DaVinci Code Silliness
Faith and Philosophy
| April 7, 2005
| Tim
Even though it's been a very popular phenomenon, I've not written previously about The DaVinci Code. One possible reason is that I haven't read it, but since I'd read Holy Blood, Holy Grail -- upon which it was based and from which it borrows heavily -- back in the mid-1980s, and since I've also read numerous articles and had numerous discussions about the novel, I feel I have some familliarity with the topic material.
One of the oddest things about it is they double-minded way in which the novel is approached or absorbed by so many readers. I've seen people -- news reporters, even -- mention it as though it were fact, but then when you attempt to address the various errors and fictions within the book on a textual/historical basis, people suddenly clam up and say: "Well, it's just fiction."
I agree completely. So why were you taking its claims seriously?
For those who have been hiding in a cave somewhere, in the world of The DaVinci Code, Jesus was hitched, the gospels were totally different originally, and the Catholic Church has been covering it up for ages, using it's super-secret "Opus Dei" group. (Which Brown apparently ignorantly calls a "church". Good heavens -- how many seconds of research would it have taken to get that point straight? If he can't get something that simple right... ?)
As I said, I first encountered many of these claims in the early 1980s. I researched them as well as I could, given the lack of the Internet. In the end, I concluded that the author's claims were generally false -- not because I didn't like them, but rather because I encountered evidence that the claims were false, and the authors* must have seen it too (since some of it was directly adjacent to quotes taken out of context), and realized they'd been hiding much disconfirming evidence they'd seen.
People are funny.
Many seem to have been programmed to believe that belief in God, or perhaps the bible, or Jesus, or the atonement, is inherantly stupid. Why? Don't know: they don't seem to need to have a debate, present evidence, and weigh it against counter-evidence. Someone apparently told them that once, perhaps presented a few half-baked arguments which weren't challenged at the time, and now it apparently feels good to repeat that idea.
And yet -- and yet -- the same people will easily swallow ideas like the belief that the Priory of Sion is a secret group which guards the "Holy Grail", included Leonardo DaVinci, and dated back at least to the middle ages -- despite copious evidence it was founded in 1956 by a convinced French con man and pedophile and his teenage friend. (That's their idea of a trusted authority?)
They will readily believe that the gospels, as we have them today, were "rewritten" by order of Constantine in order to suppress "true" Christian beliefs -- despite the fact that we have many, many gospel and epistle manuscripts dating long before that time, hard physical evidence which soundly refutes such an idea.
They will readily believe that the Roman Catholic church is a group which perverted "true" Christianity in the third or fourth century, despite the fact that there were and are many other ancient independent Christian sects (Coptic, Indian, Eastern Orthodox, Chaldean) who existed from old, were not under Roman Catholic power, and yet believe orthodox doctrines.
This is basic history folks.
The DaVinci Code is riddled with countless similar errors, and there are numerous essays out there pointing them out and explaining why they are wrong, for anyone with an ear to hear both sides of the story.
So why do people behave this way?
In a nutshell, I suspect many simply aren't interested in facts. When I hear people say, "You only believe that because you want to believe it!" I'm increasingly inclined to believe, by saying so, they are describing their own motives, not those of their opponents.
After all, since they haven't sat down to hear the evidence and have a debate, how can they possibly know what motive their opponent has for holding a different belief? Even if you believe your opponent wrong, isn't it possible they could be sincerely convinced? Surely it means something that such an obvious possibility is denied prima facia.
I suspect people like to feel smart. One way to feel smart is to identify a group of people -- say, all those holding belief X -- call them "smart" for that reason (as if intelligent people could never disagree) and then attest to membership in that group by espousing X. Being smart by association, rather than being smart by possessing intelligence. (A bit like the scarecrow's diploma in Oz.)
For example, I was shocked, as a young man, to learn that "freethinkers" were people who agreed with 3-5 dogmas, including that God didn't exist, and that you couldn't know anything beyond what your senses told you. I laughed out loud! That wasn't free thought -- that was a set of unquestionable dogmas!
(And more than a few of those dogmas are self-refuting. For example: "You can only know what your five senses tell you," is not an idea which itself can be confirmed by your five senses. In fact, it's rather roundly refuted by Godel.)
