This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Is the Demand to ban the Film justified
Published on May 25, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Writing
The line between "reel life"" and "real life" is a very fine one even in the best of times. In the worst of times the first overshadows the second. And this is exactly what has happened to the film The Da Vinci Vode. In certain countries there has been a demand for a total ban on the movie. In Philippines the Catholic Church has waerned the laity regarding the film and considers even the act of watching the film a blasphemy. All this of course raises the same issues as did the infamous Prophet Cartoons a few months back. Do religious groups have a veto on the exibition of films and publication of books that "offend" the sensibilities of a religious/ethnic group.

To answer this question it is necessay to reaise the whole issue of the character of Christ and his Ressuerection as depicted in different historical sources. If fact the role of Mary Magdalene is reallynperipheral to this question. It must be emphasised that it was only in the year 591 when Pope Gregory, for some reason called "the Great" railed against Mary and declared before an assembly of Bishops that she was a 'prostitude". This trepresentation of Mary Magdalene does the Catholic Crurch no credit because it it based on a deliberate and wilfull conflationn of two different Marys, and the Church knew then as it does now that Mary Magdalene was not what Gregory claimed her to be. Of course, it is difficult for us at this distance in time to examine the motives for such an unfair and inaccurate potrayal of a historical figure. Some historians have pointed out with some conviction that the Church was felt threatened by the strong and independent minded woman like Mary Magdalene who was favored by the Risen Christ as the only witness to the Ressuerection. If by reading the Da Vinci code readers are able to appreciate the hidden history of Christianity, I can only say "amen" to that.

The documentary evidence on which the Da Vinci Code rests is a clutch of gospels collectively known as the Gnostic Gospels,some of which are preserves in the Coptic language and Greek. Indeed the Latin rendering of the original Aramaic and Greek versions of the Gospels resulted in a certain alteration of some of the crucial ideas of early Christianity, for example the nature of Christ-- human or divine--the Ressurection--in flesh or spirit--and these translations were the basis of protracted debates in the pratice and interpretation of the docrines and liturgy of raly religion. The discovery of the Gospel of Judas
recast this debate in an entirely new direction. Rather than showing Judas as a traitor who betrayed Chrisr, this Gospel shows that Judas carried out the explicit instruction of Jesus Christ.

The contrvery swirling over the film is because the history of the religion has been falsely depicted in the days fiollowing the Council of Niceia when Constantine decreed the official version of the Gospels. Of course the Roman emperor only guided the debates and there is no evidence that he actively sought out one version of the Gospels. However, the close and enduring relationship between temporal power of the emperor and the spiritual power of the papacy rendered any objective search for the origins of the Christian fail irrelrevsnt. It is this irrlevance that Da Vinci Code challenges.

There is no purpose is arguing for a ban on the book or the film. Through the book many readers have come to know that there is more to Chistianty than what meets the eye.

Comments
on May 26, 2006
The Da Vinci Code has finally been released in the part of the world where I live. I have not yet seen the movie but will and will put up a review on this blog when I do. I have read the book and found it interesting though I do not consider it historically accurate or sensitive.
on Jun 03, 2006
have read the book and found it interesting though I do not consider it historically accurate or sensitive.


well that's good because it's not even close.

there is absoultely not even a hint anywhere in any historical documents that Jesus married Mary M. Nowhere!!!! This all comes from a small comment made in the gospel of Philip (gnostic gospel) that Christ kissed Mary. That's it. Dan Brown built a story around that and the rest is infamous fiction!!!

It still boggles my mind that people out there love these gnostic gospels and hold them up as gospel truth even though they were written 100-300 years after the fact rather than the four biblical gospels written while eyewittnesses were still alive to refute any of the facts 25-60 years after the happenings. It would similar to the "Little House on the Prairie Books." Let's not go by Laura Ingalls Wilder who wrote the eyewittness accounts of her life but rather let's read an account of her life three hundred years later by someone who read her biography and wrote in her stead. Makes no sense to me.

Aristotle put down as one faucet in literary testing that a writng written during the time of eyewitnesses was to be held up in high regard in comparison to writings written many years after all involved were dead. Let's get back to that.



on Jun 04, 2006
Wonders if Bahu would be half as tolerant if a movie based on Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" were being released this week instead of a movie that challenges traditional Christian beliefs


You are right. Satanic Verses is an utterly peurile work and it has no literay merit. I am not a Moslem so I cannot say that the books offends me. However,I did say that we should be circumspect in dealing with religion.

