Da Vinci Code: Historical or Historical Fiction?

[Toronthab]

franko said:

ropoflu said:

For those like me who are following this interesting debate at a certain distance, here a list I picked up that might help analyze posters argumentation.

What, now I have to make sense or someone is going to throw Latin at me? I'm already having enough problems dodging Catholic!

;D
Offer it up for the souls in purgatory.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

Protestants, especially of the congregationalist variety with some exceptions, almost never are biblical scholars.

MY FRIEND, YOU GO TO FAR! (and yes, I know that I am yelling).



As you are fond of saying, Horsepucky.

Protestant scholars may not be doctrinally on the same page as Catholic scholars, but they are scholars just the same. G. E. Ladd, F. F. Bruce, Barth, Tillich, Schleiermacher, Bultmann (the gamut from Conservative to Liberal) are all scholars and well versed in biblical studies. Some even studied under Catholic teaching (I can do that in Ottawa if I so desire, at St. Paul’s University). This assertion went too far.



I would also suggest that it is quite common for Catholics who decide to read the earliest church history to find themselves compelled by conscience to become Protestant.

A slight silver lining to the Da Vinci Hoax is that maybe a few people might actually dig a little deeper than A&E and a lying fraud for education.

Which is what many of us Protestants said since the beginning (see the links to Christianity today as previously posted). There is a lot more effort in defending the gospel than is necessary. But it is fun.

Yep. You're right. :I went too far., but you will grant perhaps that sola scriptura doesn't encourage a lot of folks to look at what the church was saying in the year 131 AD.

I will try to muster up some graciousness and aplogize. I apologize.

I do like that word horsepucky though. I use all the other ones too incidentally from time to time....

[ropoflu]

toronthab said:

ropoflu said:

For those like me who are following this interesting debate at a certain distance, here a list I picked up that might help analyze posters argumentation.

The list comes from a website which is clearly the work of evil www.nobeliefs.com/ so it is most probably incomplete and biased.

The web site itself, that i just discovered, while blasphemous, is interesting nonetheless if yo....

Excellent post. I studied logic, symbolic and natural language logic at U fo T and we covered the fallacies you list. Most conversations have a tonne (metric) of them.

I don't want you getting the idea that I think everybody on earth should be a catholic or that the church or me thinks that you must be. She does not. Blasphemy as far as I know requires an awareness of and assent to (just like a criminal charge) the substance of the act.

In my experience, most people carry a religious and cosmological knowledge base, roughly equivalent to a third grader.

While this "resident Catholic" thing for me started with a lot of ugly statements directed at another poster, I too get more than a little fed up with the really flat cliche arguments, accusations and gratuitous insults directed towards me and Catholicism. We are the new "blacks " which is fine by me. I'd rather be a slave than slave-"owner".

I find most of my culture, and most criticisms of Catholicism to be almost brainless, on all the big questions. I think homosexuals are not in the least designed for male on male sexual acts, (and so does all of modern medicine) so I must therefore be an irrational right wing conservatve (I'm a liberal) filled with "hate" and judgementalism. Ya, sure. Most criticism runs along that kind of vein. And it's really, really dumb. Very few people ever take up the challenge and adress the

My mother "converted" genuinely to Catholicism when she married my dad, who was a bloody good man though demanding and one who didn't suffer fools lightly as the saying goes. If not for him and his resolve, I think the marriage might have floundered. All it takes is one bad spell. His lifelong convictions and strength won through.

I realize that the claims of the church are unavoidably a challenge to other notions about life, and I am not in the least trying to suggest that I'm holding some idealized standard over all of mankind, but neither am I able or inclined to dismiss or trivialize the most famous man in human history and his works. The challenge to us all is undeniable. That is the main source of the anti-religious sentiment so popular today.

It's a bit of a catch 22 I realize, but for me there is only one interesting question vis a vis religion, that being as follows. Is it true. Is this the way it is. I am persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that this is how it is, and must defend what I see as reality. The test is in the challenge to this claim. All have failed in 2000 years.


But please don't take what I see as reality and imagine it constitutes a critique of you, your values or your personl history. Catholicism reveals that God is no enemy of anyone.

The statistical evidence on divorce is overwhelmingly negative incidentally, but it may well be that your parents relationship never should have been a marriage. I know of a family with four kids whose marriage was annulled on reasonable grounds, odd as that may seem. It was a mistake from the beginning and the preconditions of maturity and psychological health thought to be there, upon examination, were seen not to be there. A mistake.

God is not a religious bigot or an anti-religioius bigot insofar as it is given to me to understand and as Groucho Marx said "I refuse to be a member of any club that would have a person like me as a member." That's pretty much how I view the church. it's for the flawed, like me and leaf fans everywhere.

Thanks for your well-worded, well thought out and respectful post.

I wish I could put down words as elegantly as you do.

As I said, I'll follow the debate at a distance. I'm not religious, but I'm not an atheist either. I acknowledge the real benefits of religion for many people and recognized Jesus' message of love as a positive one, a message certainly richer that the crap we regularly found on TV (as an ex-marketeer I recognized that a lot of this crap come under the form of advertsing, but that's the main reason I quit the profession... my own personal redemption here). So, all in all, while I'm really interested in that debate, I don't feel right taking a strong stance for or against religion.

[franko]

ropoflu said:

while I'm really interested in that debate, I don't feel right taking a strong stance for or against religion.

What about the book/movie?

[ropoflu]

franko said:

ropoflu said:

while I'm really interested in that debate, I don't feel right taking a strong stance for or against religion.

What about the book/movie?

