T(r)oy's Marbles
1. the alternate account
This is part 1 of a series of posts. Check back tomorrow for part 2 and so forth...
--Troy
The Alternate Account
a multi-part essay on light topics such as
"The Da Vinci Code" and Gnosticism
by Troy Cady
This seems a bit late to sound off on this, but perhaps it may do a little good.
Some time ago (what has it been now—two years? three?), I heard about an interesting book called The Da Vinci Code. I heard that there were some things said in the book about Jesus and his divinity, that the book presented a so-called revisionist version of early church history, claiming that Jesus was just a human, but the church fathers voted on the matter in order to marginalize dissenting voices (for the purpose of consolidating political power and masculine authority).
I think my first exposure to what evangelicals considered the “scandal” of the book was an article put out by Christian History magazine. The title of the article was “Thanks, Da Vinci Code.” A few follow-up articles were printed and before long it seemed like every evangelical in America wanting to make his (not her) mark on the evangelical teaching/speaking scene had written a book or Bible study (or manufactured a mug or bumper sticker) on the subject, opposing the book’s message.
I followed with interest some of the varied responses. I say “varied”, but actually, in my estimation, the responses fall into just two categories. (When I say “responses”, by the way, I am not referring to the “boycott” response. That, in my mind, is not a response per se; it’s more like an escape from reality). At any rate, here is a summary of the two main (only?) evangelical responses posed thus far. If you’re aware of another, let me know. I’d be most grateful.
Okay, let’s dig in. Response 1.
“It’s just a novel, for Pete’s sake!”
This response takes the tack that, since The Da Vinci Code is just a novel, we need not worry about it too much. People won’t take it seriously, and, if they do, we can simply pull out the “It’s just a novel” line.
Now, this approach would work except for one thing: Dan Brown’s introductory explanation. I quote:
“FACT:
“The Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization…
“All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”
Yes, the word FACT is in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and is printed in bolder-than-bold font.
And, though Dan Brown does not explicitly claim that his revisionist account concerning the specific events of the early fourth century bears scholarly weight, he also does not go out of his way to say his take on the matter is not plausible—except, of course, in press conferences. In those instances, he suddenly takes on a “I won’t tell you what I really think” kind of tone, while at the same time leading one to believe that he has told us what he thinks.
In fact, he leaves it up to the reader to decide for themselves what they will believe. And, most readers, seeing that Brown’s description of, say, Da Vinci’s painting of The Last Supper is “accurate” (“John does look like a woman!” and “Their two bodies really do form a ‘v’ in the negative space!”), will also interpret his account of what happened at the Council of Nicea in 325 as equally factual. After all, it is a novel, but, let us not forget, portions of it claim to be “historical” and “factual” (indeed, that’s partly what makes the novel so “unique” and “intriguing”).
It would be a bit like writing a novel about fictional characters and interlacing what happens to them with actual events of World War 2. Just because the plot (as it affects the characters) is purely “made up”, does not mean the setting and backdrop to their story is untrue.
Sadly, many readers will joke about reading The Da Vinci Code and tell you they don’t really believe it, but (just to themselves, mind you) they will lend some weight and “give some thought” to the alternate version of history that Dan Brown presents (which, by the way, he has stolen from other sources—but more on that later).
We could call this dynamic “the JFK syndrome” where you have actual events interlaced with possible—or probable—theories as to “what actually may have happened.” And, in either case, one is left with the feeling that “the way we’ve always thought about the matter” is suspect and dubious. “There is another way of thinking about it”. And, “who are we to think we know what actually happened”?
“At least,” many think, “it’s worth considering, eh? Why be so closed-minded about it all, eh? Yes, it’s worth considering, I think.”
Unfortunately, many do. But, of course, they won’t admit it.
This is why I think the “it’s just a novel” response is found wanting.
And this is why I think it was only natural that evangelicals responded the way they did to the book. Tomorrow, we'll look at the content of that response (that is, the second response).
To go on to the next part of "The Alternate Account" click here.
teachings | Comments (0) | March 08, 2007