Now in the part of the World where I live, Da Vinci Code has been passed by the Censor Board with Adult Certification, However, giving in to the Relious Lobby the Movie has been effectively been banned. I hope to see it on the DVD version and will put up my review when I do.
on Jun 06, 2006
Why tip-toe around Muslims while offending Christians with impunity?


Dan Brown is himself a Christian and has declared on several occasions that he is not giving offence to those who are true believers. He has spun out a tale and no noe's opinion of Christ is going to change because of the book. The Magdalene angle, I agree can cause offence, and there is no historical proof of that and I have said as much on another thread on this issue.
on Jun 06, 2006
Why tip-toe around Muslims while offending Christians with impunity?


Dan Brown is himself a Christian and has declared on several occasions that he is not giving offence to those who are true believers. He has spun out a tale and no noe's opinion of Christ is going to change because of the book. The Magdalene angle, I agree can cause offence, and there is no historical proof of that and I have said as much on another thread on this issue.
on Jun 06, 2006
Dan Brown is himself a Christian


I have a real problem with this. A true Christian does their best to give glory to God. They realize that's what they are here for. I don't see that in this book. Brown's getting the glory not God.

Also a true Christian is known by what they do with the word of God. He's attacking the person of Christ and his word, doesn't sound Christlike to me.
on Jun 07, 2006
Let's start with a few simple assumptions (whether or not I agree with these assumptions is a different matter - but I am no longer a Christian in any usual sense of that word).

We'll assume that Jesus ('Christ' is a title meaning 'anointed one', not a family name) was both man and God. We'll also assume that the basic Gospel narrative concerning his life, ministry, death and resurrection are also true. Since it's the nature of Godhead to produce perfection we will also assume that Jesus was perfectly a man - meaning that he had within him all the desires, feelings, aspirations, hopes and fears that all men are heir to.

And that's the issue that is the the source of the scandal surrounding this book. Much as in Scorsese's 'Last Temptation' the image of the sexless, passive, 'gentle Jesus meek n mild', the image of the plastic whitebread Jesus which is all most Christians possess of their Lord, is under attack in Brown's book (I haven't read it, don't intend to read it and have no desire to see the movie).

To what degree was the manhood of Jesus actualized in his life? To what degree did he do those things (such as sex) that most men do? The traditional answers are either a) he didn't do those things because he was holy n good and those things (especially sex) are by definition unholy; or that he felt tempted to do those things but didn't because he perfectly served his Father's will and so was able to resist temptation.

To me there seems no contradiction between Jesus the man living fully the life of a man which (for all I know) might have included marriage and a family; and Jesus the Christ living fully the life of a prophet and redeemer within the set of circumstances that defined him as both man and Messiah.

If Jesus was both man and God then he was both in equal perfection - because his life (so we're told) was sinless in order that he might be the perfect sacrifice for sin. There is nothing sinful in marriage - it being an estate created by God in which a man and wife might live in holiness together (or so the assumption runs).

Brown's book isn't controversial because it somehow undermines or weakens Christianity; it's controversial because it challenges the denial of Jesus's manhood - a denial that's been at the heart of Christianity since it became an organized and centralized dogma.

As to the Gnostic gospels, many of their fundamental assumptions - such as that flesh is a prison and a curse, that the world was created by a defective 'engineer' or craftsman rather than by a perfect God, that mankind can achieve salvation not by grace but through esoteric knowledge - are in direct contradiction of the fundamental assumptions of Christianity, which is why they were excluded from the canon of texts accepted by the Council of Nicaea. They represent a profoundly different, though related, way of looking at the world and if they offer the Christian believer any insight into his faith it's at a tangent.

They can serve as a source of inspiration to the non-believer, they can provide illuminating insights for those who've escaped the shackles of common or garden Christianity, but they can tell the mainstream Christian believer nothing and anything of their influence ought quite rightly to be ignored by a such a Christian -if only because the poor dear will be terribly confused by them and might find himself in the dreadful position of having to think about his beliefs rather than simply taking the substance of that belief for granted.

