| |
A Resource by Mark D. Roberts |
|
The Da Vinci Opportunity, Section 5
How the Popularity of The Da Vinci Code Book
and Movie Can Be Helpful to Christians and Others
by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts
Copyright © 2006 by Mark D. Roberts
Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use or for use in a Christian ministry, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com. Thank you.
Excursus: Newsweek on "The Mystery of Mary Magdalene" (Section A) 
Part 40 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity 
Posted for Thursday, May 25, 2006
Catapulted forward by The Da Vinci Code juggernaut, Newsweek's cover story this week focuses on "The Mystery of Mary Magdalene." My first response in seeing this cover was mixed. For obvious reasons, I'm in favor of more attention being given in the press to biblical themes and persons. Yet recent history has shown that mainstream media reporting on such things is not always balanced or accurate. Writers often are unduly influenced by revisionist historians who have an axe to grind against orthodox Christianity. Or writers exaggerate in order to find a story where there is none, or where the truth is less spectacular than would merit a magazine cover.
Jonathan Darman reflects both of these tendencies – undue influence and exaggeration -- though not to such an extent that his article is substantially untrue or harmful to faith. In fact, Darman's piece contains more truth than empty conjecture, and his picture of Mary Magdalene throughout history has much to offer. Yet, as I would expect, there are problems along the way. In what follows I will quote from the Newsweek piece, and then offer my commentary. |
|
|
Newsweek: "An Inconvenient Woman"
What a strange title for this story! Of all the things one might say about Mary Magdalene, "inconvenient" would never have dawned on me. Why would Mary be inconvenient, unless she is the married Mary of The Da Vinci Code, or the anti-orthodox Mary of Gnosticism? This title suggests monkey business afoot, and alerts me to look for Darman's bias in favor of revisionist, pro-Gnostic accounts of Mary's significance. My guess is that he will project Mary's inconvenience into New Testament accounts where she wasn't preceived to be inconvenient at all.
The first paragraphs of the article, however, are a fairly straightforward summary of the biblical picture of Mary. Yet before long the article gets into the non-canonical Gospel of Mary.
Newsweek: Written by Christians some 90 years after Jesus' death, Mary's is a "Gnostic gospel"; the Gnostics, a significant force in the early years of Christianity, stressed salvation through study and self-knowledge rather than simply through faith.
Most scholars date the Gospel of Mary later than 120 A.D., though such an early date is theoretically possible. Darman chose the date that suits his purposes, no doubt. But more troubling here is the description of Gnosticism. Gnostic salvation did not come through "study and self-knowledge," but through supernatural revelation from various redeemer figures, who showed a few elites that they were really divine. Self-knowledge wasn't self-generated, but rather revealed. Darman's description makes Gnosticism appear far more postmodern than it really was. In Gnosticism you didn't get to discover your own truth. It came only be revelation.
Newsweek: To many feminists and theological liberals, the Gospel of Mary suggests that the Magdalene, the first witness to the Resurrection, was the "apostle to the apostles," a figure with equal (or even favored) status to the men around Jesus—a woman so threatening that the apostles suppressed her role, and those of other women, in a bid to build a patriarchal hierarchy in the early church.
First of all, it should be noted that the title "apostle to the apostles" is derived from ancient Christian tradition, orthodox tradition, I might add. (It is based on a line from the early third-century theologian Hippolytus.) Moreover, as the Newsweek article notes later on, Pope John Paul II himself used the "apostle to the apostles" description of Mary. So one should beware the implication that only feminists and liberals see Mary as a notable apostle. Darman is right, however, in observing that "many feminists and theological liberals" have seen Mary as threatening to the male apostles.
Newsweek: Mary was always an inconvenient woman. Although the Gospel authors can't avoid her—mentioning her 13 times in the New Testament—they offer few details of her life. This was perhaps no accident: women were considered untrustworthy in the Roman world, and the Gospels, eager to make new converts, probably did not wish to highlight the fact that a woman was a key witness to their story of the Resurrection—a story that was already difficult enough to explain.