Of the book ( I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to), I've already said (sort of) that I recognized the marketing ploy behind it (the fallacies, etc.). Interesting also how it seems to strike a chord (thats some other poster sentence, but here I am stealing it ). Huge readership suggest that many people are looking for answers. At one time, the buzz and word of mouth surrounding that book parution reminded me of what I heard 10 years before with James Redfields Celestine Prophecy spiritual-kitsh-esoteric-adventure novel (on a smaller scale though). While I understand and respect TorontoHab reaction, my state of unreligiousness make it hard for me to comdenm the book or the readers with a similar vigor. Finally, the book popularity, and the different interested parties reaction to it sure make it an interesting and maybe symbolic sociological phenomena.

That's about it.

[Toronthab]

ropoflu said:

toronthab said:

Thanks for your well-worded, well thought out and respectful post.

I wish I could put down words as elegantly as you do.

As I said, I'll follow the debate at a distance. I'm not religious, but I'm not an atheist either. I acknowledge the real benefits of religion for many people and recognized Jesus' message of love as a positive one, a message certainly richer that the crap we regularly found on TV (as an ex-marketeer I recognized that a lot of this crap come under the form of advertsing, but that's the main reason I quit the profession... my own personal redemption here). So, all in all, while I'm really interested in that debate, I don't feel right taking a strong stance for or against religion.

Thank you for your well-worded, thught out and respectful post..I have resigned from a couple of high paying jobs and once started a union out of a sense of injustice. Everything I've read says to me, that the kind of personal integrity your actions describe...which takes one helluva lot of courage, is exactly the kind of thing that religion, authentic religion seeks to instantiate. While liberation theology is upon close analysis a Marxist utopian phenomenon, an awful lot of priests and nuns have been hunted and killed for aiding and mobilizing the poor. And Che, the communist leader, was very likely motivated by the injustice he saw everywhere. He may well, fo all I know, have been following his conscience to the best of his ability, even with wrong turns, We all make wrong turns.

The matter of religion is central to life. One bets one's life. It's very serious stuff. The major impediment to learning something is the belief that we already know it.

One should be, not cynical, which is a spiritual malaise, but very skeptical of all claims made for we only do this thing once. It took me a hell of a long time to remove all doubts and questions concerning Catholicism, and I must admit, that there are of course a billion things I don't know, but I am fully satisfied intellectually, and in fact find her to be the only fully consistent entity on earth.

They tell anyone who is interested in the church, which often happens when someone marries a catholic. (Catholic girls are much sexier than all others on the planet) that they should take a course of study to deal with every single aspect of the faith.

True story. My mother took some classes when she wanted to marry my dad. They were pretty good classes. She decided tshe wanted to become a nun. My dad was always a smooth talker however.

One guy I really like in approaching these questions is Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at Boston College, which is a Jesuit college. He converted to catholicism and has been teaching university philosophy for about thirty years.

Philosophy incidentally is a discipline that seeks a wisdom, of knowledge about all things insofar as they are knowable by human reasining alone. It is not religion. It asks if one can prove by reason alone, what can be known about what causes the universe and all the other really interesting questions. It does not admit theological presuppositions or assumptions.

Good luck in coming to terms with these most essential questions.

[Toronthab]

ropoflu said:

franko said:

What about the book/movie?

Of the book ( I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to), I've already said (sort of) that I recognized the marketing ploy behind it (the fallacies, etc.). Interesting also how it seems to strike a chord (thats some other poster sentence, but here I am stealing it ). Huge readership suggest that many people are looking for answers. At one time, the buzz and word of mouth surrounding that book parution reminded me of what I heard 10 years before with James Redfields Celestine Prophecy spiritual-kitsh-esoteric-adventure novel (on a smaller scale though). While I understand and respect TorontoHab reaction, my state of unreligiousness make it hard for me to comdenm the book or the readers with a similar vigor. Finally, the book popularity, and the different interested parties reaction to it sure make it an interesting and maybe symbolic sociological phenomena.

That's about it.

Being a blowhard, I can blow a little hard at times on this guy Brown. He lied big time and dupes big time.

So how reliable are the accounts of the gospels on the life of Christ? They are overwhelmingly consistent and vastly more numerous than most other documents accepted as evidence of other historical events.

How reliable were the apostles and disciples? People lie to get advantages for themselves. Acknowledging Christ would often earn a person a torturous death. People still insisted upon the truth of their claims.

So, concerning Brown, even if Jesus were determined by me to be just a special man of astounding integrity, I'd still be really pissed at him being used and trashed by a lying Brown. Don't forget though, that its because he initially said his research was true and therebye discredited world history. If he were just a sleazebag bigoted writer of fiction, he's just be a new low, not a defamer of civilization.

[ropoflu]

franko said:

ropoflu said:

while I'm really interested in that debate, I don't feel right taking a strong stance for or against religion.

What about the book/movie?

Ok me and TorontoHab were about to become close friend, and there you go stirring up things again.

I've seen you, now reveal yourself!!!

[ropoflu]

toronthab said:

...

If he were just a sleazebag bigoted writer of fiction, he's just be a new low, not a defamer of civilization.

You're stylish! (I mean it as a compliment)

He lied. And not about trivial stuff. The fact Brown painted Jesus as human king instead of God in person, exposed the Churches revision of history and then presented dubious reasoning to backup his claim, is however I fear, lower on my top ten bigotry ranking than on yours (assumed by the way you describe him). But apart from our own personal value judgment of Brown's actions and intent, I think we understand each other.

[Toronthab]

ropoflu said:

toronthab said:

...

If he were just a sleazebag bigoted writer of fiction, he's just be a new low, not a defamer of civilization.

You're stylish! (I mean it as a compliment)

He lied. And not about trivial stuff. The fact Brown painted Jesus as human king instead of God in person, exposed the Churches revision of history and then presented dubious reasoning to backup his claim, is however I fear, and less high on my top ten bigotry ranking than on yours (assumed by the way you describe him). But apart from our own personal value judgment of Brown's actions and intent, I think we understand each other.

