I'd probably heard it all at one point, but forgotten. It does sound familiar. Anyway, sometimes I think I'll have to agree with one of my professors: debunking conspiracy theories can just be a waste of time. Obviously I don't always agree with this (see some other threads here!), but I'm amazed that some people would spend so much time debunking this one. I saw snippets of this on this history channel, for example, and was just amazed at how much work went into what little I saw.
Da Vince Code movie reviews - generally bad
- Thread starter Nom De Guerre
- Start date
pax said:
James the Just was murdered in ca. 62 CE. Hegesippus (according to the Ecclesiastical History 3.11 by Eusebius) says James was followed by Symeon the son of Clopas as the [more correctly, one of the...] bishop(s)/overseer(s) of Jerusalem. Symeon is mentioned in the Gospels (John 19:25) and according to Hegesippus was a cousin of James. He is said to have died as a martyr at an old age and lived into the 2nd century CE (Ecc. History 3.32.1ff). Before and during the Jewish-Roman wars (66-70CE) when Jerusalem was seiged and sacked the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem, known as "Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5) fled to Pella. They remained here until the 4th century and remained a distinct group, yet marginalized (along with many of the bishops of Asian Minor) by the bishop of Rome. The Nazarenes eventually faded away into history through a number of factors.
But it gets a little more complicated from here in regards to ancestrial lines. Throughout the New Testament there is typically an emphasis on "bishops" (plural), and based on Eusebius' list of bishops that belonged to the Jerusalem group there were co-leadership. e.g. there were 15 bishops from 62 CE to 135 CE. What complicates this is Symeon overseered into the time of Hadrian and was not martyred until ca. 100-110 CE. That means the remaining bishops would have servered a mere 2 years each, which is unlikely. It seems there was co-ruling (which came into disfavor through Ignatius). What is not known is whether the other Jerusalem bishops were related to James. All we know is they were "Hebrews" and "of the circumcised". The bishops, in order as recorded by Eusebius (he listes them 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd, etc): James, Symeon, Justus, Zacchaeus, Tobias, Benhamin, John, Matthias, Philip, Seneca, Justus, Levi, Ephres, Joseph, Judas. (Ecc. History 4.5.1ff)
We know that James and Jude were related to Yeshua (Jesus), and it appears Symeon was also a relative. It is not unthinkable that a number of the bishops also were blood relatives. IMO it is very likely considering the isolation and cohesiveness of this group.
It would be impossible to trace them though. Due to persecution from the Roman Church and Judaism the Nazarenes (and Jewish Christianity in general, at least as a "group") eventually dissappeared, not to be revitalized until modern times. Any blood line is untrackable. This also explains why the premise of the DaVinci Code book is pretty fallacious. In general we know very, very little about the early Jewish believers. Almost all our Church records are from early Greek/Gentile Church Fathers. They cannot even relate to us accurately the reigns of bishops, what distinguished specific groups theoligically, or what even became of them. The destruction of the Temple (70 CE) and the expolsion of the Jews from Israel (135CE) were watershed events of Judaism and Christianity, and the Nazarenes were caught in the middle. Even if Jesus had children, as noted above the Jerusalem Church was pretty isolated from the others and fled to Pella, lost prominence, and withered away and are distinct and separate from the Church in Rome. Rome would have been one of the last places to gather such information, and surely if this was a belief of the early Nazanenes it would have been pointed out by many of the early Church Fathers who were bent on pointing out un-orthodox behavior. But the "worse" we have on the group is they believed in Yeshua/Jesus in a way that did not stop them from keeping the Torah (specifically the Sabbath and circumcision are mentioned). But they are noted to be orthodox (by 2nd century standards anyhow) theologicaly, in contrast to groups like the Ebonites which were believed Jesus was only a man and not born of a virgin.
There is a sectarian group in Iraq that actually claims to be a historical offshoot of some of John's followers.
Like many ancient groups there are often more than on internal "school". e.g. in Judaism's Pharisaic sect you had the schools of Hillel and Shimmai. The Essenes appear to be the same, with basically your extremist-desert dwellers and then your city-folk version.
How that ties into the NT is tricky.
John the Baptist may have lived at Qumran for a time; e.g. Luke 1:80 indicates he lived in the desert. His clothing (camel skin) and food (honey and grasshoppers) appear in line with the Qumran community (e.g. there is a recipé for grasshoppers at Qumran). A number of Biblical passages (e.g. "Make straight the way for Yahweh" from Isa 40:3) are also common among both. Of course John believed in public preaching, something the "sons of light" of Qumran would not have looked kindly upon, neither his message of repentance without entering the sacred community.
