Reading Philosophy

In recent months I have been conducting a great deal of research regarding the historical claims made in The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown. What interested me most in this novel was his description of the early church. The Apostolic faith, its kerygma and doctrine, claims Brown, was not what we find in the Catholic (or Eastern, or Protestant) churches today. Rather, the first Christians were—though he does not say it directly—Gnostic.

In analyzing his claims regarding Gnosticism, I have come, quite easily, to the following conclusions:

1. He has little or no grasp of the message of Gnosticism

Dan Brown, while only citing a single, brief passage of the Gospel of Philip, certainly has no great understanding of what Gnosticism is, or was in the days of late antiquity. He describes the Gnostic Gospels (also called the Nag Hammadi Library) as documents portraying the “human message” of Christ, in which he is depicted as possessing no divine or Godlike qualities. To Gnostics, Brown asserts, Jesus was just a man, though an extraordinary man.

This fabrication is almost agonizing to ponder, as it has befuddled so many Americans—and so many Christian Americans—who have a poor grasp of early church history. These claims are, quite simply, false. The divinity and godlike qualities of Jesus Christ are referenced in the Gnostic texts at nearly every mention of him. Looking through the Nag Hammadi Library, one will find such descriptions in great volume in works such as The Prayer of the Apostle Paul, The Gospel of Thomas, the Tripartite Tractate, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the gospels of Philip, Egyptians, Mary, and many more. It is in fact made clear, in the Acts of John 93, that not only was Jesus divine, he was less human than he was God. John writes that “sometimes when I [John] meant to touch him [Christ] I encountered a material, solid body; but at other times again when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal…as if he did not exist at all.” As Theologian Darrell Bock observes, the Gnostic gospels (and other related texts) do not portray a human Jesus, “rather a more divine and removed Jesus.”

2. In turn, the vote at the Council of Nicea was fabricated as well

When considering the fact that the Gnostics, who Dan Brown claims were so abundant in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, believed Jesus was divine, one would automatically question his statements regarding the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. This is indeed also fabricated. Not only was Gnosticism not present in the proceedings at Nicea, the vote was unanimous. When the Nicene Creed was voted on, the version that stressed his equal divinity and his equal humanity, the tally was 316 to 2. It is also noted in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church that when the Arian party (a primary opposition to orthodoxy at Nicea, which stressed Christ as created—not begotten—and nonetheless divine) presented their creed, it was “rejected with tumultuous disapproval.” The issue at Nicea wasn’t even over the divinity of Jesus—this was a non-issue. The concept at stake was the view of him as a being begotten, not made, the view expressed by the earliest known Christian writings. And even on this matter, the decisions were unanimous.

3. Dan’s statements regarding Gnostic support for Mary Magdalene and Jesus are rather spotty in their tangible evidence.

This was a passage allegedly from the Gospel of Philip, one of the many codices found in the Nag Hammadi Library:

And the companion of the Saviour is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” (Brown 246).

Here is the actual text in the Nag Hammadi Library, translated as fully as is possible:

And the companion of the […] Mary Magdalene. [… loved] her more than [all] the disciples [and used to] kiss her [often] on her […]. The rest of [the disciples…]. They said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” (Gospel of Philip 63:33-64:5).

Brackets with periods indicate sections where the Coptic scrolls were damaged or illegible, in some cases whole lines of text. Words within the brackets were inserted by scholars, making an educated guess at what might have been written there. Dan Brown, in forcing his own interpretation into this text, demonstrates a clear agenda to interpret the Gnostic gospels in a way which will serve his aims. Not a single mention of Christ is made in this passage, and while it is possible that he had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, it is unlikely that it was romantic or unusual in any way. A very important thing to note is that in this very same text, the act of kissing is previously described as an act of spiritual fellowship engaged in by all the disciples, where nothing romantic or sexual is intended. There are similar inconsistencies, historically and biblically (such as Mary’s name always being given in bachelor form with the town of her birth—both in Gnostic texts and orthodox Christian ones).

These are but a few of the things I observed about The Da Vinci Code’s claims, purely through Gnostic historical analysis, which Brown ironically puts forward as evidence to his own claims. For more information on this topic, be on the lookout for an investigation I am writing, examining claims made in his novel, as well as those unrelated to Gnosticism. This investigation, entitled Deciphering the Da Vinci Code, may be found on my website.