Knowing a few people who held such beliefs, I noticed (or was sometimes told, after they had dropped the beliefs) that they adopted them to stand out and show themselves to be "their own man". I understand the desire, but possessing it doesn't make those particular assertions suddenly true.
Gradually, I began to see that many people do simply choose beliefs based on how it makes them feel. If they feel intellectually insecure, they profess beliefs which would identify them as 'smart'. If they are worried they are immoral, and are unwilling to change, they might seek beliefs which make their favored behaviors appear moral, or compensate for them. If they feel insignificant, they may seek to join a group which presents itself as "elite". If they feel weak, they may seek empowerment through a mob experience.
And apparently such people project this modus operandi upon their opponents -- so you can often, I have come to believe, come to understand how they work by listening carefully to how they criticize enemies they do not yet personally know.
So what's the appeal behind the ideas in The DaVinci Code?
I suspect it's got a little bit of something for everyone. There are many people who don't like Christianity, and there's a lot of reasons to hate it. By undermining the whole foundation, each gains their own personal benefit.
Some are undoubtedly horrified at the Christian idea of sin. Rather yucky idea, to think one might possibly have done something wrong. (Never mind that we're quite good at spotting it in others.) Perhaps some find the belief in a uniquely divine Jesus offensive -- a less divine Jesus might suit their tastes. And for the insecure moralist, there's Brown's clear identification as the Catholic Church as all which is foul and evil. (Great to know we have met the enemy, and he ain't us!) And for the elitist-wannabee, there's the heady rush of believing that a former middle-school teacher (Dan Brown) stumbled onto a world-shaking secret few others know, and now you too know more than all those ignert traditional Catholics and Protestants. You're onto the conspiracy!
Gnosticism is truly alive and well once again.
I have not read the code either,but my obsevation of people who has read it, it seem that they are eager to believe it and is excited about the idea that Our Lord could have been married and had children they crasp onto these falsehoods as if they are real. i have a loved one who is excited about book and themovie ciming out and don't understand why that i am negative about it all. I told him once he had read the other book and had that book down. it would be ok to read the code just so you could talk about it to others.GODs word is exciting and powerful lets us all get it down before we read something silly like the code of falsehoods
From your post it feels as though you are pushing everyone who does not believe in religion to be stupid. You yourself seem to have this high opinion that your view is correct and everyone else is covering something up.
I have not read the code. I have watched a few documentary's including 'The Search For The Holy Grail'. Which used the Code as the basis of the investigation. It does cover some interesting points, and I see why people want to believe Jesus was a normal man with a wife. It makes the whole thing more realistic.
I myself never believed he existed in the first place. This is not through me trying to cover some sort of weakness in my mind. But through endless facts.
not read code either, but Do know religious icons are replete with them, have not heard that figure to right of Jesus can't be an apostle (proper) because t ere were not 13 at last supper. DaVinci knew that but most do not know that Mark wasn't there. He was too young and celebrated at his home.
Tim: An aside for you and your audience. just as Da Vinci may have placed Mary to right of Jesus, a close look at the Sistene Chapel at the original sin fresco - look where Eve's head is turned away. Now rotate her head to Adam's groin and understand that the 'apple' may have been a euphemism! Raphael,Da Vinci and especially Michaelangelo were privy to a lot of Vatican secrets. Especially the creator of Moses. Only he could have gotten away with the horns.
Nicholas,
Eve's head is in a rather suspicious location.
But so what? What that got to do with anything? Even if Michaelangelo added a subtle sexual innuendo -- is that supposed to be evidence of something more significant? In your world, were itererant painters supposedly the keepers and heirs to great theological secrets?
As far as your comments about Moses and Mary, they appear to betray ignorance. (Sorry, I don't know a nice way to say it.) I don't mean it as an insult, just a simple statement of fact:
Moses was often depicted with horns. The practice didn't start nor end with Michaelangelo. It stems from a mistranslated biblical text, as explained here (with more examples, not from Michaelangelo) and here. I learned this as a child, in an art museum, long ago -- long before someone duped people into thinking this idiom had something (unexplained) to do with "Vatican secrets."