I'll email you a picture of me in full sartorial regalia and you'll soon opine that I'm stylish in a notably tacky fashion.

There are a lot of people who don't know the dim light gnostic "gospels" are judged to be as far as historical value is concerned, and there are a lot of good, kind folks, single moms and the great grandchildren of slaves who start the day with a little prayer (I don't pray nearly enough and confuse prayer with relentlessly selfish whining) and people do get solace and a little strength to live lives that aren't the American dream. Some of them are going to be a little more burdened because of this.

I kinda think we do in fact understand one another. What a nice thing.

Now the Leafs however...

[Toronthab]

ropoflu said:

franko said:

What about the book/movie?

Ok me and TorontoHab were about to become close friend, and there you go stirring up things again.

I've seen you, now reveal yourself!!!

At least he's frank.

[franko]

toronthab said:

ropoflu said:

Ok me and TorontoHab were about to become close friend, and there you go stirring up things again.

I've seen you, now reveal yourself!!!

At least he's frank.

Don't use my name in vain. ;D

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

At least he's frank.

Don't use my name in vain. ;D

My flight arrives in Vain, Mo. on Tuesday, for the Frankophony conference.

[Toronthab]

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

While no expert on the study of logic which is a tool to be employed in the development of sound arguments, I did at the University of Toronto, as I mentionned formally study symbolic (like algebra) and natural language logic.

The fellow who wrote the list of fallacies you so kindly posted wnd which are for the most part good, obviously fell asleep for at least one of his classes.

He says that "faith relies on a belief that does not rest on logical evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence."

Lets look for logical fallacies here, and I won't use the same names as he uses, but paraphrase.

Philosophy rests on evidence and logically entailed conclusions that do not rest upon religious faith or divine revelation. That's true.

That does not mean that faith and religion are irrational. The writer of this unsound statement is employing an unexamined conclusion and one that you, who read this can immediately see as bias and in fact an irrational conclusion.

Here's the proof of what I just said. A man walks up to a blind person. He is moved to pity his conditon and says "That my father in heaven may be glorified I will heal you of your blindness." He then embraces the man for a moment, praying silently and then, with a look of wonder the darkened eye begins to see.

The above description does not "prove" the existence of God. The guy could have been a circus phony and the "blind" guy a fake.

But it does provide a rational basis for investigating the supposed "miracle". To dogmatically assert that ...You can't be the son of God because that can't happen is itself an irrational act of misplaced arbitrary belief.

Faith is a" reasoned assent" of the will. It is the act of a reasoning creature.

Jesus, by all accounts in one the most historically well documented and certainly impactful lives in all of human history, kept a selected group of close followers with him for three years. They say he was crucified by the Romans and came back from the grave, spending forty or so days with them. These people had left everything to follow Him, based on their confidence in him. They claimed to see miracles and by all accounts, performed them themselves in his name.

They almost all were killed for testifying to these things and yet proclaimed them to their deaths.

These are reasonable and rational grounds for investigating their claims as any guy on the street can immedialtely see.

Conclusion: While in a philosophical argument like Saint Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God, the cosmological arguments it is not proper to enter statements of faith or religious dogmas (logical principles derived from very reasonable grounds in theologial evidence, that are easily seen to be logically consistent and true, hence accepable.) it is ridiculous to dogmatically and arbitrarily declare faith or truths arrived from faith and religion as "irrational".

A writer of a list of fallacies (I started to write phallacies! NOW that's a Frreudian slip, though I'm not sure Sigmund ever wore a slip.) should be more intelligent or straight forward.

The way to prove faith or religious premises irrational is to prove them false, or prove that God does not exist or otherwise undermine arguments.

Both within the large body physics of Newton and Einstein and the indeterminacy of quantam physics, which if anything is more supportive of the idea of the radically free and spiritual, the idea of a divine intelligence explaining the intelligiblility of the universe is an eminently repectable one on the evidence.

Go Oilers Go!

[Toronthab]

Pythagarus thought the number for Justice was '4'. Is this high or low?

What does truth wiegh? Compassion?

What is 'is' mathematically?

Didn't Godel prove that in all mathematical formulae of even slight complexity, there are always propositions which cannot be proven true or false?



Put down your calculator and step back from the desk. Put your hands in the air so we can plainly see them, and come out slowly...no sudden moves...

I wish I had emoticons like Franko's. Then I'd be perfect.

[Toronthab]

P.S. I'm still giving Skilly a chance to throw down his -mathematics can know everything there is to know-- weapon and come out of his cave peacefully. I guarantee his safety.

But if I have to come in and get him......slam, bang KAPOWIEEEE!..(theme from Batman movie heard in background)..SPLAT!! (Voice over emergency vehicle speaker cackling in background "Newfie Down...repeat Newfie Down...send recusitation team.

"Patient struck by compelling argument and choking on a gargantuan mathematical equation of immense height and width, but curiously empty on the inside."

Kinda like some custard doughnuts.......the fast food answer to the big questions . ;D

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Saw the movie last night. Was a pretty good movie but they could have done better.

* At the beginning it was almost like director, Ron Howard, was rushing though to get as much of the story in as possible. Especially when Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Neveu (Audrie Tautou) were in the Louvre. After they left the Louvre the movie slowed down a bit even with the chases, et al.

* I'm sure she's probably a very good actress, but there were times in the movie where Tautou just couldn't sell it. She worked very well with Hanks in some scenes and the two looked awkward in others.

* There were a lot of very good actors in the movie. The albino was played by Paul Bettany (Master and Commander) and he delivered. An extremely psychotic, sinster character who was on a mission. Very well done. Sir Leigh Teabing was played by Ian McKellan (Gadalf, LOTR Trilogy) and sold his part well too. Yet, I didn't think this was Alfred Molina's (Spiderman 2, Not Without my Daughter) best performance. He played the Bishop Aringarosa.

