I saw the "Da Vinci Code" on its opening day, Friday, May 19.
I had read the book and knew that much of the book's content would have to be deleted to fit into a movie that runs two-hours and 30-minutes.
I was pleasantly surprised. In the book, author Dan Brown had made some mistakes like, attributing information to the wrong source material and using hyperbole surrounding other claims. Virtually all those mistakes were removed for the screenplay.
Let me be clear here. The "Da Vinci Code" is a fictional story. Like the book, the movie is a mixture of fact, unsubstantiated rumor, and artistic license all wrapped up in a fictional thriller of murder, secrets and hidden treasure.
But the statements by Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and the cane-wielding Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen) are accurate even if there is no historical proof.
To claim that these unsubstantiated rumors are "lies" is misleading. The reason many of these rumors are unsubstantiated is because many historical records were destroyed in the fourth century and later years. We know this because many early Christian writers wrote rebuttals to many works that no longer can be found.
The Emperor Constantine, fresh from conquering the Mediterranean Basin, pressured a conference of Bishops to develop a homogenous Christian theology. He also wanted a theology that would facilitate control of the masses.
So, when conservative Christians claim that there is no proof that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, they don't tell you about the destroyed records. But, Jewish customs of the day required men to be married or be shunned. The gospels portray Mary Magdalene at Jesus' side often, especially through the crucifixion and at his tomb. Sure sounds like a wife to me.
As Teabing tells us in his den, there were many gospels that were rejected by the Council of Nicea in 325. He reads from two that portray Mary Magdalene as Jesus' favorite.
In his May 17, 2006 email newsletter, John Shelby Spong (retired Episcopal Bishop) notes:
"Magdalene, we now know, has nothing to do with the village of Magdala, for no record of the existence of such a village can be found. Magdalene, rather, appears to be connected with the Hebrew word 'migdal,' which originally meant a large tower but came to be a title given to this Mary that would be best translated "the large or great Mary."
It is possible that for hundreds of years we did not realize that the proper translation of her name could be "Mary, the Great."
The screenwriter did a good job of having Langdon jump in and say things like "That's never been proved," when Teabing would spit out his declarations.
But these rumors have lasted more than 1,900 years.
The Priory of Sion is a good example of this. CBS-TV's "60 Minutes did a piece on this on April 30, 2006. It describes what Langdon says in Teabing's study, "The Priory of Sion was exposed as a hoax." But Teabing responds, "That's precisely what they want you to think," so that the organization could go back "underground" after the organization's journal Les Dossiers Secrets turned up in the Paris National Library in 1975.
Teabing's illustrated monologue on the symbolism of Da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper," is just one interpretation -- and a compelling one.
The screenplay omits much of the book's discussion of Da Vinci's motivations, preferences and history.
Regarding the comments about Constantine, he did make Christianity the Empire's Official Religion. And while there, "is no historical proof," of the scope of his influence, do you really think he would relinquish control of something that important?
Virtually none of the book's revelations about sacred sex rituals made it into the movie. There is a brief flash-back scene with shows Sophie Nevue (played by Audry Tatou) discovering her grandfather, Jacues Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle) participating in a sexual rite. But no explanation is given in the movie, except to say it was the reason for the two to be estranged.
So what do I see as inaccurate in the movie?
There are the obvious statements like, "Witness the greatest cover-up in human history." That sure sounds more impressive than, "Let me tell you about this unsubstantiated rumor."
The film hints that Jesus' healing powers could be passed down through Jesus' gene pool. Nevue holds Langdons head and heals his pain and claustrophobia.
I certainly believe that prayer can heal anything. But anybody can do it. Science has also proven the effectiveness of both accu-pressure and of spiritual "healing-touch" techniques.
Later, she attempts to walk on water outside Rosslyn Chapel and fails.
As a 21st century American, it's hard for me to appreciate how important royal bloodlines were to Europeans during the last 2,000 years.
The film infers that the "witch hunts" were meant to wipe out the royal bloodline of Jesus. Actually, the witch-hunts were meant to wipe out any religion contrary to Orthodox Christian Theology – especially the many nature-based religions.
These many "contrary religions" are often lumped together under the title "pagan." In many of these religions, it was women that were the leaders and the clergy.
The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei really takes it on the chin in this movie. Over the years, some strange things have been revealed about individual members of this prelature. But there is no proof these are sanctioned activities.
(Frankly, as a Unity minister, I can empathize. Many lies have been written about my denomination by fundamentalists)
The Opus Dei members are virtually vindicated by the end of the movie. It is revealed that Teabing manipulated them.
But its does show the Vatican authorizing $20-million in Vatican Bonds to be paid for the "Holy Grail." And this payment is supposedly just the latest in a 1,600 year movement to wipe out the blood line. So, I can understand why the Catholic Church is upset.