-ecthelion-

What I find interesting is that so many people are getting upset over a work of Fiction. The book is labelled Fiction, sold in the Ficton section of every store, and should be taken as just that----Fiction. I don't see why so many people are so offended by an author creatively adjusting history in order to write a story.
Remember stories? The interesting grouping of words that start at the front of a book and stop at the end of the book? Great to remove you to an imaginary place, give you a break from reality, and nice to have sit on your shelf once you are done.
I just don't understand why people feel so threatened by a work of fiction. It's silly and a waste of energy if you ask me.

I am just me, searching for simplicity.........and a good hair stylist

The book is labelled Fiction, sold in the Ficton section of every store, and should be taken as just that----Fiction.

You are absolutely correct, betty. It is a work of fiction--one that I quite enjoyed, in fact. However, when Dan Brown specifically writes in his books that his claims are all historically accurate, when he goes on national telvision--multiple times--and says that his claims about Christianity and the early Christian church are true and a significant challenge to the orthodox Christian faith, when Brown interviews countless magazines and newspapers to advance his assertions, historians such as myself feel compelled to point out the fact that he is incorrect. These claims that he makes are not mere tools with which he constructs his plot. Quite the contrary, in fact. His characters are the tools, empty and romanticized with no real purpose other than to advance his claims about the religious landscape of late antiquity.

It is furthermore unimportant that his work is mere fiction. What is important is that fiction or not, many have found themselves confused by his views, wondering what truth there is behind them. Christians have left their churches, and pastors have been unable to prevent them in many cases. This is because of the inadequate grasp we moderners tend to have on established historical fact, and our strong desire to feel that we have been given a special secret knowledge (very much like Gnosticism) that puts us above others in our understanding of the origins of institutions like the church. People are unaware that the claims propagated by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code have been present for decades in various forms, and have posed little or no threat to the historical competence of the churches.

I just don't understand why people feel so threatened by a work of fiction.

It is important to remember, betty, that we cannot divorce a work of literature--fiction or otherwise--from the context in which it was written. Dan Brown wrote this story, as he has stated, with the intent of bringing to light some apparently little-known 'facts' about the early Christian faith. He created it to do more than entertain (though it certainly does a masterful job of this), but to inform.

Originally when I first heard of The Da Vinci Code and saw how quickly it grew in popularity, I had thought that readers would be impartial enough to realize that the book presents unsupported and uncited claims and thus recognize its relative insignificance as historical commentary. It did not appear to be much of a problem originally, but as time went on and its effects became more evident, it was made clear that many Americans were not even particularly interested in devoting any of their time to in-depth historical research--to realize that as you and I have said, his claims are mere fiction. Therefore, I felt it necessary to write on the subject, to demonstrate to people that while it is an excellent, entertaining, and worthwhile read, it is still just a story.

-ecthelion-

It is a work of fiction--one that I quite enjoyed, in fact.

What truly annoyed me about The Da Vinci Code was Dan Brown's massive use of cheap tricks to create suspense. *Every* *single* *chapter* ended up hanging in mid-sentence like "He opened the golden box and THERE IT WAS.". Then you had to spent another 50 hours reading following some irrelevant side-show plot just to find out what was in that fucking box.

Also there is a special circle in hell reserved for authors who employ the "Lone elite assassin seeks out to kill the protagonist" plot device.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Also there is a special circle in hell reserved for authors who employ the "Lone elite assassin seeks out to kill the protagonist" plot device.

In William Gibson's defense, his use of this device in Neuromancer twists a little and seems a whole lot less hackneyed than, well, ANYTHING Dan Brown could do.

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

In William Gibson's defense, his use of this device in Neuromancer twists a little and seems a whole lot less hackneyed than, well, ANYTHING Dan Brown could do.

Obviously Gibson is Zen, and Zen people are exempt from every kinds of over-generalised sweeping blows :)

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

I feel the need to respond to the post purely on the basis that regardless of his inaccuracies, the general message that Dan Brown is sending with this book is one that needs to be heard. The message isn't "Death to the Church" or "Christ wasn't a Messiah", it's "No human authority is absolute, and every authority needs to be questioned in case of human error/greed". The Church, above all else, is a human institution, and hence is capable of greed and deception to further its own ends, just like the Republican/Democratic parties, or the media conglomerates that force their views on our less critical bretheren.

