A Modest Critique On "the Davinci Code"

[Guest JeffCR07]

While I certainly do not claim to be an expert on all of the issues, points, and debates regarding Dan Brown's book [u]The DaVinci Code[/u], I have given a few talks on its basic errors, and I have been asked to share what little I know on the subject:


Background:

For those of you who have not read or are not familiar with the book, a brief overview may be helpful. In his book, which is a mystery/thriller, Brown makes the central assertion that Jesus was only a man, did not rise from the dead, was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the two had children. Moreover, he goes on to assert that after the crucifixion and death of Christ, there was a power struggle in the Church between Mary Magdalene, whom Jesus wanted to take over after him, and Peter, who "won" and actually took over after him.


Critique:


Now, Brown's argument hinges on two points:

1.) The Canonical Gospels cannot be trusted
2.) Other literature contains the "real" story of Jesus' life


[b]Point 1: The Canonical Gospels Cannot Be Trusted[/b]

Brown argues the notion that "history is written by the winners" and Peter, who "won" the power struggle between he and Mary Magdalene, was able to write the history of Jesus' life as he saw fit. Thus, Brown asserts, the Canonical Gospels cannot be trusted, due to the fact that their inherent bias makes them more of a propaganda weapon than a real account of Christ's life, and the Apostles seem more propaganda writers than eyewitnesses.

However, even a moderate analysis of the Canonical Gospels will lead one to a completely different conclusion.

If the Gospels were truly articles akin to propaganda, then we could assume one, if not both, of the following:

1.) They would attempt to cast the "winners" (read: Peter and the Apostles) in such a way as to increase their credibility and assert themselves as a form of heroes/

2.) they would attempt to either a.) cast the "loser" (read: Mary Magdalene) in a poor light, so as to discredit her, or b.) write her out of history entirely.

However, we see that neither of these criteria for propaganda-like writing applies to the Canonical Gospels.

In the case of point 1, we can see that the Apostles are [i]not[/i] cast in a very good light, and, if anything, the Gospels would call one to question their credibility, for what do we see but the Apostles failing to understand the teachings of Christ, the Apostles failing to believe in the Resurrection, the Apostles (save John alone) fleeing and not even present at the crucifixion, Peter denying Christ three times, and, finally and perhaps most telling of all, Judas betraying Christ to his death?

If, however, this is not enough to convince you, then let us look at point 2. Now, it is clear that Mary Magdalene, while she does not play a central role, was not "written out of history" as proposition b would have it. So then, if Brown is right, and if the apostles did not "write her out," they must have cast her in a negative light.

But this isn't the case either. Mary Magdalene appears in the Gospels three times. In the first instance, Christ casts 7 demons out of her, and her sins are forgiven and she becomes faithful. Second, she is noted as being one of the faithful women who followed Christ during his ministry. Third, and most telling of all, she is the first to witness Christ Resurrected and the one who told the Apostles, for which she is commonly known as the "apostle to the Apostles."

While she does not appear often, she is most certainly not cast in a poor light, especially when one compares her with the Apostles themselves.


Having considered all these things, I suppose, if one was truly set on doing so, they could claim the Apostles were mere propaganda writers; however, one would also have to admit that they did a poor, poor job at it.


Now, what about that second hinge for Brown's case?

[b]Alternate Story: The Gnostic Gospels[/b]

Brown, as I have said, not only argues that the Canonical Gospels are not to be trusted, but also asserts that alternate literature contains the "true" story: a story in which Christ is married to Mary Magdalene and in which there is a power struggle between Peter and Mary. The literature that Brown almost exclusively sites is a body of texts known as the "Gnostic Gospels."

Now, as an aside, it should be noted that these are not actual gospels, but rather, texts written much later (3rd and 4th century) that have a particular person of note's name attached to them. Thus, these works include the "Gospel of Thomas," the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene," the "Gospel of Philip," and others. Doing a comparative review, it is important to note that the Canonical Gospels vastly predate the Gnostic texts, with the last Canonical Gospel being written at least 110 years before the earliest possible Gnostic gospel.

In order to assert the Peter-Mary power struggle, Brown relies almost exclusively on a single passage from the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" in Peter speaks to the apostles, questioning the validity of Mary Magdalene's teaching authority ([i]Gospel of Mary Magdalene[/i], Chapter 9, verse 3).

However, Brown's scholarship is nearly laughable, as can be seen if one reads the entirety of the text. In Chapter 5, verses 5 and 6, we see Peter [i]praising[/i] Mary and that it is he who begs her to speak in the first place. Moreover, immediately after Brown's excerpt, we see Matthew rebuke Peter for his critical words and it is written that "when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and preach" ([u]Gospel of Mary Magdalene[/u], Chapter 9, verses 6-10). This includes Peter, and so it can be see that even Peter accepted the rebuke and went out to preach.

In this way, we see that Brown's assertion that there was a bitter struggle between Peter and Mary Magdalene is shaky at best.

Brown relies entirely on the Gnostic "Gospel of Philip" for his assertion that Christ was married to Mary Magdalene. He uses two excerpts to back this up.

The first, which is the least credible, is a section in which Mary Magdalene is noted as Christ's "companion." Brown argues that a loose interpretation of the word companion is wife, and thus the two must be married. However, none of the other Gnostic gospels that use the word "companion" intend it to mean "wife" and, though he is correct that a very loose interpretation would result in "wife" one would have to be translating with the intention of having it mean "wife" in order to arrive at such a conclusion.

His next quote, however, seems to give people cause to stop. However, when one understands the Gnostic heresy, they see that Brown's argument is weak at best. Brown sites a passage in which it says that "Jesus kissed her often on the mouth" and the Apostles ask him why he loves her more than he loves them.