I was surprised that one of the final scenes in the book between Bishop Aringosa and Police Captain Bezu Fauche did not make it in the movie. In that scene, Aringosa is in a hospital bed. He expresse his remorse for all that has happened and he instructs Fauche to take the $20-million and divide it among the families affected by the murder spree.
I was also surprised to see the revelation that Neveu's brother survived the car crash didn't made it into the movie.
I do hope that many people see this movie. And I hope that many more people read the book.
One tactic that Catholic Officials are using to discourage people from seeing this movie is to say, "The movie is getting bad reviews." Apparently, they hope that will deter people from going to the movie.
My favorite movie critic is Roger Ebert. He gave it three stars and a thumbs-up.
When you read the unfavorable reviews, the consensus seems to be "too much dialogue, not enough action." If you're looking for an action picture, "Da Vinci Code" is not for you. But you'll enjoy it if you are looking for a provacative film that you can discuss afterwards.
For months, conservative Christians have been plotting to dissect the movie to their advantage. They will invite people to come hear the "truth" at their churches. They will zero in on the unsubstantiated rumors and artistic license, claim that the author lied, and seek to discredit the entire movie or book. They will then restate the outdated Christian mythology they have taught for centuries.
There are at least three reasons that the "Da Vinci Code" resonates with so many people.
First, we don’t know for sure what happened 2000 years ago. The New Testament was not compiled until 300 years after the crucifixion. Only 27 books made it in the New Testament. Just as many were excluded. People want to know why.
It reminds us that the Catholic Church and other denominations have consistently suppressed and deleted information about Christian history.
Second, it hones in on a major omission of the Christian theology -- where are the women? To claim that the Christian experience is a male or masculine experience is woefully unfulfilling. All this was motivated by a patriarchal leadership that oppressed women. God does not favor men over women.
The bishops in the fourth century invented the concept of the Trinity -- Father-Son-Holy Spirit. But, the earthly experience is Father-Mother-Son. People intuitively know that there is something missing. Conservative Christians have never offered a convincing argument to explain this.
Third, it talks about symbolism that reaches both the head and the heart. People are awakening to Metaphysical Bible Symbolism that can explain even the most bizarre Bible passages. All of the Bible stories have metaphysical bible symbolism.
But to slander the entire movie or book will work against conservative Christians
Two years ago, Mel Gibson produced and directed his movie, "The Passion of the Christ." About 50 percent of the movie was pure conjecture. These fabrications in "Passion" were more damaging to a healthy understanding of Jesus Christ than the "Da Vinci Code." Yet, conservative Christians embraced that movie and paid the admission for anybody expressing an interest in seeing it.
It's too bad that they can't embrace a healthy and frank discussion about Christian history and theology.
– Rev. Bob Uhlar
P.S. But don't just take my word for it. Here are two authors that I trust to give you the information without a conservative Christian bias.
Bart D. Ehrman and John Shelby Spong
Books by Bart D. Ehrman, (Professor, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill) www.BartDEhrman.com
I have not read Bart Ehrman's books. But I have taken two of his college courses
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We never Knew
Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament
Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
John Shelby Spong
I have read two of John Shelby Spong's books and subscribe to his email-newsletter.
The Sins of Scripture
A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and how a New Faith Is Being Born
Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks To Believers in Exile
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article on what is inaccurate in THE BOOK: The Da Vinci Code
SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
Cracking the Da Vinci Code
— Margaret M. Mitchell
Margaret M. Mitchell is Associate Professor of New Testament at the University of Chicago Divinity School and the Chair of the Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Her latest book is The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Westminster/John Knox, 2002).
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2003/0924.shtml
Besieged by requests for my reaction to The Da Vinci Code, I finally decided to sit down and read it over the weekend. It was a quick romp, largely fun to read, if rather predictable and preachy. This is a good airplane book, a novelistic thriller that presents a rummage sale of accurate historical nuggets alongside falsehoods and misleading statements.
The bottom line: the book should come coded for “black light,” like the pen used by the character Sauniere to record his dying words, so that readers could scan pages to see which “facts” are trustworthy and which patently not, and (if a black light could do this!) highlight the gray areas where complex issues are misrepresented and distorted.
Patently inaccurate:
In his own lifetime Jesus “inspired millions to better lives” (p.231); there were “more than eighty gospels” (p.231; the number 80 is factual-sounding, but has no basis); “the earliest Christian records” were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (including gospels) and Nag Hammadi texts (pp.234, 245); the Nag Hammadi texts “speak of Christ’s ministry in very human terms” (p.234); the marriage of Mary Magdalene and Jesus is “a matter of historical record” (p.244); Constantine invented the divinity of Jesus and excluded all gospels but the four canonical ones; Constantine made Christianity “the official religion” of the Roman Empire (p.232); Constantine coined the term “heretic” (p.234); “Rome’s official religion was sun worship” (p.232). There are more.
