In the above we have the bulk of Brown’s Biblical material. Hereafter we find only a few points of consideration. In Chapter 74 there is a claim that “early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sex” in the Jewish Temple, and that YHWH was worshipped along with a female consort named Shekinah.
Where Brown derives this “information” is difficult to say. It is found in no scholarly source to my awareness; it is not certified by any leading archaeologist or Biblical commentator. In Chapter 77 Brown offers a comment about a proper name, Sheshach, which he says is “mentioned repeatedly in the Book of Jeremiah.” This name is a codeword for Babylon. While this latter point is true, it seems excessive to say that something mentioned but twice (Jer. 25:26, Jer. 51:41) is mentioned “repeatedly.”
It is suitable in closing to consider some comments from Chapter 82. Brown’s hero remarks that “every faith in the word is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith—acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.”
It is no mystery that a contextual study of the word “faith” (pistis) in the New Testament and its contemporary literature does not bear this definition out. The word is used as a noun to refer to the Christian "faith" as a set of convictions, but in far many more cases the meaning intended is in the sense of faithfulness, or loyalty as owed to one in whom one is embedded for service. The relationship between the believer and God is framed in the New Testament terms of an ancient client-patron relationship.
As God's "clients" to whom he has shown unmerited favor (grace), our response should be an awareness of prescribed duties toward those in whom we are indebted (God) and the group in which we are embedded (God's kin group, the body of Christ). This awareness is the expression of our faithfulness of loyalty
-- in other words, this is our pistis, or faith. "Faith" is not acceptance of what we cannot prove, but trust in one who has proven himself, our pledge to trust, and be reliable servants to, our patron (God), who has provided us with tangible gifts (Christ) and proof thereby of His own reliability.
Faith is not imagination, but the reaction we provide to evidence. The missionaries of the New Testament did not appeal to feelings, but to facts: the resurrection and empty tomb; Jesus’ miracles; his fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
In other words, evidence!!
Those who adhere to Brown’s idealized caricature, however, would for obvious reasons prefer the more nebulous sort of “faith.” It is clear why: All of their documents are dated far too late; all of their evidence is “destroyed;” all of their ideas are gross decontexualizations.
It is not surprising that The DaVinci Code ends with Mary’s tomb unopened and the secrets left unsaid.
If Brown’s ideologues are indeed in possession of ancient and secret documents that turn the world upside down, why are they not now in the hands of paleographers, linguistic experts, or other scholars to be dated?
Christian missionaries risked their lives in preaching the Gospel – what is it the revisionists fear?
Brown is not the first to propose that Christianity is a vast conspiracy by the Vatican and/or others to hoodwink the world about the true Jesus. He will not be the last.
What is surprising is not that he would boldly label “FACT” what has been so totally refuted by the evidence. What is surprising is that our culture is so misinformed about Christianity, woefully ignorant of history, and clueless about the Bible – its origin, composition, preservation, and translation.
This novel is based on such flimsy fabrication that if it used any other setting – an ethnic neighborhood, a police investigation, an environmental conservation movement, for example – no one would be able to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy the story.
That millions of people are not turned off by the lack of authenticity in The DaVinci Code is more than surprising, it is sad. That critics and even news media are so gullible is tragic.
Stay tuned for Part 10 coming soon........
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
But It's Just Fiction...(Part 8)
Thus we find (even in Brown) necessary “excuses” to explain why the evidence is all in the church’s favor, thus assuming the blindness of scholars like Jenkins with no axe to grind for either party: “The history is written by the winners,” it is said, and all the evidence for a Christianity with an idealized feminism was destroyed.
Yet this begs the very question of how, and why, the winners won. It assumes that the fight was not honest, that the Church hit below the belt. Evidence such as the Gospel of Mary is taken as evidence; and non-evidence like lack of copies of it any earlier than the third century is also taken as evidence. There is simply no way the Church is allowed to win – there can be no evidence in its favor at all, so that Brown and his cohorts have stacked the deck.