* There's a lot of dialogue to the movie. If you're not into a lot of dialogue they you'll probably get bored. But, that's where the story is told.

* As far as the overall story went, it was a good try but they could have done better in the beginning, IMHO. There were a lot of little details left out, which often happens when Hollywood tries to put a book on the screen. However, I was well into the story after the beginning. Again, lots of dialogue, or more dialogue than action, but that's the nature of this movie. I enjoyed most of it and at the same time I'd be surprised if it won any awards. 7/10

Cheers.

[Toronthab]

disgruntled70shab said:

Saw the movie last night. Was a pretty good movie but they could have done better.

* At the beginning it was almost like director, Ron Howard, was rushing though to get as much of the story in as possible. Especially when Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Neveu (Audrie Tautou) were in the Louvre. After they left the Louvre the movie slowed down a bit even with the chases, et al.

* I'm sure she's probably a very good actress, but there were times in the movie where Tautou just couldn't sell it. She worked very well with Hanks in some scenes and the two looked awkward in others.

* There were a lot of very good actors in the movie. The albino was played by Paul Bettany (Master and Commander) and he delivered. An extremely psychotic, sinster character who was on a mission. Very well done. Sir Leigh Teabing was played by Ian McKellan (Gadalf, LOTR Trilogy) and sold his part well too. Yet, I didn't think this was Alfred Molina's (Spiderman 2, Not Without my Daughter) best performance. He played the Bishop Aringarosa.

* There's a lot of dialogue to the movie. If you're not into a lot of dialogue they you'll probably get bored. But, that's where the story is told.

* As far as the overall story went, it was a good try but they could have done better in the beginning, IMHO. There were a lot of little details left out, which often happens when Hollywood tries to put a book on the screen. However, I was well into the story after the beginning. Again, lots of dialogue, or more dialogue than action, but that's the nature of this movie. I enjoyed most of it and at the same time I'd be surprised if it won any awards. 7/10

Cheers.

From a technical persptective, your review echos reviwers who found it too thick with dialogue and slow.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Here's something on topic (so we can remember what it's like):

TORONTO, June 23 /CNW/ - A National Geographic Channel survey reveals 32%
of Canadians who have read The Da Vinci Code believe the theories outlined in
the bestselling novel are true -- particularly that a holy bloodline exists
and that this secret has been protected through the ages by a dedicated
society.

Conducted by Decima Research Inc. among 1,005 Canadians 18 years of age
or older, the National Geographic Channel survey was commissioned to coincide
with the network's broadcast of Da Vinci Code Sunday -- a special day of
programming on June 26 featuring three back-to-back documentaries exploring
The Da Vinci Code and author Dan Brown's controversial theories. This lineup
includes the Canadian broadcast premiere of Breaking the Da Vinci Code at
6 p.m. ET.

"Dan Brown's thriller was such a phenomenal success because readers felt
they were being let in on an explosive historical secret," said Vanessa Case,
Vice President of Programming, National Geographic Channel and Life Network.
"It is obvious that The Da Vinci Code has had a huge impact on Canadians and
their beliefs. We expect Dan Brown fans and skeptics alike will be captivated
by our programming on Da Vinci Code Sunday."

The survey reveals that almost one in five Canadians (16%) have read The
Da Vinci Code. Canadian women are significantly more likely (20%) to have read
the novel than men (12%). Throughout the country, Ontarians (19%), Quebeckers
(18%) and British Columbians (18%) were most likely to have read the book
while only 8% of Atlantic Canadians and 9% of Albertans claim to have read it.

link

32% That is so scary. last I heard 15% thought Elvis was still alive. Maybe these guys have brothers and sisters. The power of a greedy man's lie and media's drive for our money and control.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

toronthab said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Saw the movie last night. Was a pretty good movie but they could have done better.

* At the beginning it was almost like director, Ron Howard, was rushing though to get as much of the story in as possible. Especially when Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Neveu (Audrie Tautou) were in the Louvre. After they left the Louvre the movie slowed down a bit even with the chases, et al.

* I'm sure she's probably a very good actress, but there were times in the movie where Tautou just couldn't sell it. She worked very well with Hanks in some scenes and the two looked awkward in others.

* There were a lot of very good actors in the movie. The albino was played by Paul Bettany (Master and Commander) and he delivered. An extremely psychotic, sinster character who was on a mission. Very well done. Sir Leigh Teabing was played by Ian McKellan (Gadalf, LOTR Trilogy) and sold his part well too. Yet, I didn't think this was Alfred Molina's (Spiderman 2, Not Without my Daughter) best performance. He played the Bishop Aringarosa.

* There's a lot of dialogue to the movie. If you're not into a lot of dialogue they you'll probably get bored. But, that's where the story is told.

* As far as the overall story went, it was a good try but they could have done better in the beginning, IMHO. There were a lot of little details left out, which often happens when Hollywood tries to put a book on the screen. However, I was well into the story after the beginning. Again, lots of dialogue, or more dialogue than action, but that's the nature of this movie. I enjoyed most of it and at the same time I'd be surprised if it won any awards. 7/10

Cheers.

From a technical persptective, your review echos reviwers who found it too thick with dialogue and slow.

I haven't read any reviews actually. However, when the movie first came out I did hear a general opinion.

I think some of the acting was wooden if that makes any sense. Not some the best performances I've seen from high profile actors.

Cheers.

[Toronthab]

disgruntled70shab said:

toronthab said:

From a technical persptective, your review echos reviwers who found it too thick with dialogue and slow.

I haven't read any reviews actually. However, when the movie first came out I did hear a general opinion.