(And what, pray tell, is this long-hidden/suppressed "secret" supposed to be? That Moses was the product of a genetic experiment involving goat DNA? Or that he was Satanic? Or a mutant? Who know what stupid thing people will be believing next. All it takes is a paperback novel, apparently.)
The same is true of the practice of depicting John, the "youngest disciple" -- who you mistakenly call "Mary" -- as a long-haired teenaged boy, sans beard. Again, DaVinci was only following contemporary conventions by doing so. His position reclining near or against Jesus is as described Gospel of John (John 13:23) -- not secret documents.
Look: DaVinci painted "The Last Supper" from 1495 to 1497. Look here to see a depiction of John -- without beard! -- painted in 1302 -- nearly 200 years beforehand -- by Italian painter Cenni di Petro (Giovanni) Cimabue -- one of DaVinci's predecessors. There is graphical evidence for you: DaVinci was simply following a long artistic precedent.
The ignorance of this culture is overwhelming. Every area where they lack knowledge -- and individually we know so much less than ever before, apparently -- is taken as proof of a conspiracy on the part of someone else. Apparently, even ten seconds with Google is a bit too much to ask.
And no one is blinder than he who will not see.
"My people perish for a lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Tim 4:3)
Pretty good prophecy, I'd say.
Tim: Original sin! apples have seeds. same reason high priests wore pomegranates and bells on their hems. As to John being youngest i bow to your greater knowledge. That Mark wasn't there i have read, not in a paperback, but Coptic literature. as for fiqure in last supper i never (still don't) thought it was mary just that it was a possibility. I know about the horns and what they signify but they don't add to Moses' statue and who knows if their presence wasn't dictated? You and I know how difficult M was. having to wear clothing and being expelled from garden Could have much more to do with Eve not eating an apple but forbidden "seed". which would cause both to realize their nakedness? Let your readers decide. You have read the Jewish sexual laws haven't you? It's quite a large book.
Thanks Tim. Now I know you are not a hypocrite. It was Nothing is Safe that turned me on to your blog. If you have an interest in Roswell there is something I'd like to share. Never could reach Friedman. Did you receive my comment on your answer to Perry?
Adam,
From your post it feels as though you are pushing everyone who does not believe in religion to be stupid.
No. My view is the belief that we should accept a Middle School teacher (Dan Brown) and novelist as the revealer of the secrets of the ages -- when he can't even get simple things like well-known historical dates right -- is stupid.
Now, if some of the people who buy into that scenario also happen to be without religion, or antagonistic to such, then, well, you can take that where you want to. But it would sort of upend the perpetual arrogant claim that those who reject religion are always inherantly smarter than those who do, wouldn't it?
[The documentary] does cover some interesting points, and I see why people want to believe Jesus was a normal man with a wife. It makes the whole thing more realistic.
Huh??? What's supposed to be "unrealistic" about a man not getting married by age 33? That happens all the time.
What's unrealistic is a man claiming to be God incarnate. That proposition is either absolutely nuts or true... and the guy who says it was either (if he knew it false) a nasty deceiver and manipulator (a'la Jim Jones), a fruitcake in desparate need of counselling and possible sedation, or... well... telling the truth.
It amazes me you'd balk at the idea a guy -- who allegedly broke so many other traditions -- might have lived until 30 or 33 without being married! -- and wouldn't even remark on his claim to being the force which created the Universe.
Of course, the most "realistic" scenario for you appears to be one in which the first disciples gave their lives for a person about whom they were mistaken as to whether he even existed...
I myself never believed he existed in the first place. This is not through me trying to cover some sort of weakness in my mind. But through endless facts.
Which "facts" lead you to conclude there was no such person as Jesus as Nazareth? Out with it, man. Endless ripples eminate outward from the middle of the pool, but nothing has fallen in at that point? What a remarkable view.
The usual rebuttal is a lame: Well, maybe we can dispute much of the evidence. Well, maybe. But the burden is on those who need to make it all go away, not those who claim (rightly, as far as I can see) that evidence apparently exists.
As I see it, except for a few die-hard atheists, modern historians have largely abandoned that view. Mostly, the criticism has devolved to various claims the "historical" Jesus is different in one way or another than the biblical account.
The DaVinci Code is one such attempt. (Though clearly not by a historian.) One which serves as a litmus test to reveal how interested in facts it's adherants are, since so many of the "facts" it mentions are easy enough to find false by normal means.