This is a peculiar paragraph, one that reveals Darman's angle clearly. Why would the Gospel authors have wanted to avoid mentioning Mary or details about her life? Darman puts sinister motives in their minds that weren't there. Surely they could have skipped her altogether, easily, if they had wanted to. Many Gnostic gospels did this very thing, in fact. Mary doesn't show up in the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Truth. Did the Gnostic writers of these gospels find Mary inconvenient? Or were they simply focusing their attention elsewhere?
Mary is not singled out by the New Testament Gospel writers for exclusion. In fact, they tell us very little about any of the disciples of Jesus, besides Peter. Most of the male disciples are virtually ignored. We know almost nothing about Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddaeus, and Simon. Were these male disciples inconvenient? Hardly.
Darman is correct in saying that "women were considered untrustworthy in the Roman world." He's also right in noting that the Resurrection account with Mary in the forefront would have been a stumbling block in early Christian evangelism. In this way, Mary would have been inconvenient for the gospel writers. Yet Darman fails to draw the only appropriate conclusion: The gospel writers were so committed to telling the truth that they did not exclude Mary from the resurrection stories. How much neater and cleaner it would have been to replace Mary with Peter, for example. Yet the early church had a strong commitment to telling the truth about Mary, even when it was inconvenient.
Newsweek: Yet from the earliest hours of Christianity, there were other voices, too, those determined to present a fuller picture of the Magdalene. In several Gnostic Gospels, texts whose dissemination in the past 50 years has turned the study of Christian origins on its head, she is not the wallflower of the New Testament but rather a favored, perhaps favorite, follower of Christ.
This paragraph can only be called "Danbrownian" for its bias and exaggeration. Darman has abandoned object journalism and flung himself into the abyss of baseless speculation. Darman's insinuation that the stuff of the Gnostic gospels comes from "the earliest hours of Christianity" is, frankly, nonsense. Most Gnostic scholars believe that the stuff of the Gnostic gospels tells us much about second-century Gnosticism, but almost nothing about early Christianity. Those who claim otherwise have a miraculous ability to read between the lines.
Moreover, it's an exaggeration to say that the dissemination of the Gnostic Gospels "has turned the study of Christian origins on its head." The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library has been a great help for those of us interested in the history of early Christianity. We now know much more about what the Gnostics believed than we did prior to the publication of the Nag Hammadi documents. One of the things we know, by the way, is that Gnosticism was quite diverse. Some Gnostics hailed Mary as the exemplary human revealer, while others gave Peter that role. But nothing has been turned upside down by the release of the Gnostic documents, except among scholars who have taken the side of Gnosticism in their opposition to Christian orthodoxy. They have turned things topsy-turvy, to be sure, in their affection for Gnosticism, or for what is left of Gnosticism after they take away from it everything offensive to their postmodern agendas.
In my next post I'll continue my review of "An Inconvenient Woman."
Excursus: Newsweek on "The Mystery of Mary Magdalene"
(Section B)
Part 41 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Friday, May 26, 2006
Yesterday I began my review of the latest Newsweek cover story, "The Mystery of Mary Magdalene." The actual article by Jonathan Darman is entitled, "An Inconvenient Woman." I will continue to do as I did yesterday, quoting a section of the Newsweek piece, and then adding my comments.
Why, then, did this woman, whom the New Testament tells us was Jesus' constant companion and whom the Gnostics claim was privileged above all others, disappear after the resurrection? If Mary were so important to Jesus, why is there no mention of her in Acts, or in the Epistles?