Too many of my fellow Americans are content to sit back and let other people figure out what is right and what is wrong, be it a boss, a news show, a preacher, or a politician. Many of them, Christians among them, need to learn to break away from this form of mental slavery. Pointing out some of the flaws in the Church's doctrine is a really effective way to illustrate the fact that even the most divine authority on Earth was, in fact, made (and possibly significantly altered) by the hands of men. When even the Bible contains political spin, it should indicate to people just how much they are being controlled by the powers that be. In some cases, it may bring them to question things they see or read in the future, which I believe is the ultimate goal.

The fact is however, that if you're going to question every authority, you should also be questioning Dan Brown. If people are taking his book as an absolute authority, I think it shows that a lot of people are missing the real message entirely, which is sad. It's pretty clear to anyone with a critical attitude towards literature that this book is fluff, fiction, and not the basis for a rational argument of any nature. In a way, it seems like a bunch of sheep flocking from one Book to Another, and never taking the time to think of wandering off on their own.

Despite the fact that I basically agree with you, I did have one thing I wanted to add...

And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [... loved] her more than the disciples [and used to] kiss her on her [...]. The rest of [the disciples ...]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" (Gospel of Philip 63:33-64:5).

Brackets with periods indicate sections where the Coptic scrolls were damaged or illegible, in some cases whole lines of text. Words within the brackets were inserted by scholars, making an educated guess at what might have been written there

I have actually seen, although on video not in person, the visual explanation of why they believe what words belong where in the parts where the ancient text is damaged. The words that were "inserted" by scholars were incomplete words that could be easily seen, or words that had been damaged, but were still readable. There are of course whole gaps in the document itself, but the hand the document is written in is HUGE, and there are seldom more than one or two whole words missing in one spot (as usually only one half of the page was damaged). Because the hand is so large, it is easy to write out words that could possibly go in that gap in the sentence, and then choose the one that fits best physically where the missing text should go.

This is how they came to the conclusion that Christ had kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth, as the word "mouth" fits better physically than any other word that might go there and also make sense in the context of the sentence. Furthermore, since he did kiss the other disciples often, but never specifically on the mouth, it fits logically with the next line, which is the rest of the disciples asking Christ why he loved Mary Magdalene more than them. This love they refer to would only be obvious to the disciples, and would only make sense to us as readers, if there was some previous indication in the text that he loved Mary more. Where else would he kiss her to give the disciples the impression that he loved her more than them? The back of a volvo? To me, it couldn't be more simple, and I personally accept the reasons given by the academic researchers that came up with this interpretation of the text. Dan Brown simply took this interpretation of the text, and exposed lots and lots of people to it with his book.

Even if this one specific piece of evidence is invalid by your reasoning, I still don't think there's any question that the Church has manipulated a long, slow smear campaign against Mary Magdalene. She plays such an important role in so many of the pivotal Bible stories that it's hard to see how she isn't viewed as a disciple herself. Seriously, she did so much more than most of those other lame disciples. Futhermore, the interpretation that she is a whore cannot logically by derived from any of the ancient texts, Biblical or otherwise, and anyone who attempts to do so simply has to stretch meanings and translations too far and ends up looking rather silly to the educated public. So if her character assasination did happen after the fact by the Church, the question is "Why?". It's enough to make me curious as to what power she held that they felt the need to undermine her historical credibility.

Anyway, I agree that Dan Brown does his own stretching of meanings (it is historical fiction after all). The fact is that those ideas are not new at all, he's just trying to expose a wider audience to them because they're controversial and would probably be censored by the Church if they weren't embedded into a very popular piece of media. He's also simultaneously using these ideas to draw us into the book and make us feel special because we know this secret knowledge that has been kept hidden for so long. I think it's masterfully written, and if people read deeply enough to discover the real message of the book, they won't take it as an authority on anything at all.

I like the Sun.

Even if this one specific piece of evidence is invalid by your reasoning, I still don't think there's any question that the Church has manipulated a long, slow smear campaign against Mary Magdalene.