There are possible other connections in the New Testament. e.g. In Matthew 12:11 when it says "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?" is probably directed at the Qumrani's as the DSS indicated that in fact they would NOT have aided the animal in distress. Another example is in the Beattitudes, where it says, "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." (Matt 5:43). Interestingly the Hebrew Bible never teaches such (actually the opposite, see: Ex 23:4f). But to hate ones enemy is taught in the DSS (e.g. 1QS 1). This is also conveyed by Josephus. More friendly connections can be found in the common use of "sons of light" "the poor" and similar developments of the concept of "New Covenant" and "the Holy Spirit".
But we cannot be too hasty with such connections because the Judaisms of the first century frequently shared overlap and frequently shared more in common than they had differences. In my opinion (which is shared by many scholars who specialize in this field), the early Jewish-Christians were considered a sect within Judaism and identified as Jews. The early part of acts would agree with this as well the early history of Christians (e.g. when the Jews were expelled from Rome under Claudius we learn from Acts that this included those who believed Jesus was the Messiah). It was not until about the time of Nero that we begin to see the beginning of a parting of ways.
Anything is possible, but based on the few historical records we have it seems the Apostles and family were pretty much on the same page early on. Significant cracks don't begin to appear until after James died (many frequently misunderstand the important James had to the early Church and the authority he had... this is mainly due to Chruch dogma that places Peter as the central position in the early Church government when infact it was clearly James). But once James died, Nero's persecution (which relented some at his suicide), Paul and Peter martyred, and the Jewish-Roman wars a hodge podge of Christianties emerged. At this point we begin to see a number of offshoots and jockying for position. It got so rediculous you have the bishop of Rome excommunicating the bishops of Asia Minor for keeping Passover, as was the early Christian tradition, instead of going along with Easter.
And it is at this time the gnostic groups came to the forefront with such works as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas and groups like the followers of Marcian.
Enter: The DaVinci Code.
Quite frankly I don't understand the hoopla over the book or movie. The ideas are not new. It isn't even the first movie to entertain the idea!! Some 80s/90s Jesus movie already toyed with the idea. The concept is just reworking of various ancient (but not 1st century) sectarian beliefs that for entertainment purposes is pitted against an ominous RCC as a foil of history. Like someone mentioned, take "National Treasure" and change the bad guys from Free Masons to the RCC and make the secret spiritual instead of patriotic, mix thoroughly, and you got the premise of The Da Vinci Code.
Of course it probably is all very entertaining and even exciting to many to consider the possibilities. As for Christian outcry over the movie, I don't get that either. If most Christians had a rudimentary understanding of early Christian history and literature it would be seen what it is: a reworking of post-Apostolic / pre-Nicene sectarian ideas worked into a "what if" movie. The premise isn't even very good. But sex sells, and having one of the biggest, riches, and oldest establishments in history as a bad guy that is out to hide scandelous sex is bound to sell in America!
Awesome post and totally agree. Both our knowledge of the first century is quite limited as well as their being many christianities soon after. Youd think that after 20 years of openly writing about this idea of some lineage there would be evidence presented. But even Gospel of Philip doesnt say WHERE jesus kisses mary. And in the context it makes the disciples either jealous of mary in a sexual context (i.e. they are gay and want jesus for themselves) when more likely its a jealousy amongst themselves as to who is more loved (as in divine broteherly love) by Jesus hints of which exists in the canonical texts...
But the current cultural context is quite amazing when anyone can write a book and make claims and sell millions of copies. Im almost done "The Jesus Papers" by Michael Baigent and am amazed he would present his thesis with absolutely no proof whatsoever...
I do agree tho that at least this is stimulating interest in early christianity. And there are already very good docus (saw one on french National Geo channel last night) that do a good job of debunking not only Davinci Code but other historical speculations on various claims along with doing a great job of informing people on the current state of scholarship and biblical archeology.
But the current cultural context is quite amazing when anyone can write a book and make claims and sell millions of copies. Im almost done "The Jesus Papers" by Michael Baigent and am amazed he would present his thesis with absolutely no proof whatsoever...
I do agree tho that at least this is stimulating interest in early christianity. And there are already very good docus (saw one on french National Geo channel last night) that do a good job of debunking not only Davinci Code but other historical speculations on various claims along with doing a great job of informing people on the current state of scholarship and biblical archeology.
Nom De Guerre
Banned
There seems to be over 40 million evidences that the ideas are indeed new.Acert93 said:
If anything, the book is telling us a lot of folks have an accepted idea of Christianity.
Nom De Guerre said:
No, the ideas can be catelogued in history.