However, the close and enduring relationship between temporal power of the emperor and the spiritual power of the papacy rendered any objective search for the origins of the Christian fail irrelrevsnt. It is this irrlevance that Da Vinci Code challenges.


I'm afraid this comment is simple nonsense. For starters, while Constantine convened the Council there is absolutely no reason to suspect that he 'guided' the debates in any way - if only because he was a warrior and not trained in the nicieties of technical theology. What he needed and got was a unified Creed (the Nicene Creed) that brought together the most consistently apparent threads of thinking in relation to God's divinity, the Christ's origins and relation to the Father, and the nature and work of the Holy Spirit. This was all needed in order to take a stand against the plethora of alternatives presented by the rapidly expanding number of Gnostic schools of thought - and to create the Church as a unified organization able to serve the Empire.

The 'close and enduring' relationship between Church and State came into being, initially, precisely to determine the true origins and nature of the Christian faith - and not to thwart an 'objective' examination into them.
on Jun 08, 2006
I am relying on AHM Jones Constantine and the Conversion of Europe in which he has made the observation that Constantine was interested in a faith that could weld the Empire together as a political force especially after Constasntine's victory over Maximus, the co emperor. I remember reading somehere that all the three pillars of early Christianity and Catholism are from competing faiths (1) the virgin birth from the mystery cults in the Roamn Empire (2) Ressuerection from the Syblline mysticism and (3) Human and Divine nature concepts from Manicciesim. Hence the argument that the enduring relationship between temporaL POWER AND THE SPIRITUAL POWER.
on Jun 08, 2006
To BV:

there's nothing wrong in supposing that the Christian entity that succeeded the Pagan Empire was composed of two powers - one temporal, one spiritual. That was certainly the case until the 'Donation of Constantine' (a document purporting to bequeath to the Papacy vast tracts of Europe as the feudal domain of the Pope) confused the issue and made the Pope a temporal as well as spirtual power. From that moment on the political dynamic of the time was one of tension between the secular Holy Roman Emperor (as the successors of the Roman emperors - notably Charlemagne aka Charles the Great, King of the Franks (768-814) and founder of the first empire in western Europe after the fall of Rome - became known) and the Pope as both spiritual and temporal Prince.

So I have no objection at all to you saying that such a connection existed - what I object to is the nonsensical notion that that this connection came into being as an attempt to thwart an 'objective' examination of the origins of Christianity. It didn't. The doctrinal statements of the Church issued from meetings such as the Councils of Nicaea and Trent where, in as fundamentally objective way as the thought of the time allowed, the theological controversies of the day were analysed and resolved - not without bloody clashes of armies along the way.

The controversy surrounding this fictionalisation of Church history and Christian dogma has nothing whatever to do with an actual attempt to cover up some grand new truth - and everything to do with the fact that it flies in the face of certain tenets of the Church having to do with Jesus' innocence - equated, as in Mary's case, with a perpetual virginity - and the refusal of the Church Fathers to accept the Gnostic Gospels as canonical.

And that really is all there is to it. The rest of it is hollywood hoopla and the opportunism of an author of a not particularly interesting book.

As to the origins of early Christianity and its syncretism - the fact that a ritual and a dogma has its roots in earlier ritual and dogma, that the Church Fathers deliberately appropriated and annexed Pagan holy days and festivals, has nothing to do with the validity of the belief of contemporary adherents. The power of a faith has nothing to do with the origin of its dogmas, and everything to do with the degree to which those dogmas can capture the mind of the believer and inspire him to believe. If the notion of virgin birth reflects a similar association of purity and corruption as that found in early mystery cults; if resurrection as a theme is found in Sybelline mysticism (it's also found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead); if Manicheanism suggests a divide between spirit and flesh (which it does - but a divide at odds with the Church Fathers because the Manichees believed that all physical reality was inherently evil whereas the Bible explicitly states that God looked at the whole of his creation and found it not only good but 'very good') - then so what?