I think some of the acting was wooden if that makes any sense. Not some the best performances I've seen from high profile actors.

Cheers.

Wooden? Seems to make sense....let's see.

It was written by a blockhead pain in the ash barking up the wrong tree, about a splinter group to confuse yew and me, with Jesus pining afer the feminist vote after beeching in France for a honey moon.

An aldernate theory to spruce up history fir rootless heads hard as oak who can't see the forest through the trees, easily stumped, out on a limb and in desperate need of pruning.

Aspen yew shall reseed.

I think your use of "wooden" seems pretty plausible.. :Dheh heh heh.

[Toronthab]

A lot of this gnostic nnonsense has been around, and laughed at, for a long time...

Historical Hogwash

Two books—one new, one newly reissued—debunk false claims about the "real" Jesus.

Elesha Coffman

According to surveys and scholars, "historical amnesia" constitutes an American epidemic. More than half of American adults can't remember which president ordered the dropping of the first atomic bomb (20 percent can't even remember if we've used the weapon)! More teenagers can name the Three Stooges than the three branches of the federal government! Evangelicals, an unfortunately sizeable contingent of whom acknowledge no church history between Acts and the inception of their local congregations, are frequently diagnosed as having particularly acute cases. But according to historian Philip Jenkins, the truly critical patients are contemporary biblical scholars who persist in launching quests for the "real" Jesus.

In Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford), Jenkins, distinguished professor of history and religious studies at Penn State, exposes Jesus Seminar types as—to put it bluntly—agenda-driven ninnies. Such scholars, fascinated by texts like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and others unearthed at Nag Hammadi in 1945, dig for what they want to find (evidence of alternate and legitimate "Christianities") and then spare no extravagance in touting its importance. With such titles as The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels and The Complete Jesus, their books promise to erode orthodox Christianity, conveniently replacing it with a kinder, gentler, and much more politically correct version.

Jenkins's problem with this body of work isn't primarily that it contradicts traditional faith, but that it rests on bad scholarship. Revisionist claims about hidden gospels require that such texts be both older and more reliable than the non-hidden sort, but Jenkins argues persuasively that they are not. Nor can the sects (notably gnostics) that produced the hidden gospels be put on equal footing with the nascent Christian church. "Just as the canonical gospels were in existence before their heterodox counterparts," Jenkins writes, "so the orthodox church did precede the heretics, and by a comfortable margin." Of course, nobody would read The Hidden Texts of Comparatively Late Fringe Groups.

The scholars running willy-nilly after wishful theories might be excused if they were merely jumping to conclusions in the wake of shocking new discoveries, but this ground has been broken before. Today's revisionists would know that if they bothered to read anyone else's work. Jenkins points out that nearly all of the "revolutionary" claims made in the past 30 or so years—Jesus didn't think he was God! Matthew, Mark, and Luke shared notes!—are at least 100 years old. The period between 1880 and 1920 was particularly fertile for radical theories, a fact many contemporary scholars stubbornly or stupidly ignore, and most of the theories weren't even new then. Jenkins goes so far as to assert that "the search for alternative Christianities has been a perennial phenomenon within Western culture since the Enlightenment."

Those muddle-headed revisionists of the previous century had their own able critic: Albert Schweitzer. His The Quest of the Historical Jesus, first published in 1906 and reissued in complete form this year by Fortress Press, summed up popular theories (particularly as expressed in the multiple Lives of Jesus then circulating) and found nearly all of them wanting in historical rigor. The theories were not as new as their proponents claimed and not nearly as well grounded. Most damningly, though, the theories blatantly reflected contemporary sensibilities and therefore couldn't possibly describe a first-century figure. Unlike Jenkins, Schweitzer follows these complaints with his own radical theory, but up to that point the two men are on a similar mission.

www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2001/jul13.html

Biblical scholarship need not be fruitless. For example, a better knowledge of first-century Jewish and Roman culture has definitely enriched Christians' reading of the New Testament. But given the field's typical pattern—bad scholarship, refutation, more bad scholarship, more refutation—it seems pretty obvious that any study of the historical Jesus starts in a deep credibility hole. That's why the foreword to the new Schweitzer edition amuses me so thoroughly. In it Dennis Nineham (no title or affiliation given) argues that making any decision about Christ demands "a knowledge, not only of The Quest of the Historical Jesus but of Schweitzer's work on the early church and of the discussions by Werner and others of the formation of Christian dogma."

Whatever did people do before they had this wonderful knowledge? Apparently, what they're still doing. Nineham laments, "The findings of historians and critical scholars are simply being ignored by the churches and most of their members." Gee, I wonder why.

* More orthodox study of the life of Christ can be found in CH issue 59, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.

Elesha Coffman is managing editor of Christian History, and can be reached at [e-mail].

The online issue archive for Christian History goes as far back as Issue 51 (Heresy in the Early Church). Prior issues are available for purchase in the Christian History Store.

Copyright © 2001 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian History magazine.
Click here for reprint information on Christian History.

[Doc Holliday]

disgruntled70shab said:

Saw the movie last night. Was a pretty good movie but they could have done better.

* At the beginning it was almost like director, Ron Howard, was rushing though to get as much of the story in as possible. Especially when Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Neveu (Audrie Tautou) were in the Louvre. After they left the Louvre the movie slowed down a bit even with the chases, et al.

* I'm sure she's probably a very good actress, but there were times in the movie where Tautou just couldn't sell it. She worked very well with Hanks in some scenes and the two looked awkward in others.

* There were a lot of very good actors in the movie. The albino was played by Paul Bettany (Master and Commander) and he delivered. An extremely psychotic, sinster character who was on a mission. Very well done. Sir Leigh Teabing was played by Ian McKellan (Gadalf, LOTR Trilogy) and sold his part well too. Yet, I didn't think this was Alfred Molina's (Spiderman 2, Not Without my Daughter) best performance. He played the Bishop Aringarosa.