Brown claims that the Apostles are clearly jealous of Mary, and that the fact that Jesus was kissing her shows a physical relationship that would imply marriage. However, neither of these is credible. First, if Mary [i]was[/i] Christ's wife, why would they be jealous of his love for his wife? Good friends wouldn't care.

Second, and most importantly, however, is the notion of "kiss." In Gnostic literature, "kiss" is a metaphor for the giving of the gnosis, or enlightenment to an individual. For Christ to kiss Mary was for him to enlighten her and for him to kiss her "on the mouth" would be for him to impart to her the ability to teach enlightenment to others.

In this way, we can see that Brown fails to back up his propositions credibly, but rather, relies on the assumption that his readers are not familiar with the Gnostic texts.


There is one final point with regards to Brown's use of Gnostic literature that is of extreme importance, and is perhaps the only point necessary in order to completely destroy Brown's argument.

This is the fundamentals of Gnostic theology. The Gnostics, like the Manicheans who came after them, believed in a sort of dualism in which the competing forces of Good and Evil were in conflict, with Good being entirely spiritual, while Evil was entirely material. The Gnostics believed that all matter, all flesh, and all physical substance is inherently evil, while only the spiritual is really good. Based on this assumption, the Gnostics believed in a sort of "superdivine" Christ, who was entirely spiritual, and only gave the appearance of having physical form. They argued that he could not really have died because he did not really have a body.

...

But Brown depends almost exclusively on [i]Gnostic[/i] literature in order to back up an argument saying just the opposite: that Christ was entirely man, not divine, and had a wife and kids.

He is citing the very people who would totally reject his assertions.

In my humble opinion, Brown would have been far better off if he had chosen Arian writings, which are friendly to the notion of a human Jesus, but instead he chose the writings of, ideologically speaking, his worst enemies.




So, in conclusion, we see that Brown fails in both his assertion that the Canonical Gospels should not be trusted on account of their inherent bias and twisting of history, as well as his assertion that there is alternate literature revealing the "true" story. In reality, the Canonical Gospels appear to be (at the very, absolute least) an honest attempt by a bunch of guys at conveying what really happened, and the Gnostics are probably rolling over in their graves at hearing Brown use their work to assert a human Jesus (not to mention the out-of-context quotes and clear misunderstanding of Gnostic metaphors).

So there you have my humble critique on Brown's book, [u]The DaVinci Code[/u]. If it helps anyone, that’s awesome, if not, I just found a way to waste a ton of time

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Chucho]

Thank you, that was done very well.

[quote]Brown sites a passage in which it says that "Jesus kissed her often on the mouth"[/quote]

The actual text reads "Jesus kissed her often on the ..."

In the original text where the word that completes the sentence, "mouth," is supposed to be there is actually a hole. Appearently "mouth" seemed to fit.

Mouth could certainly have been the word that was originally written, but head, hand, feet could have easily been the word as well. It is obvious why Brown accepts the word mouth for his claim but as you said, "'kiss' is a metaphor for the giving of the gnosis, or enlightenment to an individual." So therefore, if this is the case then "head" would be just as pertinente.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

One of the central flaws of the DaVinci Code lies with his assertion that the winners write history. Think about how convenient a theory that is. With that perspective, you can say absolutely anything you want. A person could say that Hitler was a nice man who loved the Jewish people and that "evil little America" crushed him and started saying he was evil. If all we have to go by is the word of the winners, and the winners will always make themselves out to be the good guys, then we have absolutely no concept of history and anything could have happened throughout the annals of time! What a tragic way to view history...no objectively held truths about our past (ay, there's the rub! In this generation is found so much subjective thinking, lack of trust, and hatred of truth) and conspiracy theories abound...

Logically speaking, it's on level with the situation of a man who is accused of stealing and denies it, only to hear the sheriff say, "that's precisely what a theif [i]would[/i] say in this situation!" As we all know, this builds up plenty of emotional reason to charge him, but no logical evidence, as he could just as well be speaking honestly.

[amarkich]

Jeff, thank you for the scholarly post. I am preparing to mail my friend a copy of one of the books disproving Brown's contentions, but this is a great, cogent address which debunks his premise altogether. This will be helpful to email to my friend, as will the rebuttals of his specific errors from the book. Thank you, again. God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Thank you, that was done very well.


QUOTE 
Brown sites a passage in which it says that "Jesus kissed her often on the mouth"



The actual text reads "Jesus kissed her often on the ..."

In the original text where the word that completes the sentence, "mouth," is supposed to be there is actually a hole. Appearently "mouth" seemed to fit.

Mouth could certainly have been the word that was originally written, but head, hand, feet could have easily been the word as well. It is obvious why Brown accepts the word mouth for his claim but as you said, "'kiss' is a metaphor for the giving of the gnosis, or enlightenment to an individual." So therefore, if this is the case then "head" would be just as pertinente.[/quote]

I believe the initial manuscripts of the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" have the term "mouth" missing, however, if I am not mistaken the Nag Hammadi copy has the term mouth written in full.

With regards to your comment on whether or not it could have been "head" you are correct to note that, for the gnostics, a kiss on the head signifies the immediate and personal effects of the gnosis - that is, the ability to discerne the pure spiritual truth through one's enlightenment, however, "mouth" is probably the correct word in this case, as Magdalene is portrayed has speaking and teaching to the crowd, and, through her words, aiding them in obtaining the gnosis.

Also, Adam, I'm glad it helped

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[M.SIGGA]

Throughout the novel Brown also asserts a mob-like behavior is behind the Prelature of Opus Dei, whose bishop operates almost like the Pope's hitman. I thought this was almost as disturbing as the false Gospel information