In all of this it is assumed that the early Church was patriarchal and bigoted, but that is simply not the case. As Jenkins observes, the New Testament notes a number of prominent women even as it stands (before being “edited, altered,” to whatever convenient extent conspiracy theorists require). Several commentators on the prime time television program hinted that Mary, while perhaps not Jesus’ wife, was in some sense close to Jesus.
This is true, but not in the way that Brown or these commentators think. Women like Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna “ministered unto [Jesus] of their substance.” (Luke 8-2:3).
The impact of this passage is not appreciated because we have lost track of the contextual meaning: It means that these two women were Jesus’ well-off patrons, and that they financed his ministry – such that, in that day and age, he would have been a “client” who was in some sense obligated to them.
Later in the New Testament, figures like Lydia, Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe figure prominently. This is not to say that the Church was entirely egalitarian, but it would be a mistake to assume that it was in any sense misogynistic – and when the authority structures did become less favorable to women, Jenkins adds, it was because the Church started following Roman models of administration.
The use of Mary Magdalene reflects a Gnostic tactical measure in every way. As Jenkins observes, the Gnostics, needing to overthrow apostolic authority (note that their doing so presupposes that the apostolic tradition had the upper hand to begin with!), had to choose a person close to Jesus, yet not part of the apostolic band.
The Gnostics also had a worldview that “demanded that spiritual beings exist in male and female pairs,” so that choosing a woman as Jesus’ counterpart was inevitable. In Jenkins’ words, the resort to these late texts “represent a triumph of hope over judgment.”Brown earns no credibility putting an endorsement of these texts into his characters’ mouths.
Chapter 60 offers us what is as close to a research bibliography as Brown intends to provide. His historian character says that “the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians.” That score is reduced to but four (for our convenience, or because there are no more?) but a closer look at these “historians” reveals some anomalies.
The persons who authored these texts are certainly not “historians” in any academic sense, that is, of possessing known academic degrees in these subjects or publishing material in peer-reviewed journals. Nor are the books published by academic presses.
Let’s have a look at Brown’s recommended titles:
The Templar Revelation by Picknett and Prince. Historians they are not; the credits on their book list them as “writers, researchers, and lecturers on the paranormal, the occult, and historical and religious mysteries.” Their other authorial credits include such masterpieces of critical history as The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth About Extraterrestrial Life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt and The Mammoth Book of UFOs. Harvard University Press is practically beating their door down.
The Woman with the Alabaster Jar by Starbird and Sweeney. Printed by that fine academic press “Bear and Company,” this book is authored by one who claims to have a Masters degree (in what is not specified) and to have studied at Vanderbilt Divinity School, though whether she finished, and whether any of her material in this book was offered in any papers, is not said. Starbird is also the author of the third book Brown highlights, The Goddess in the Gospels. It is noted that this book was a primary influence on her.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent and Leigh. This book, a bestseller that is the motherlode for Brown’s sort of theorizing, is not entirely endorsed by Brown’s historian character, who pins it for “dubious leaps of faith” but allows that its “fundamental premise [is] sound.” It’s nice to know something is, because the authors’ qualifications are not. The lead author Baigent’s sole credential is a degree in psychology. Leigh is described in one location (a website promoting his virtues as a speaker) as a “a writer and university lecturer with a thorough knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology and esoterica,” which seems a roundabout way of saying he has no relevant credentials in the subject.
None of these “scholars” are scholars at all; and no genuine New Testament scholars, liberal or conservative, are cited at all. A good lay introduction to New Testament scholarship is available in Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998) and The Case for Faith (Zondervan, 2000).
I apologize for not having updated this blog in a while as I have had unforeseen circumstances happen to me. It's funny how the evil one operates. With the Power Of The Holy Spirit I will not be deterred from this mission.
Please stay tuned for Part 9 ....Coming Soon
Yet this begs the very question of how, and why, the winners won. It assumes that the fight was not honest, that the Church hit below the belt. Evidence such as the Gospel of Mary is taken as evidence; and non-evidence like lack of copies of it any earlier than the third century is also taken as evidence. There is simply no way the Church is allowed to win – there can be no evidence in its favor at all, so that Brown and his cohorts have stacked the deck.