| This is a good question, though it goes beyond the evidence to say that Mary was "Jesus' constant companion." The most obvious answer is simple: Mary is not mentioned in the rest of the New Testament because we have very little information about any of Jesus's disciples, expect for Peter, and perhaps John. For example, Andrew, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew show up only in one verse of the New Testament beyond the gospels (Acts 1:13). They also "disappear after the resurrection," if you will, but nobody suspects some sort of conspiracy to silence them. Mary, Jesus's mother, also makes an appearance in only one verse after the gospels (Acts 1:14). Jesus's close friends and followers, Mary (of Bethany) and Martha aren't even mentioned. Nor is Salome, one of the women who went to the empty tomb on Easter morning (Mark 16:1), though she does show up in the Gospel of Thomas. The New Testament writings focus mainly on the actions of Peter and Paul, with little attention paid to the other disciples. So, yes, Mary is not mentioned. But this should not be taken as evidence of some sort of plot against her. It has nothing to do with her being inconvenient. Rather, it is the result of our having very little information about the earliest Christians, other than a couple of the major players. |
|
| |
Piero di Cosimo,
"St. Mary Magdalene," 1490s
|
The noncanonical Gospels provide a troubling answer. In Gnostic texts, Mary is under constant attack, most often from Peter. "Tell Mary to leave us," he implores Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas, "for women are not worthy of life." Mary understands his threat. "I am afraid of Peter," she tells Jesus in the Gnostic Dialogue Pistis Sophia. "He threatens me and hates our race."
It is true that in some Gnostic gospels Mary is criticized by some of Jesus's other disciples. But to say that "Mary is under constant attack" is to stretch the available evidence far beyond the breaking point. It seems as if Jonathan Darman has been tutored by Sir Leigh Teabing. The facts about Mary in the Gnostic writings are these:
1. Mary appears relatively infrequently in Gnostic documents, overall. She shows up in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Dialogue of the Savior, the Apocalypse of James, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip. In only two of these writings, the Pistis Sophia and the Gospel of Mary, does she play a major role. Mary does not make an appearance at all in 85% of the Nag Hammadi documents (47 of 55). By way of contrast, Mary is mentioned in 100% of the New Testament gospels.
2. The theme of conflict between Mary and the other disciples is rarely found in the Gnostic gospels. To my knowledge, there are only four relevant passages in more than 500 pages of text:
In the Gospel of Thomas, Peter says Mary should leave them, "for women are not worthy of Life." To which Jesus responds that he will "lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males" (section 114).
In the Gospel of Mary, Peter questions whether the Savior spoke openly with Mary, and not with him and the male disciples (9:5). Levi says he is "contending against the woman like the adversaries" (9:7). Earlier in this gospel, however, Peter asks Mary to tell him what Jesus revealed to her, apparently without resentment (5:5-7).
In the Gospel of Philip, the male disciples ask the Savior why he loves her more than them, but Mary isn't attacked by them in any way (section 64).
In the Pistis Sophia, Peter complains that Mary speaks too much, so Jesus gives him a chance to speak, and then praises him generously as "blessed beyond all men upon earth" (chapters 36-37). At a later point Mary says she is afraid of Peter"for he threatens me and he hates our race" (chapter 73).
3. Usually, when Mary shows up in the Gnostic gospels, she plays an insignificant role, or she is seen as a recipient of revelation alongside the male disciples, who are her colleagues in knowledge. In the Dialogue of the Savior, for example, Mary, Matthew, and Judas are in conversation together with the Lord. In the Sophia of Jesus Christ, Mary appears along with Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew. In the Pistis Sophia, Mary is joined by Philip, Peter, Martha, John, Andrew, Matthew, Mary the mother of Jesus, James, and Thomas. Though Mary takes the lead role in the Pistis Sophia dialogue with Jesus and is praised by him in glowing terms, the others participate and are praised by Jesus as well (including Peter).
In light of the textual evidence, it is a huge exaggeration to say that "Mary is under constant attack, most often from Peter." The truth is that in rare instances Peter challenges Mary or expresses discomfort with her presence. Moreover, Peter is often upheld in the Gnostic documents as a true recipient of divine revelation or even the preferred human conduit of this revelation (see these Nag Hammadi documents: the Apocryphon of James, the Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Letter of Peter to Philip). So the whole idea that Mary is favored by all Gnostics and Peter only by the orthodox ignores the diversity within Gnosticism itself.
In my next post I'll wrap up my review of "An Inconvenient Woman."
Excursus: Newsweek on "The Mystery of Mary Magdalene" (Section C)
Part 42 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Tuesday, May 30, 2006
At the end of last week I began to review the Newsweek cover story on Mary Magdalene. Today I complete that review. The format is the same as before: I'll quote passages from the Newsweek article and then add my own comments.