Gray areas:
“The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable” (p.232), but that does not mean “Nothing in Christianity is original.” The relationship between early Christianity and the world around it, the ways in which it was culturally embedded in that world, sometimes unreflectively, sometimes reflexively, sometimes in deliberate accommodation, sometimes in deliberate cooptation, is far more complicated than the simplistic myth of Constantine’s Stalinesque program of cultural totalitarianism.
Further, Constantine’s religious life—whether, when, how and by what definition he was Christian and/or “pagan”—is a much debated issue because the literary and non-literary sources (such as coins) are not consistent. That Constantine the emperor had “political” motives (p.234) is hardly news to anyone! The question is how religion and politics (which cannot be separated in the ancient world) were interrelated in him. He is as hard to figure out on this score as Henry VIII, Osama Bin Laden, Tammy Fay Baker and George W. Bush. Brown has turned one of history’s most fascinating figures into a cartoon-ish villain.
“Paganism” is treated throughout The Da Vinci Code as though it were a unified phenomenon, which it was not (“pagan” just being the Christian term for “non-Christian”). The religions of the Mediterranean world were multiple and diverse, and cannot all be boiled down to “sun-worshippers” (232). Nor did all “pagans” frequently, eagerly, and with mystical intent participate in the hieros gamos (ritual sex acts).
“The Church” is also used throughout the book as though it had a clear, uniform and unitary referent. For early Christian history this is precisely what we do not have, but a much more complex, varied and localized phenomenon. Brown presumes “the Church” is “the Holy Roman Catholic Church” which he thinks had tremendous power always and everywhere, but ecclesiastical history is a lot messier.
Brown propagates the full-dress conspiracy theory for Vatican suppression of women. Feminist scholars and others have been debating different models of the “patriarchalization” of Christianity for decades.
Elisabeth Schuessler Fiorenza’s landmark work, In Memory of Her (1983), argued that while Jesus and Paul (on his better days) were actually pretty much pro-women, it was the next generations (the authors of letters in Paul’s name like 1 and 2 Timothy and others) who betrayed their feminist agenda and sold out to the Aristotelian, patriarchal vision of Greco-Roman society. Others (unfortunately) sought to blame the misogyny on the Jewish roots of Christianity.
More recently it has been argued that the picture is more mixed, even for Jesus and Paul. That is, they may have been more liberal than many of their contemporaries about women, but they were not all-out radicals, though they had ideas (such as Gal 3:28) that were even more revolutionary than they realized (in both senses of the term). Alas, no simple story here.
And while obsessing over Mary Magdalene, The Da Vinci Code ignores completely the rise and incredible durability and power of the other Mary, the mother of Jesus, and devotion to her which follows many patterns of “goddess” veneration (she even gets the Athena’s Parthenon dedicated to her in the sixth century).
This list is just a sample. A “black light” edition of The Da Vinci Code would, however, be unnecessary if readers would simply take the book as fiction. But there is an obstacle: the first page of the book reads, under the bold print headline “Fact”: “all descriptions of ...documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Reaction to the Channel 4 Interview (May 21, 2006)
by Rev. Bob Uhlar
One of the challenges I had in this interview was that I knew we had just six-minutes. I did not want to get bogged down in a point-by-point rebuttal.
The representative from the archdiocese, Emilio Chavez, was giving the standard Catholic version of events. The problem is that Bible Scholars dispute the Catholic version.
Chavez said that the four gospels were universally accepted by the year 150. That is not true. There was no organization to Canonize (i.e. the official Catholic Church authorization) the gospels at that time.
Simple logic will tell you that there would be no need for the Council of Nicea, in the year 325, if the four gospels were universally accepted in 150. The Emperor convened the council of bishops because the practice of "Christianity" varied so widely throughout the Mediterranean basin.
And the Vatican itself did not "canonize" the 27 books of the New Testament until the 1500s.
You can read my in-depth article about how the Bible was compiled by clicking here.
Regarding the four gospels that made it into the New Testament, they have major contradictions in them. To read about the many contradictions, read two books by Bishop John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
When asked about the premise that Jesus might have married Mary Magdalene, Chavez gave several examples of devout Jewish men who were either celibate or eunuchs. What he didn't mention is that these men lived low-profile lives.
While a few people have speculated that Jesus may have belong to the low-profile, celibate Essenes Jewish sect, Jesus did not live a low-profile life. And the way Jesus is described in the gospels, he did not seem to follow their practices. Unfortunately, we don't know where or how Jesus studied the Jewish Scriptures to become a Rabbi.
When asked if Da Vinci believed Jesus was married, Chavez said no. While this was not covered in the movie, the book describes Da Vinci beliefs and motivations in depth.
