The Curates Egg

Fact or Fiction? 

Last month I wrote positively about Martin Scorsese's 'The Last Temptation of Christ' (1988) in which Jesus has a vision on the cross wherein he marries Mary Magdalene and raises a family. This month sees the release of The Da Vinci Code (May 19^th) which is a modern conspiracy thriller based on the supposition that this vision became reality and that Christ's descendants are alive today.

It is directed by Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man), who is generally a 'safe pair of hands', and stars the always watchable Tom Hanks and the excellent Audrey Tautou (Amelie, 2001).

It should be an enjoyable piece of hokum and I look forward to seeing it. But does the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury "attacked" (according to the media) the book on which the film is based in his Easter Sermon mean we should take it more seriously?

In fact the newspapers rather overstate the case and if you read the text of the Archbishop's sermon he only mentions The Da Vinci Code in passing; this emphasises the importance of being careful how you acquire information - which is closer to the point the Archbishop was actually making. No we don't need to take The Da Vinci Code its self seriously, but we can (as always) use it to teach us something -and we do need to be aware that some people may see it as more than a work of fiction.

The Da Vinci Code

One of the problems with the book is that the author, Dan Brown, starts it with a short preface headed 'FACT:' in which he suggests that all the background information in the book is accurate (even if the story and the characters are not). He specifically states, for example, that "the Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets , identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Sandro Botticelli, Victor Hugo and Leonardo da Vinci." Unfortunately this very first "fact" is not true – the Priory of Sion was set up in the 1950's by a french confidence trickster who also forged Les Dossiers Secrets. The book is full of such misconceptions and historical inaccuracies which may help move the story forward but are certainly not accepted as "accurate" by any serious historians.

Some of these errors I have had to check up on after reading the book, but some I noticed as I was going through it. In particular the statement made in chapter 55 that Christ's divinity was only recognised at the Council of Nicea (in 325AD) and that until that time "Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man none the less. A mortal" and "not the Son of God". This is simply ridiculous as any one with any knowledge of the Council of Nicea would know (we had to study it at college). In reality most early Christians recognised the divinity of Christ (read the early fathers like, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, or Origen) and had been baptising in the name of the triune God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, since the earliest days. It was only when Christianity stopped being illegal that the opportunity arose to hold a Council and what happened was the consolidation of the preavailing view, not the impossition of some brand new idea (i.e. Christ's divinity) as Brown's character suggests (how would ordinary Christians not have noticed this sudden 'change'?). Brown's character states that "the vast majority of educated Christians" accept his version  of events – infact the exact opposite is true

In addition - although Christ probably wasn't married, whether he was or not would make little difference theologically. The Council of Nicea, and the Church today, emphasises that Christ was both human and divine -  it's 'both and' not 'either or', and always has been.

Postscript (taken from July 06 article)

Having written about the De Vinci Code in my May article a group of sixteen of us did go to see the film on the 24^th. Reactions were mixed, but most people, including me, enjoyed it - and I have to say I do not think it was anywhere near as bad as most of the critics led us to believe. Having said that it could have been a lot better - and was definitely something of a missed opportunity. Had the director (Ron Howard) taken it all a bit less seriously and perhaps injected some of the spirit of the Indiana Jones films into it then the whole thing could have been much more exciting and enjoyable. Still worth seeing though (particularly if you have read the book) but there are certainly better things on at the cinema - so unless you have a burning desire to see it now you could always wait for the DVD release.   As regards the 'controversial' aspects of the book – these were of course present in the film (it was a pretty faithfull representation) but I was interested to note a few differences. Some of the historical inaccuarcies in the book were corrected in the film and some of the doubts about the theories expressed, e.g. the Priory of Sion actually being created the 1950's (see my May article), were at least mentioned. Most significant however for me was a definite softening of the lead characters stance. He was decidedly more sceptical than in the book and even at the end of the film, when the conspiracy was effectively 'proved', he still seemed to be suggesting that perhaps Jesus might still be divine after all.

All this, and more, was discussed over a drink when a group of us met in the Old Spot on June 15^th to hold our own 'Da Vinci Code Discussion' – chaired by Simon Helme (Misister of Dursley Tabernacle) and myself. Many thanks to those who took part and to Simon for organising it.

 Tim