For example, the idea that Jesus did not die by crucifixion is expressed in a number of works in antiquity. There are a number of variation of this belief, but most have some root in Gnosticism (spirit/material dualism). Probably the most famous (if not mislabeled) example of this is Nestorianism which was accused of holding the position that there were two parts to Jesus: the Divine Logos and the man Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ was about to die the Logos separated from the man Jesus. The man Jesus died yet the Logos lived on and never died. Another variant is Docetism (which believed Jesus' physical body was an illusion) which teaches that it only appears he died, and it seems the Quran (4:157f) is influenced by this idea (although the Quran does not teach he was divine and pretended to have a body, but the opposite). Another Islamic view (considered heretical) is that he was crucified and lived and moved to Kashmir.
There are a lot of ancient traditions/variations of these beliefs that pre-date the Da Vinci Codes or other similar books. Even the modern Swoon Hypothesis which states pretty much the same idea has been around for hundreds of years.
The ideas surrounding Mary are not quite new as well. It has long been noted the centrality Mary Magdalene plays in the Gospels (according to which she was the first person to see the resurrected Jesus). Like most Biblical figures she found here place among pseudapigraphal/apocryphal writers, the most famous of which probably being the Gospel of Marry Magdalene. In this Gnostic Gospel Jesus kisses Mary, of which the apostles are envious of his love and intimacy with her. That they were married was already conjectured to a degree in a previous "Jesus flick" where Jesus fantisizes before his death about how his life could have been, one such fantasy being married to Mary and having children.
Of course they do, just as Muslims have an accepted view of Muhammed or any other millions of topics where people have a particular view.
I would not argue that Christianity as a whole is very in tune with early 1st century Christianity (I don't believe it is), but then again Christian history and modern Christianity (and the thousands of various sects and offshoots) indicate that there are a variety (31 Baskin Robins!) of "Accepted" ideas of what Christianity was and/or is. The difference being that the ideas in the Da Vinici Code are not new, nor are they contemperous with early Christianity. The ideas are rooted in the marginal footnotes of history and are familiar to Church Historians and those interested Gnostic literature or the historical development and conflicts of Christian Christology.
I know that my undergraduate studies exposed me to many of these texts and ideas as a matter of course. The ideas are just being respun and presented with a shiny exterior that is entertaining to the masses. But the ignorance of 40 million people does not mean these are new ideas, just unfamiliar ones to most.
pax said:
I believe the Gospel of Philip goes as far to call Mary Magdalene his "Companion". How that was understood in Gnostic circles of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and the intended meaning of the kiss in the Gospel of Philip & Gospel of Mary Magdalene which upsets the diciples in these texts, can only be conjectured. But considering the gnostic nature of these and other gnostic (and other) positions that Jesus did not die on the crucifix and continued to live on it does not take too much of an imagination. We are very limited by the number of texts we have from this time period and from the various eccentric groups. Many are only known through the ante-Nicene Church Fathers.
The movie I was thinking of was "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988) which has Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene and having 3 children. Checking amazon it seems to be based on the book by the same title by Nikos Kazantzakis.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/sony-has-da-vinci-ii-and-iii/
looks like da vinci 2 and 3 will be coming out.
looks like da vinci 2 and 3 will be coming out.
Nom De Guerre
Banned
If I'm not wrong, the part of the Nag Hammadi texts (Gnostic Gospels) had a crucial part missing/torn, the part that should have stated where Jesus kissed Mary. Could've been the lips, the cheek or whichever part of Mary that Jesus fancied! Like you said, and again if I'm not mistaken, this should be open to conjecture. I think someone (probably someone claiming to be a really brainy academician/scholar of that field) thought that missing part must mean the word "lips" or "mouth" ! I could be wrong though. I'm gonna check later.Acert93 said:
Gospel of Philip said:
Even if it was a kiss on the lips we would need to be careful. e.g. In the ANE it was not uncommon to greet with a kiss (the New Testament even suggests such). But not knowing the author and where and when this was written it would be difficult to ascrive any specific meaning to the kiss outside the reaction of the disciples.
What is interesting is Mary Magdalene is called his companion.
Unfortunately I don't know Coptic (or have the Coptic text; EDIT: found it here but I still don't know Coptic and don't have any Coptic reference material!) so I am at a lost to give any further insight into what was ment by "companion". The online interlinear suggests "consort" and "mate" but I would suggest extreme caution when referencing online religious material. Another (more reliable?) translation can be found here.
In the least the Gospel of Philip conveys the idea that they were close. He loved her (even more so than the disciples), kissed her frequently, and she was recognized as his companion.
Of course regardless of the meaning of this text it tells us nothing about the historical Jesus or his early followers. Which raises a curous question:
I know Tom Hanks and Ron Howard have gone out of their way to call this entertainment and pure fiction, but what of the author? I have not read the book and only roughly know the premise.