* There's a lot of dialogue to the movie. If you're not into a lot of dialogue they you'll probably get bored. But, that's where the story is told.

* As far as the overall story went, it was a good try but they could have done better in the beginning, IMHO. There were a lot of little details left out, which often happens when Hollywood tries to put a book on the screen. However, I was well into the story after the beginning. Again, lots of dialogue, or more dialogue than action, but that's the nature of this movie. I enjoyed most of it and at the same time I'd be surprised if it won any awards. 7/10

Cheers.

So far reviews really go from left to right, unlike for the book there isn't much consensus.

Audrey Tautou was entertaining in "Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulin", which was a good movie (even without her) but aside from that I felt she's usually bland and remain unimpress with the choice of her as a pivotal element of what had to be a blockbuster movie. Put Julia Roberts there and you have a different dynamic.

[franko]

ropoflu said:

Does someone here has read Bart D. Ehrman books? Is it any good?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

Misquoting Jesus: a book review.

Bart Ehrman is a textual critic – a form of biblical scholarship that arose in the latter years of the nineteenth century. As textual critics study the Bible they search for common threads and themes, and compare and contrast passages in an attempt to discern what was originally written and what may have been changed in transmission (the Jesus Seminar takes textual criticism to a further degree, in trying to discover what Jesus actually said as opposed to what has been written in the gospels as His words).

Much of what Ehrman says is not knew: that we do not have the originals, that mistakes (intentional and unintentional) have crept into what we now have as the Bible, that different interpretations can be (and are) made as different people look at the same passage.

My problem with Ehrman is with his research. While he may be right in his assumptions, he does infer too much at times, and in citing support for his work goes so far as to base his conclusions on what he himself has previously written (poor scholarship at best).

So, a retraction: When I said

How was it? Hmmm . . . readable and honest. He tells his perspective/what he believes and why, then gives his evidence for believing. Mostly convincing if you follow his logic, though most people are (as in The Da Vinci Code!)

otoh, if his premise is wrong (I believe it is) then he has built a house of cards

I was confusing this book with another in my reading pile: Jesus: The Evidence, by Ian Wilson

[Toronthab]

Here is historian Jenkins piece on his book. I think it perfectly reflects actual reality and oddly, it refers to the gnostic works and the film "Stigmata" another peach.

Hidden Gospels



Nag Hammadi documents have acquired an importance beyond their historical value.


By Professor Philip Jenkins
Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies
Pennsylvania State University

I recently published the book, Hidden Gospels: How the Quest for Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford University Press, 2001), which looks at the ancient gospels not found in the New Testament, works such as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and so on. There is nothing new about studying texts like these, but what my book tries to do is explore the importance of these works for contemporary religious thought. My argument is that these "hidden gospels" have acquired an importance far beyond their real historical value, and, in fact, they serve as the core texts for a full-fledged modern historical mythology.


The myth goes something like this. Once upon a time (we are told) there was the Jesus Movement, which was mystical, radical, feminist, egalitarian, and subversive. As time went by, this movement was destroyed by the rising forces of the Christian church, patriarchal and repressive.

The earliest followers of Jesus found their ideas dismissed as "heresy" while the power-maniacs of the Great Church grabbed for themselves the grandiose title of "orthodox." The new world of Churchianity successfully covered its tracks by rewriting most early Christian documents and destroying those that revealed its Orwellian dirty tricks. However, some authentic relics survived in the form of the hidden gospels, which were preserved in the deserts of Egypt.

In the twentieth century, these texts re-emerged to astonish the waiting world: We recall the discovery of the collection of ancient documents found at Nag Hammadi in 1945, popularized in Elaine Pagels' best-selling book The Gnostic Gospels.

Since the 1970s, documents like the Gospel of Thomas have become a recurrent theme in popular culture, in many thriller novels, in the 1999 film Stigmata, and even in episodes of the X-Files. In addition, the existence of Thomas has stimulated much revisionist Biblical scholarship, notably that associated with the Jesus Seminar. We can even meet New Age believers who characterize themselves as "Thomas Christians" - the name refers to the Gospel of that name and not to the ancient Indian churches who claim St. Thomas their founder.

To see the lost gospels myth in operation, we might look at the film Stigmata itself. This work introduced many viewers to a bizarre religious underworld, which was presented as if it were, in fact, genuine.

www.bibleinterp.com/articles/hiddengospel.htm

Stigmata tells the story of a Pittsburgh hairdresser who develops the bloody wounds of Christ. As if this were not enough, she also scrawls words that prove to be the Aramaic text of the “Jesus Gospel.” This fictional text reports Jesus’ words to his disciples at the Last Supper, and these same words were supposedly contained in a scroll found near the caves of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This work is cited as the one authentic gospel and thus “the most significant Christian relic ever found.”

The Jesus Gospel presents a Christianity very different from anything we know: God is a force within the individual believer, and thus church buildings and institutions are superfluous.

The plot revolves around the efforts of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to suppress this gospel, through murder if necessary, in order to suppress its subversive message. Finally, the true gospel is revealed to the world through the heroism of a priest who defies his church.

The film’s epilogue explains that although the Jesus Gospel is fictitious, an authentically primitive gospel, the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in 1945, and, in fact, almost every word which the film attributes to Jesus comes from this text. The epilogue also notes that the Gospel of Thomas is still rejected by the Vatican even though scholars around the world acknowledge it as the “closest record we have of the words of the historical Jesus.”

This epilogue proved intriguing to many viewers, particularly Catholics, who wondered about the basis for such an explosive claim. A Catholic priest of my acquaintance complained that since the appearance of Stigmata, he had been besieged by students demanding to know what exactly the church had to hide.