These are themes worked over and over by every religious sensibility that's ever existed. The fact that they exist also in Christianity is not evidence of some 'grand cover up' and to suggest that it is, as you do, is not only nonsense - but nonsense on stilts.
on Jun 09, 2006
Indeed the facts of early Christianity are somewhat at variance with your, I must say knowledgeable analysis. Chist himself was not the originator of the new religion as it was essentially within the Essene tradition that Jesus the Christ can be situaTED. tHE EARLY Christian communities of the Middle Esat and the Meditteranean were largely practicing religion in the Jewish way: It was Paul who took it out to the Gentiles and with it came a fundamental reinterpretation of teh message of Christ. That is the burden of my argument. If Da Vinci code has drawn asttention to a side of history, albeit in a fictional form I say amen to it because it gets people interested in History. I do not think the Dan Brown has written history it is only fiction and hence this exchange.
on Jun 09, 2006
It was Paul who took it out to the Gentiles and with it came a fundamental reinterpretation of teh message of Christ.


I certainly can't argue with you when you say Paul took the good news to the Gentiles. But in what sense is Paul a 're-interpreter' of the Christian message? Incidentally, you assume that what Paul was communicating was something already codified and controlled. It wasn't. A lot of the time he would have been doing the Apostle thing extemporaneously - and writing it down later - so that the message he took was in essence still the raw fact - the Annunciation of the death and resurrection of the Son of God for the redemption of sin.

Paul wasn't re-interpreting anything. He was making it known for the first time.

Chist himself was not the originator of the new religion as it was essentially within the Essene tradition that Jesus the Christ can be situaTED


The Essene community predated Jesus' life and death and were based entirely on Torah, the Law of Moses. Jesus can be 'situated', as you put it, in relation to them and their beliefs because he too was a Jew who based his life and ministry on Torah. And that's precisely the difference between them. The Essenes worshipped God as Judge and King, Christ as Father and Merciful Lord. Two aspects of one God, both real, but each taken up as the whole of God while disregarding the other.

That's another way in which Jesus can be 'situated' in relation to the Essenes since both were subject to the same fervour - whether knowingly or not can't be told.

If the fundamental burden of your post is that, from Paul to Constantine and the great Church Councils, there's been some bizarre conspiracy to hide the 'real' Christianity away and that this sensationalist book some how raises this as a legitimate question then either a) you're utterly unaware of, or completely misinformed about, or in the grip of superstitious nonsense concerning, the history and development of the Roman Church; or hopelessly confused yourself, and hopelessly confusing to anyone who might take you seriously.

In short, and to put it simply - you're completely wrong on every head of the discussion and have completely misunderstood everything you think you know about the topic.

It won't do. Stop it at once.
on Jun 09, 2006
I have a real problem with this. A true Christian does their best to give glory to God. They realize that's what they are here for. I don't see that in this book. Brown's getting the glory not God.

Also a true Christian is known by what they do with the word of God. He's attacking the person of Christ and his word, doesn't sound Christlike to me.


[sarcasm]But don't you know, KFC, all you have to do is say you're a Christian and you automatically become one, even if your life and beliefs are wholly inconsistent? That, at least, is the declaration of many outside our faith.

I have tried to apply the same logic to being a multillion dollar, Oscar winning actor, but without much success. I suppose they just have my Oscar in the shop for a polish and that it'll be here any day. [/sarcasm]
on Jun 10, 2006
I have not said that Da Vinci Code is based on either fact or even informed speculation . It is only a work of fiction. However, I do believe that ealy Christian history has to be seen in the specific historical context and we should not take an Augustinian view of the late Roman Republican history.
on Jun 10, 2006
To BV:

However, I do believe that ealy Christian history has to be seen in the specific historical context and we should not take an Augustinian view of the late Roman Republican history.


Why? I don't mind your not taking such a view, but I'd like to know what you have against Augustine's view of the late Roman Republic - always bearing in mind that the Republic died centuries before Augustine's birth, his conversion from Manicheanism to Christianity, and long, long before his elevation to the Bishopric of Hippo. Or perhaps you meant the late Roman Empire?
on Jun 10, 2006
sarcasm]But don't you know, KFC, all you have to do is say you're a Christian and you automatically become one, even if your life and beliefs are wholly inconsistent? That, at least, is the declaration of many outside our faith.


hmmmmmmm yes you are right of course and one of my pet peeves. My grandmother used to say "of course I'm a Christian. I'm not a Jew you know." I would cringe. Her life certainly didn't have Christ all over it.