Dan Brown has openly said he believes the premise and the alternate history. But at least he does go out of his way in trying to discern to not condemn the entire mainline christian movement, the catholic church or even opus dei both in his public opinions and his novels. I give him credit for that. Good thing too else his books would have a terribly cartoonish perspective.
Nom De Guerre
Banned
Apparently according to "scholars", it is not uncommon for the words "companion" and "wife" to be used interchangeably.Acert93 said:
In a ABC interview with Dan Brown :
Interviewer : This is a novel. If you were writing it as a non-fiction book, how would it have been different?
Brown : I don't think it would have. I began the research for TDVC as a sceptic. I entirely expected as I researched the book to disprove this theory (about Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus and the mother of his child). After numerous trips to Europe and about 2 years of research I really became a believer. I decided this theory makes more sense to me than what I learnt as a child.
I doubt Brown is a very religious person and therefore IMO I don't think The Truth (whatever it really is) would change the way he lives his life. Much like a lot of self-proclaimed "Christians", I presume, many, many more than those that vehemently criticize the book/movie (someone say "extremists"... The New Religion is Money and Survival.... the huge majority just wants to have a good materialistic-based life right now... even if Jesus has surviving descendants right now, 90% of the world's population just won't really care... they just want to have enough money for shopping, cable TV, movies, nice clothes, etc.... unless The Vatican chooses to start a war and I'm serious with this thought of mine...).
I think for most of us, as long as our governments don't acknowledge that the book/movie is a potential threat to national security, it's just a storm in a teacup.
Anyone here read this forum more than they do their copy of the Bible?
Last edited by a moderator:
Nom De Guerre
Banned
Almost all of his books have some kind of "Fact" disclaimer to start with. It's part of what I think he believes would intrigue would-be readers and therefore sell his books.pax said:
I don't give him any credit for "going out of his way" (your words... he was asked, he never offered voluntarily). IMO he's just ensuring he is able to sell more books in the future by not really displeasing anyone.
I have absolutely no doubt devout FreeMasons would have a lot to say about his next book "The Solomon Temple" (or something like that, I forget, but a guaranteed bestseller due to TDVC) which obviously would have to do with some conspiracy concerning the FreeMasons, all in 3-page un-put-downable chapters.
TDVC worked because there were the fictional parts (murder, secret sexual rites, self-mutilation, a male and female protagonists, etc.). If it didn't have these Hollywood segments, it would have been a combination of "The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail" and "The Templar Revelation", both of which have very little appeal.
Why didn't "The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail" have the impact TDVC had? Investigative-style (= boring) story-telling instead of Hollywood-style story-telling. Blood, puzzles, anagrams... Hollywood
Oh for sure his motivations could be questionable. Some say hes too safe some hes too negative in his depictions of his stories bad guys. For sure it took a thriller approach to gain popularity for his books but tho I pretty much dont agree with his premise I like the fact that it both shows renewed interest to some degree on a subject nowadays considered pretty dry. And incites interest tho admittedly not in the best fashion we'd like to see.
HBHG and some of its kin have been better works. I do remember quite a hoopla in the early 80's over HBHG. But at ~2 million in sales since 1983 its nowhere near the hit that DVC is.
However the response to both those books is also relative to their success. I gave HBHG a lot of credence for a long time until some debunkers came along ( I accept only a few of its ideas now as maybe possible). Whereas I had read and watched good debunks before I even read DVC... They are easy to find and leave very little meat of the premise untouched...
HBHG and some of its kin have been better works. I do remember quite a hoopla in the early 80's over HBHG. But at ~2 million in sales since 1983 its nowhere near the hit that DVC is.
However the response to both those books is also relative to their success. I gave HBHG a lot of credence for a long time until some debunkers came along ( I accept only a few of its ideas now as maybe possible). Whereas I had read and watched good debunks before I even read DVC... They are easy to find and leave very little meat of the premise untouched...
Nom De Guerre
Banned
Sounds like you put TDVC in the same category as HBHG. What do you mean by "works"?pax said:
HBHG couldn't have been more different than TDVC in terms of "works" of the same basic subject matter. Needless to say which book involved far more exhaustive research IMO.
I mean in the sense it was a better story and had more input into it than DVC... It took em a good 10-12 years to write HBHG... But yeah its not really a good idea normally to compare 'non-fiction' speculative history with an outright novel. But a movie derived from HBHG couldve been better.
I liked the da vinci inspired docus more than DVC the flick itself.
I liked the da vinci inspired docus more than DVC the flick itself.