If you have an interest in Roswell there is something I'd like to share.
Roswell generally bores me (not enough strong evidence, IMHO, though I find the topic of ETs fun to discuss), but I'm always open to whatever people want to natter about. But not here because that would be off topic.
(I'll send you an e-mail you can reply to. If you're good, interesting, and concise, you get a post on the front page, otherwise, I just write back.)
having to wear clothing and being expelled from garden Could have much more to do with Eve not eating an apple but forbidden "seed". which would cause both to realize their nakedness?
Cute idea, but I think it doesn't hold water, IMHO, for reasons I'll detail below...
The reason they wore clothes was because they were suddenly ashamed, not because God made them have to do it. God was already pretty comfortable with the whole body-thing, having actually made those bodies -- and pronounced them "good".
Why would Adam & Eve have wanted to wear clothes? Have you seen most bodies? Though Hollywood shows us just the pretty ones, generally, even those look slightly better when covered up a bit.
When self-consciousness kicks in, the first thing most of up freeze up about is our body image. (Rightly so, in most cases!) God made them clothes because they wanted them.
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." -- Mark Twain
Let your readers decide.
I always let my readers decide. The minute I have another option, I'm going to install a "Donate" button on the left and force them all to give me a quarter each time they visit. :-)
You have read the Jewish sexual laws haven't you? It's quite a large book.
Yes, I've read them. It's not that huge. But here's the key point: This book supposedly details some key things -- including sexual -- that the god of the Jews is against.
Don't you think that if God kicked A&E out for that reason, above all others, he just might have at least mentioned that as something he disliked?
Instead, as far as I can see, oral sex between husband and wife seems to get no particular mention nor attention. That would seem an odd omission if it was the original sin, so severe and against God's wishes removed mankind from paradise, don't you think?
The Jewish/Christian view is not that sex is bad. Indeed, "be fruitful and multiply" was a direct order, and sex differences is part of what made Eve such a good match for Adam (and vise-versa). It was "not good" that man should be "alone" -- that is, without woman.
And, while sexual sin has particular consequences (disease transmission, and hardening of the conscience, for example), the sin of pride -- that is, of being unable to admit we do wrong and are not righteous -- is viewed as far more lethal, since keeps people from confessing their sins and being forgiven, and thus having a relationship with God -- just as it did in the Garden.
Finally, if that were so, how would Michaelangelo in particular have come across it? And if that were such a bad sin, why would the Vatican have hid it? Are they usually in the business of hiding information as to what they think is truly sinful? Would the list of what is sinful be some kind of strange secret?
And, of course, as usual, this whole narrative assumes the Roman Catholic church was the only church directly descended from the original disciples -- as though other churches such as Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, Chaldeans, etc. never existed. Byzantium. Learn what it. The mere existence of these other independent Christian groups undermines the whole "Rome covered it up!" theory.
Overall, it sounds like the kind of theory a single guy would come up with. :-)
I read the Devinci Code last year. What an exciting page turner!! But it never occurred to me I should be considering it as truth! I mentally put it in a genre with exciting Stephen King novels.
What an exciting page turner!! But it never occurred to me I should be considering it as truth! I mentally put it in a genre with exciting Stephen King novels.
Precisely!
Sadly, I see people -- such as my friends' parents -- who get sucked into the whole thing, and seem to think Dan Brown is actually telling the truth, rather than writing fiction.
enjoyed the read. Articulate discourse. It's nice to see someone apply the laws of rhetoric. The Logical fallacies are so blatant it's annoying.
The daVinci code is fiction.
The daVinci code is fiction.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Buying a Republic |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Jimmy Carter, The Pope, and the War on Communism »
|
I have not read the code either,but my obsevation of people who has read it, it seem that they are eager to believe it and is excited about the idea that Our Lord could have been married and had children they crasp onto these falsehoods as if they are real. i have a loved one who is excited about book and themovie ciming out and don't understand why that i am negative about it all. I told him once he had read the other book and had that book down. it would be ok to read the code just so you could talk about it to others.GODs word is exciting and powerful lets us all get it down before we read something silly like the code of falsehoods
Posted by: Dennis Hancock on April 19, 2005 08:08 AM