In all of this it is assumed that the early Church was patriarchal and bigoted, but that is simply not the case. As Jenkins observes, the New Testament notes a number of prominent women even as it stands (before being “edited, altered,” to whatever convenient extent conspiracy theorists require). Several commentators on the prime time television program hinted that Mary, while perhaps not Jesus’ wife, was in some sense close to Jesus.
This is true, but not in the way that Brown or these commentators think. Women like Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna “ministered unto [Jesus] of their substance.” (Luke 8-2:3).
The impact of this passage is not appreciated because we have lost track of the contextual meaning: It means that these two women were Jesus’ well-off patrons, and that they financed his ministry – such that, in that day and age, he would have been a “client” who was in some sense obligated to them.
Later in the New Testament, figures like Lydia, Junia, Priscilla, and Phoebe figure prominently. This is not to say that the Church was entirely egalitarian, but it would be a mistake to assume that it was in any sense misogynistic – and when the authority structures did become less favorable to women, Jenkins adds, it was because the Church started following Roman models of administration.
The use of Mary Magdalene reflects a Gnostic tactical measure in every way. As Jenkins observes, the Gnostics, needing to overthrow apostolic authority (note that their doing so presupposes that the apostolic tradition had the upper hand to begin with!), had to choose a person close to Jesus, yet not part of the apostolic band.
The Gnostics also had a worldview that “demanded that spiritual beings exist in male and female pairs,” so that choosing a woman as Jesus’ counterpart was inevitable. In Jenkins’ words, the resort to these late texts “represent a triumph of hope over judgment.”Brown earns no credibility putting an endorsement of these texts into his characters’ mouths.
Chapter 60 offers us what is as close to a research bibliography as Brown intends to provide. His historian character says that “the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ has been chronicled in exhaustive detail by scores of historians.” That score is reduced to but four (for our convenience, or because there are no more?) but a closer look at these “historians” reveals some anomalies.
The persons who authored these texts are certainly not “historians” in any academic sense, that is, of possessing known academic degrees in these subjects or publishing material in peer-reviewed journals. Nor are the books published by academic presses.
Let’s have a look at Brown’s recommended titles:
The Templar Revelation by Picknett and Prince. Historians they are not; the credits on their book list them as “writers, researchers, and lecturers on the paranormal, the occult, and historical and religious mysteries.” Their other authorial credits include such masterpieces of critical history as The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth About Extraterrestrial Life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt and The Mammoth Book of UFOs. Harvard University Press is practically beating their door down.
The Woman with the Alabaster Jar by Starbird and Sweeney. Printed by that fine academic press “Bear and Company,” this book is authored by one who claims to have a Masters degree (in what is not specified) and to have studied at Vanderbilt Divinity School, though whether she finished, and whether any of her material in this book was offered in any papers, is not said. Starbird is also the author of the third book Brown highlights, The Goddess in the Gospels. It is noted that this book was a primary influence on her.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent and Leigh. This book, a bestseller that is the motherlode for Brown’s sort of theorizing, is not entirely endorsed by Brown’s historian character, who pins it for “dubious leaps of faith” but allows that its “fundamental premise [is] sound.” It’s nice to know something is, because the authors’ qualifications are not. The lead author Baigent’s sole credential is a degree in psychology. Leigh is described in one location (a website promoting his virtues as a speaker) as a “a writer and university lecturer with a thorough knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology and esoterica,” which seems a roundabout way of saying he has no relevant credentials in the subject.
None of these “scholars” are scholars at all; and no genuine New Testament scholars, liberal or conservative, are cited at all. A good lay introduction to New Testament scholarship is available in Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998) and The Case for Faith (Zondervan, 2000).
I apologize for not having updated this blog in a while as I have had unforeseen circumstances happen to me. It's funny how the evil one operates. With the Power Of The Holy Spirit I will not be deterred from this mission.
Please stay tuned for Part 9 ....Coming Soon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)