certainty or absolute truth...This world is a big place, and now, more than ever, there is enormous danger in believing
we are infallible, that our version of the truth is absolute, and that everyone who does not think like we do is wrong,
and therefore an enemy.'" (Maine Sunday Telegram, April 30, 2006,
page E3). His characters do enjoy this luxury:
- “'What I mean,' Teabing countered, 'is that almost
everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.'”
- (The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, Chapter 55).
|
|
Not content with having amassed a fortune from blasphemy, our author aspires
to a career as an anti-religious guru:
"'We no longer turn to God for answers as to why the skies drop hail
or why plagues spread. Science has answered those questions,' Brown said."
(On His Home Turf, Public Discussion: Dan Brown, Maine Sunday Telegram,
April 30, 2006, p. E3).
|