I speak of the hidden gospels as a "myth." By this, I do not mean that the recently discovered texts are bogus or that they might not be of great interest to scholars of the ancient world.

What disturbs me, and what led me to write this book, was not so much the texts as the extravagant uses to which they have been placed in contemporary culture. Indeed, the iconoclastic views of early Christianity so often proposed in recent years can be challenged in many ways, so many, in fact, that it is amazing that these ideas have achieved the wide credence they have.

One basic problem is the claim that the hidden gospels contain a wealth of information that is new and incendiary. To the contrary, much of what was uncovered is not relevant to Christian origins, while what is relevant is not new, still less inflammatory. Many conservative scholars are thoroughly unconvinced by arguments for the revolutionary significance of the lost gospels, even for outstanding texts like Thomas.

Despite the claims of their advocates, the problems with taking the hidden gospels as historical sources are, or should be, self-evident. The idea that these documents have opened a window on the earliest days of Christianity stands or falls on whether they were written at a primitive stage in that story, and much depends on determining the dates at which these texts were written.

The scholarly literature offers a very broad range of datings for these texts, but the consensus is that most of the works found at Nag Hammadi belong to the late second and third centuries. This is much later than the canonical gospels on which the Gnostic works can often be clearly shown to depend. While the Gnostic texts are still ancient, their value as independent sources of information is questionable, so that the canonical gospels really are both more ancient and authoritative than virtually all their rivals.

Far from being the alternative voices of Jesus’ first followers, most of the lost gospels should rather be seen as the writings of much later dissidents who broke away from an already established orthodox church. This is not a particularly controversial statement, despite the impression that we may get from much more recent writing on the historical Jesus. The late character of the alternative texts is crucial to matters of historicity and reliability. Historical research is as good as the sources on which it relies, and to the extent that the latest quest for the historical Jesus is founded on the hidden gospels, that endeavor is fatally flawed.

For the same reasons of history and chronology, it is difficult to see the hidden gospels as blowing the whistle on the machinations of the early church or the relationship between orthodoxy and heresy.

These texts depict a world of individualistic mystics and magi whose unfettered speculations are unconstrained by ecclesiastical structures, and it is common to suggest that this freewheeling situation represented a primitive reality which was ultimately destroyed by the emerging hierarchical church.

But the institutional church was by no means an oppressive latecomer and was rather a very early manifestation of the Jesus movement. We have a good number of genuinely early documents of Christian antiquity from before 125, long before the hidden gospels were composed, and these give us a pretty consistent picture of a church which is already hierarchical and liturgical, which possesses an organized clergy, and which is very sensitive to matters of doctrinal orthodoxy. Just as the canonical gospels were in existence before their heterodox counterparts, so the orthodox church did precede the heretics, and by a comfortable margin. Despite all the recent discoveries, the traditional model of Christian history has a great deal more to recommend it than the revisionist accounts.

Nor are the “new” findings touted in recent years all that new. Contrary to some recent writings, the scholarly world did not flounder in ignorant darkness until illumination came from Nag Hammadi. Basic to the dramatic account of the rediscovered gospels is the idea that they restored to the world knowledge that had been lost for many centuries. At last, we are told, after 1,600 years, we finally hear the heretics speak for themselves. The problem with this approach is that many of the insights about early Christianity found in the lost texts had been known for many years before the Nag Hammadi discoveries and had, in fact, already penetrated a mass audience.

With few exceptions, modern scholars show little awareness of the very active debate about alternative Christianities which flourished in bygone decades so that we have a misleading impression that all the worthwhile scholarship has been produced within the last thirty years or so. To the contrary, much of the evidence needed to construct a radical revision of Christian origins had been available for many years prior to the 1970s, if not the 1870s. Through the

[franko]

Why not read one of the books and let us know what it says rather than searching the net for what people have to say? I know cut-and-paste is easier, but the "book larnin'" is much more enlightening!

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Why not read one of the books and let us know what it says rather than searching the net for what people have to say? I know cut-and-paste is easier, but the "book larnin'" is much more enlightening!

I for one don't have the time, intelligence or interest to read at a scholarly level in every aspect of all issues. I do have currently about 60 books on the go. You or others may be able to understand the nuances of subtle and techincical specialty sciences without formal training in the disciplines, but most people in my experience devote years to their disciplines to acquire expertise. ave the right answer, nut I don't.

You sometimes mention that I just give my opinion or ramble on some topics withuout citing or referencing. A lot of the time that is because I have acquired some small degree of competence in the area under discussion.

To suggest that you know that cutting and pasting is easier, is frankly more than a little insulting frankly. I quite frankly quite resent your judgement from near total ignorance of both my education and reading habits.

Perhaps what you might want to consider trying Franko is, instead of implying that I generally have a shallow insight and satisfaction level for content, why don't you actually address the material from this accknowledged expert in the field from a site specifically devoted to those with a scholarly interest in the field instead of making gratuitous slights from the perch seem to you have over my library.

Lastly on theis particular post which almost completely states my thoughts such as they are on the issue, all of this stuff, the gnostic nonsense and Mary madness that is so very new to almost everyone, becasue of near total ignorance of even basic history, a recurring thought you may recall from my posts, none of this stuff that has so darkened the brains of our culture and this board, is new.

While I reject the notion behind your post as frankly ill-informed as to what level of expertise is required to speak with some authority on various subjects, and if you troubled to actually read my post before insulting me personally, you may have noted that Jenkins, who I believe is not a Catholic incidentally, points out that this nonsense that Paglia and others are truly babblin about, is old stuff, and long-since dismissed by all competent scholars.