Mary's description of the risen Christ [in the Gospel of John] —unrecognizable, untouchable—is of a piece with the portrait of resurrection in the Gnostic texts. But in the New Testament, the men describe Jesus as a physical being in front of them, a body that lives, walks and breathes.
Once again there is a trace of truth here, but mostly confusion. It's true that in John 20 Mary at first doesn't recognize the risen Christ, and that Jesus says to her, "Do not hold onto me" (v. 17). But after her initial confusion, Mary does in fact identify Jesus. He is not, therefore, "unrecognizable." Mary reports to the other disciples, "I have seen the Lord" (v. 18). And the fact that He tells her not to hold onto him surely implies that He is not "untouchable." Darman is misreading John 20 because, ironcially, he's reading it through Gnostic eyes.
It does seem likely, however, that Gnostics found Mary to be their inspiration because of this story in John 20. Since they denied the fleshly resurrection of Jesus (as well as His actual crucifixion, by the way), they twisted the "don’t hold onto me" to mean that Christ was non-physical. And Mary gets "secret" revelation from Jesus that she is supposed to deliver to the other disciples, a theme developed at length in several Gnostic texts. The Gospel of Luke adds that the male disciples didn't believe the women's testimony about Jesus (Luke 24:11), implying that this included Mary's witness as well. The New Testament gave some Gnostics all they needed to begin to fabricate stories about Mary the rejected revealer, though other Gnostics did not develop this theme.
Orthodox clerics worried that the Gnostic belief in resurrection as spiritual release would compromise their teaching that Christ physically suffered on the cross to atone for the sins of man.
This is thoroughly confused. In fact, Orthodox clerics worried about the fact that the Gnostics openly denied that Christ physically suffered on the cross. The problem wasn't some implication of resurrection. It was the open Gnostic denial of the real suffering of the real Christ. See, for example, the Apocalypse of Peter, section 81, where the genuine, non-physical Christ is laughing during the crucifixion because He's not really suffering. Gnostic belief in a non-physical resurrection was a simple reflection of their denial of the goodness of physical life.
It wasn't long after Jesus' death, however, that male church leaders took steps to subordinate women. "As the church submits to Christ," Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "so wives should submit to their husbands." Yet Paul's letters also contain references to female missionaries throughout the empire. Among these women was Junia, whom Paul calls "outstanding among the apostles," and admits was in Christ "before I was."
This paragraph rightly notes an apparent tension in the New Testament between passages that picture women as active in ministry and having authority in church (Acts 18:26; 21:9; Romans 16:1-7; Corinthians 11:4-10; Titus 2:3), and even over their husband's bodies (1 Corinthians 7:4), and passages that instruct women to be subordinate to men (Ephesians 5:22; 1 Timothy 2:11-12). This is not the time or place for me to jump into this deep pool of New Testament interpretation. For now, let me note that the inclusion of women in ministry in the early church is striking, especially given the strongly patriarchal culture of the first-century. Passages that call for female subordination, when read in the context of culture and the documents in which they are found, turn out to be far less objectionable than they might at first seem to modern ears. To put it more positively, the New Testament, from Jesus through the epistles, holds women in high esteem and recognizes that they are full partners in the ministry of God's kingdom. Jesus's enlisting of Mary as the first "evangelist" may well have been inconvenient in a sexist culture, but it was a sign of the new creation inaugurated by His genuine resurrection.
The French were particularly enamored with the Magdalene—so enamored that, naturally, they made her French.
Tradition holds that Mary Magdalene died in Aix-en-Provence in southern France. The pulpit of the cathedral in Aix commemorates the tradition of Mary washing the feet of Jesus with her hair, though this tradition is not taught in the New Testament gospels.
Indeed, for all its revolutionary claims, "The Da Vinci Code" is remarkably old-fashioned, making Mary important for her body more than her mind. In the movie, we see a stricken, shadowy Magdalene with swollen belly being spirited out of Jerusalem by a crowd of attendant men. But we never hear her voice.
Indeed. This is exactly the point I made earlier in The Da Vinci Opportunity. How ironic it is that the Mary of The Da Vinci Code is seen as an emblem of secular feminism!