I would certainly agree with you that Mary Magdalene has been an unpopular figure for many Catholics (something that I am not). I also would in fairness add that this "smear campaign" that you--and Brown--refer to was non-existant in the relevant historical period that the book describes. Mary Magdalene was considered a disciple (or by some, a disciple to disciples), and furthermore a very important one, by the first Christians--certainly not a whore. This view that she was the same woman referenced elsewhere in the gospels as an adulteress simply was not present until about 590 A.D. when it was suggested by Pope Gregory the Great. There was no common belief in the church up until then that she was a whore. It ought to be noted that I am not trying specifically to defend the name of the Catholic Church. I am, after all a protestant. It should continually be remembered that the church in the days of Nicea and the early church fathers was not the Catholic church we know today that Brown appears so intent on accusing. In the relevant historical era of Nicea and the Apostolic Church, Mary Magdalene was not a whore, nor was there any conspiracy to defame her. Biblically, she is given the honor of being the first to see Christ risen. She is furthermore in continual contact with Jesus as one of his disciples, something that would have been almost unheard of to Jews of the time.

Dan Brown's assertions would have us believe that Constantine and the "Vatican" officials working with him at the time consciously wanted to blot out the special role of Mary Magdalene from the story of Christianity. This is simply untrue. In fact, the biblical interpretation of Jesus's view towards women is far more open than Brown would suggest. The Gnostic gospels are in reality grossly anti-feminist, where the secret knowledge necessary to salvation is described in masculine terms. Women in their feminine spiritual state are simply not privy to it. Dan Brown appears to forget that according to Gnostics, Jesus specifically said that no woman could enter the kingdom of heaven without becoming like a man (most likely meant in spiritual terms, not physical of course).

As for the translation of the Gospel of Philip passage, I would like to point out that you are in fact correct--scholars can be certain about some areas. Not this one, however. Many experts here contend that it could have referred to her having been kissed on the forehead or cheeck because both terms in coptic fit the space perfectly. Most scholars regard these other two as being far more likely, specifically because of the other passage I mentioned in my first post in which kissing is described as an act of fellowship.

The message isn't "Death to the Church" or "Christ wasn't a Messiah", it's "No human authority is absolute, and every authority needs to be questioned in case of human error/greed".

This may not have been his intent, but by the definition of Christian belief (then and now), "Christ wasn't a Messiah" is in fact the message being conveyed. The doctrine of Christ's divinity, even viewed from outside the Church and outside Christianity, is essential to the Christian belief about atonement, grace, Christ as propitiation, and reconciliation from the fall. Without God actually being physically present on the earth to be executed and to rise from the dead, Christianity is little more than an empty shell of baseless moral philosophies with no reason for their existence in the first place. Nor would there be any kind of notion of authority behind them that gives them meaning, if Christ was not divine. The very essence of the Christian faith is that (as you rightfully observe) we are a flawed humanity, and that in addition only God Himself can save us from destruction.

Without this historical doctrine, there could have been no church, and most likely no Christianity--because it relied too heavily on the teaching ability of its early episcopate to be carried on through its isolated and oppressed members alone.

He's also simultaneously using these ideas to draw us into the book and make us feel special because we know this secret knowledge that has been kept hidden for so long.

This is one of the very facts that I am trying to point out with my historical analysis. It is intended to be more than a fictional story written to entertain (to this end I enjoyed it very much). It is appealing to the American, if not merely human love of a conspiracy and desire to possess a secret knowledge that can set one above others in one's understanding. In this regard, the appeal of the story is much like the appeal of ancient Gnosticism--simply with all of the uncomfortable doctrines of Christ's divinity, anti-feminism, and the cosmological order cut out of it.

That said, I want to add that I loved reading this book. I know it utilizes a plethora of romanticized cliches from character role to plot devices. I realize that the characters themselves can come off as empty shells with no purpose but to move forward the claims Brown wants to make. But at the same time, the book is so much fun to move through, in constant wonder of its intricate mysteries and puzzles based on the fiction (again, I emphasize, fiction) of the story. I do not want it thought that I am attacking the ability of the author himself--I am merely pointing out that his analysis of history is enormously flawed, nothing new, and certainly nothing to be concerned about.

-ecthelion-

This post was edited by ecthelion33 on Feb 01, 2005.