I was reading about this stuff twenty years ago, and there is nothing particularly remarkable about it. As I personally posted a long time ago, it is derivative and in support of nonsense, and is in no way as legitimate as the 4 established gospels, the most thouroughly examined documents in world history.

Please do me the common courtesy of critiquing the thoughts expressed, and I might add that when it comes to scholarship or even minimally informed opinion, it requires some education to know which book to start with.

Congratulations: You are the first person I've come across in a long time who considers me underinformed and with insufficient background for such debates.

[franko]

To let sleeping dogs lie (or to allow dogs to sleep) or not: that is the question (and please do not infer that I think you are a dog).

toronthab said:

Congratulations: You are the first person I've come across in a long time who considers me underinformed and with insufficient background for such debates.

Paul: allow me to be clear. Not once did I insult your intelligence. Not once did I claim that you are unread. Not once did I denigrate you or suggest that you are unlearned, nor did I imply that you generally have a shallow insight and satisfaction level for content. And not once did I in any way suggest that you were underinformed and with insufficient background for such debates .

As to making gratuitous slights from the perch seem to have over [your] library? I don’t know your library. I don’t know what you have read. I do, however, acknowledge that you are a master with the Google, and can find sources to back up your beliefs.

While I reject the notion behind your post as frankly ill-informed as to what level of expertise is required to speak with some authority on various subjects, and if you troubled to actually read my post before insulting me personally, you may have noted that Jenkins, who I believe is not a Catholic incidentally, points out that this nonsense that Paglia and others are truly babblin about, is old stuff, and long-since dismissed by all competent scholars.

Not sure what you mean by my post being “ill-informed”. To which post do you refer? And I do apologize if you felt insulted – not my intent (though I guess I can see why you may have felt so).

As to whether or not Jenkins is Catholic, the point is moot – I don’t care what religious persuasion a person is – a broad study is necessary.

I was reading about this stuff twenty years ago, and there is nothing particularly remarkable about it. As I personally posted a long time ago, it is derivative and in support of nonsense, and is in no way as legitimate as the 4 established gospels, the most thouroughly examined documents in world history.

And still under investigation and discussion. Which is a good thing – it challenges us to think and to refine our thoughts – and should in the end strengthen our faith.

Please do me the common courtesy of critiquing the thoughts expressed, and I might add that when it comes to scholarship or even minimally informed opinion, it requires some education to know which book to start with.

You see, here is where we differ. You read, you paste post . . . but I’d love to know your thoughts in your own words. I too can post other peoples’ thoughts and reviews, but I’d rather personalize. And when it comes to scholarship or minimally informed opinion, I go for the broad spectrum and read people I might disagree with. In fact, I have had to alter some of my “beliefs “ because I have been convinced otherwise.

Finally, don’t take things so personally – we’re on the same side! ;D

[hopefully this does not fall under the "too personal" umbrella. now back to regularly scheduled programing]

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Why not read one of the books and let us know what it says rather than searching the net for what people have to say? I know cut-and-paste is easier, but the "book larnin'" is much more enlightening!

In this particular incident, you happen to have picked an article written by the guy who wrote the book.

As I often post in the first person based upon what I consider to be compelling arguments, and am so used to the kind of content Dan Brown exudes, almost all of my posts are my own thoughts.

On that note, a couple of years back, I bought Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, a phrase taken from an old epistemological theory. He's a materialist. I'd hoped for more, and better, but it wasn't there. I did not and did not have to either buy or read the finished work as I don't have a craving for neuropsychology buttressed by unexamined dogmatism.

But an encapsulated work from a distinguished (I gather) scholar and expert like Jenkins who is, unlike Paglia, conversant with the history and scholarly criticisms written for the non -specialist whose more infrmormerd and scholarly understanding completely mirrors my knowlege acquired over decades, is frankly going to be a better informed, and more accurate read than my non-specialist efforts on their best days.

I've re-read your post and still find it more than a little insultiing given its assumptions, but I do accept your apology if that's what you intended to offer.

A little knowlege is a dangerous thing. That Jenkins is likely not a Catholic is very relevant to common charges of subjectivism or special pleading.

Now. back to his book precis.

If a person really wants to know the ungarnished truth of the DaVinci Code and Stigmata gnostic garbage, he has clearly spelled it out.

I have said virtually the same things in all of my posts.

And lastly, there is nothing to be learned about gnosticism and history from reading Brown. the Stigmata, or the goofessa, Paglia, other than how readily people are sucked in by charlatans trading on mass ignorance and particularly if offered in the service of ideology and appealing dogma.

Did you read Jenkins' piece? This goofiness has been going on for millenia.

Jenkins perfectly valid points point to it being a subagenda.

[franko]

I am aware of the book, and I read the piece.

I have read Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels. I am on the waiting list for Baigent’s The Jesus Papers (would never buy it – that’s what libraries are for!). Must admit, haven’t seen Stigmata, and have no interest.

I have read and studied the Gospels themselves – in fact, both the Old and New Testaments in entirety more than once (even sloughed through the book of Numbers – sheesh!). No wonder there is much discussion and confusion in our spiritually seeking world. For example, one passage records David performing a census of Israel at God’s behest, while like passage has him doing it at Satan’s behest. This is why Ehrman could make a somewhat compelling case for confusion in the New Testament – who wrote what originally and what was meant, and what happened in transmission?

A separate subject (or perhaps part of the same discussion): why is it that the organized church has lost such favour in North America and Western Europe and a (search for a) new spirituality taken over? What is “the church” missing? Are we not authentic? Relevant (oh, how I hate that word when it refers to the church!)? I find it interesting that the “Southern Church” (from Latin America and Africa) is now leading the way in Christianity, even bringing their renewal movement with them as they emigrate to here (see: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, also by Phillip Jenkins, and a very interesting read).