Brown's mistake [in misunderstanding the kiss of Jesus and Mary in the Gospel of Philip] is understandable. Sex sells in our time, as it did in Gregory's, and probably Jesus', too. Mary remains a prisoner, a mistaken creature of sex. History may yet set her free. There are still undiscovered gospels sitting in unknown deserts or on unknown library shelves. Scholars say it is only a matter of time before some of them surface and upend our notions of Mary and Jesus once again. |
|
|
Above: The pulpit of the cathedral in Aix-en-Provence, with "Mary" washing the feet of Jesus.
Below: I doubt Mary went to the Ben and Jerry's in Aix.
|
|
If Dan Brown were a historian or a journalist, I'd disagree about his mistake being understandable. I'd say it was poor scholarship. Period. As a novelist he can make things up willy-nilly, if he wishes. (Of course if, as a novelist, he implies that his interpretations of ancient documents are accurate, then this put him in the historian camp.)
This last paragraph of "An Inconvenient Woman" is truly odd. Mary is not a prisoner or a "mistaken creature of sex" in the most accurate yet minimal description of her, the New Testament gospels. There, she is a faithful, courageous, and blessed follower of Jesus, the first one to share the good news of His resurrection. Sex never plays into the biblical story, except insofar as Jesus's having women followers and revealing Himself first to a woman on Easter are stunning symbols of the empowerment of women. Mary doesn't need history to set her free. She simply needs people, including journalists who write cover stories for Newsweek, to read the New Testament gospels and take them seriously.
Excursus: The Curious Anti-Catholic Perspective of The Da Vinci Code Book and Movie (Section A)
Part 43 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Today's post isn't about debunking The Da Vinci Code so much as analyzing a curious feature of both book and movie: its virulent yet evolving anti-Catholicism. I'll begin this conversation today and finish it in tomorrow's post.
The Malleable Robert Langdon
One of the most striking shifts between The Da Vinci Code novel and The Da Vinci Code movie is the perspective of Professor Robert Langdon on Christianity in general and the Roman Catholic Church in particular. In the novel, Langdon is no friend of either, though, as Leigh Teabing notes, Langdon has "a far softer heart for Rome than I do" (p. 235). This comment comes after Langdon explained the Catholic desire to suppress heretical documents on the basis of the "sincere belief in [the Church's] established view of Christ" (p. 235).
Yet the Robert Langdon of the novel agrees with Leigh Teabing's assertions about the church's mistreatment of Mary and its cover-up to defend its power (p. 254). And, in perhaps one of the most stunning anti-Catholic passages of the book, Robert Langdon muses on "the deceitful and violent history" of the Church (p. 124-125). By way of illustration, he remembers the "most blood-soaked publication in human history," the Malleus Maleficarum, or The Witches' Hammer. He believes this was published by the Catholic Church (which isn't true; the church condemned the book). On the basis of this book, according to Langdon, "During three hundred years of witch hunts, the Church burned at the stake an astounding five million women" (p. 125). These musings come to Langdon about a hundred pages before the entrance of Sir Leigh Teabing, the most vehement of anti-Catholic characters in both book and movie.
One of the clearest signs of the change in Langdon in the film comes in the presentation of the Malleus Maleficarum. Now this anti-Catholic slander comes, not from Langdon, but from Leigh Teabing. He, not Langdon, brings up the witch hunts as an example of the Church's persecution of women. Langdon's only contribution to the matter is to say: "Three centuries of witch hunts . . . fifty-thousand women are captured, burned alive at the stake." To which Teabing adds, "At least that, some say millions." |
|
| |
Robert Langdon in his youth. That guy has always
had a hankering for big secrets, hasn't he?
|
A curious switch, don't you think? Partly it seems to reflect an awareness by the screenwriter that the novel's "five million women" killed was utter historical nonsense. The movie's Langdon, who suggests 50,000, is much closer to historical truth. (Fifty-thousand women killed is still terrible, by the way. Most of the killing came from secular authorities, however, not the Church, though the Church was surely complicit in this violence.) So the film pictures Langdon as more balanced, less vehemently and exaggeratedly anti-Catholic than the obsessed Leigh Teabing.
