A refutation

I'm fairly certain I've missed him and he's either fishing in New Mexico, or touring through Peru at this point, but Ouroboros recently had some interesting things to say about Da Vinci Code. I was going to just leave him some comments on his blog but I got a little bit long-winded. So. Let us begin.

1. I, too, have no problem with the book. I personally take the view that if there is a book that will get a modern person to sit down and read rather than watch TV, that's a good thing. Nor do I have any problem with the movie. Ireland's equivilent of the MPAA is the IFCO, the Irish Film Censors Office, a name that makes me shudder a little bit. Go see movies, read books, whatever: no one else has the right to tell you "this is bad". They do, however, have the right to say "I personally think this is incorrect/offensive/idiotic/etc." I also fully believe that nothing on the Times fiction bestseller list should be taken all that seriously as anything other than fiction. So on this point I agree with Ouroboros: read it, if you'd like. See the movie. Just don't be surprised when people start telling you you're a bit off when you accept it as truth.

2. Da Vinci was an awesome guy. I don't know all that much about him, but I know intellectually he was pretty well ahead of his time. But I don't agree that the book made him into "little more than a conspirator in some sexual coverup". The way I read it, Brown was basically saying that Da Vinci was one hell of a subversive. He was leaving 'clues' and such that the Catholic church (which is and was an extremely powerful organization) had no idea. He was sneaking around right under their nose, and, in fantasy-land, leaving clues that could be decrypted. I hardly think that Brown was trying to snub Mr. Da Vinci.

3. The Church has always tried to supress women. Why? Well, for one there's that whole incident with Eve and that troublesome fruit, which the Church basically
sees as the ruination of man (note: man's heyday did not last very long, did it?) So there's that. And it's for the same reason why they've also tried to supress (or assimilate) everyone else: so that the small elite could stay in power. Hey, look, Jesus was a man. Clearly that means that men are superior, because God didn't send us his daughter. So we'll have male popes and bishops and priests, and not allow women in. Once that's established, any threat to it would be a threat to the basic structure of the entire Church, therefore something best avoided.

Additionally, while all the Gnostic gospels were written quite a while after Jesus, so were all the gospels, so that's pretty much an irrelevant argument.

4. Babies. Let's set one thing out first: There's no concrete evidence that Jesus did or did not reproduce. Just the same as there's no concrete evidence (by which I mean there is no empirical proof) that Jesus was anything but a guy who, through charisma and emotional manipulation, managed to start a massive, long-lived cult.

Historically speaking it's accepted that Jesus was a Jew. Traditionally Jews had no obligation to deny themselves marriage, partnership, etc. I recall being taught that marriage is considered an ideal state for Jews, with a sort of three-way relationship between the two partners and god, but I can't seem to find anything authoritative to back that up. Regardless, from what we know of the time period it would have been odd for a young Jewish dude to be unmarried and celibate. Even the most orthodox have always been allowed and encouraged to marry and procreate. Why? Because generally speaking Jews were only supposed to marry each other and, basically, isolate themselves from others (I think Exodus talks all about that). It was a basic issue of survival of species, to put it in Darwinian terms (sorry, but I can't pass on an opportunity to apply Darwinian logic to Jesus). So, sure, it's concievable that Jesus was single and celibate his entire life. I don't think it's likely though, just from a basic understanding of the culture he was coming from.

You can't argue that those who wrote the gospels didn't believe. I have no doubt that they did believe, completely and firmly. That doesn't give them any more credibility, though: Jim Jones' followers died painful deaths because they believed in what Jones was saying. Now they're nothing more than some wackos who offed themselves under the spell of a charismatic cult leader. Being swept up with someone hardly means you'll be an accurate biographer.