I am still reading Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, and I just reached the part discussing the Last Supper, Mary Magdalene's role, and Jesus Christ's humanity and godhood. I don't know Brown's sources, I don't have anything to contest about the errors on the geography and art works - because I know nothing about them - but I am troubled and I now appreciate the misinformation Brown is using... and he is insisting that the facts are real... Or maybe I am looking too much into this. Reacting on to a work fiction.
Brown is speculating from a collection of paintings. Anyone can do that - it is called fiction. Just like Jerry Bruckheimer's National Treasure (2004), it weaves known facts into what if or what could be. People who are not familiar with the Bible can easily be tricked by using certain words in the Bible. Satan himself used the Bible against Jesus (i.e., Matthew 4:1-11).
The troubling thought is the irresponsibility of the artist (I have to give Brown that privilege since this is the only way to give him some sort of responsibility, I must confess.).
Artist have social responsibility of truth. If fiction would be propagated as truth, that is a lie. It is different with trying to tell people "What if?" and telling them that it is just an idea (like Sixth Sense). It is different when you tell the readers of your book that all things and records in the book are factual and weave and play through facts to get some cash and get a minute of fame.
Literary critics, art historians, Bible scholars and Church authorities all have problem with Brown's contention.
Brown is starting from a speculation of a historically unacceptable rendition of the Last Supper. As G. Steve Kinnard (1984) noted in Getting the Most from the Bible, Da Vinci got a Biblical event and put it in his own context - Bible readers and Christians should do the opposite: put away contemporary understanding and get into the cultural and social background (something I learned in literary and art criticism as cultural and social investigation, or what I called "CSI"). Brown's keystone (his term) is not solid, and like any architect or engineer would tell you, a weak keystone is bound to crash the whole structure. Whether Da Vinci is a grand master of Priory of Sion or not, he made a mistake, and Dan Brown was banking on that error.
Another poorly researched - but effectively speculated - idea is Magdalene's being from the tribe of Benjamin. So what? Most of the Israelites of that day were Jews. There is no even concept of Israel. Jews are all members of the tribe of Judah. Jesus could be married to any girl, and she would be a Jew - and Jews are the line of rulers, like the tribe of Benjamin. Speculation of making Magdalene the appropriate woman to be married to Jesus because she came from a tribe of rulers is like taking one matchstick from a box and telling people that that matchstick is better than all the others from the same box. All Jewish men and women are of the line of Judah, nothing less than the tribe Magdalene could have been. When the schism of the Ten Tribes happened, Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to the Davidic dynasty. All the other tribes were lost with the Assyrian invasion. It is just natural that a girl living in Israel would come from a line of rulers.
Here is a good link I found in Google Mail text ad:
Here is Brown's answer:
I feel that Brown's work of fiction is very effective, and it is definitely an interesting read - no doubt the equal of what if style authors like Tom Clancy. My concern, however, is his seeming irresponsibility as an artist. Well. American (is he an American?) culture does have that tendency - let the person decide. Look how people did it in Judges.
He also claims that he did it to spark interest on faith and religion. Well, all I can say is that for behavior of getting attention by using tantrums or being a black sheep is for the immature. This Machiavellian method is not the Biblical way.
No comments:
Post a Comment