The Council of Shadows
Yet even Teabing in The Da Vinci Code movie has information that exonerates the Vatican itself. When Sophie Neveu wonders if Teabing believes that the Vatican is killing people, he states, "No. No. No. Not the Vatican. And not Opus Dei, either. . . . An ancient group of despots [in] high ranking positions throughout the Church . . . [the] Council of Shadows." Later, at the end of a meeting of this council that appears in the movie but not the book, the leader of the Council reminds Bishop Aringarosa that they would be excommunicated by the Church if their activities were discovered.
Thus, in The Da Vinci Code novel, the Roman Catholic Church is based upon a lie, a lie known to the highest officers of the Church, perpetuated for the sake of power, and something for which the Vatican itself is willing to kill innocent people. In the film, the Church is still based upon a lie, but it seems that this lie is not as widely known by members of the Vatican, and that those who defend the lie even to the point of murder are a small group whose activities are not sanctioned by the Vatican itself.
Robert Langdon's changed perspective from book to film, combined with the film's addition of the Council of Shadows, moderates the anti-Catholicism of the movie to a certain degree. But, as I'll explain tomorrow, in some ways the movie is even more strident than the book in its denunciation of the Church.
Excursus: The Curious Anti-Catholic Perspective of The Da Vinci Code Book and Movie (Section B)
Part 44 of series: The Da Vinci Opportunity
Posted for Thursday, June 1, 2006
Yesterday I began a two-part analysis of the anti-Catholicism of The Da Vinci Code. I showed how, in the film, an altered Robert Langdon and the addition of The Council of Shadows softened, to some degree, The Da Vinci Code's anti-Catholic perspective. But this is not the whole story, I'm sad to say.
The Terrible Church of Teabing
It would be wrong to conclude that the movie significantly improves the picture of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, the charges against the Church made by Teabing in the film are, if anything, more extreme than those in the book. For example, the cinematic Teabing goes beyond the novelistic Teabing by claiming that Christians began a holy war against Roman pagans, when in fact it was the pagan Roman Empire that brutally persecuted Christians prior to Constantine's reign.
Moreover, notice the change in a crucial paragraph from book to movie. This comes late in the story, when Sir Leigh Teabing is trying to persuade Langdon and Nevue to join his Church-busting cause: |
|
| |
Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing |
Book version: "Shall the world be ignorant forever? Shall the Church be allowed to cement its lies into our history books for all eternity? Shall the Church be permitted to influence indefinitely with murder and extortion?" (p. 408-9)
Movie version: "For 2000 years the Church has rained oppression and atrocity on mankind, crushed passion and idea alike, all in the name of their walking God. Proof of Jesus's mortality can bring an end to that suffering, drive this Church of lies to its knees. . . The living heir must be revealed. Jesus must be shown for what He was. . . . The dark con exposed."
A few moments later, Teabing adds that the exposing of the dark con is "our hope of freedom."
So, The Da Vinci Code movie seems both to exonerate the Catholic Church (as well-intentioned but generally deceived) while at the same time damning it as in the novel (The Church is based on the greatest lie in human history). The Vatican itself is not responsible for murder. Rather, a secret Council of Shadows within the Church hierarchy bears this burden. Yet, according to Leigh Teabing, the Church is responsible for terrible "oppression and suffering," which can only be stopped by revealing the secret of Jesus's humanity and thus bring "this Church of lies to its knees." But the Teabing of the film seems almost insane because of his grail obsession, and the more balanced Robert Langdon does not echo Teabing's shrill accusations, even if he ultimately believes Teabing's grail legends.
So Teabing's extreme denunciation of the church is not presented as the gospel truth. The Da Vinci Code movie, though still plenty anti-Catholic, is somewhat more nuanced than the book, largely because of the new perspective of Robert Langdon, which balances the more extreme and ultimately shrill voice of Leigh Teabing.
Why is Dan Brown Anti-Catholic?
Many have wondered why Dan Brown decided to paint the Catholic Church with such ominous colors, even in a book of fiction. Because Brown himself hasn't had much to say about this, I don't think we can know for sur |
