T(r)oy's Marbles
2. the alternate account
This is part 2 of a multi-part essay dealing with issues related to "The Da Vinci Code" and the Gnostic Gospels.
To start the series at the beginning, click here.
Today, we're looking at the second of two main evangelical responses to Dan Brown's book. In addition to that, I will propose that a third, and as yet unused, approach may also be helpful.
Let me tell you again, one more time, what actually happened
Some evangelicals, seeing that Dan Brown claimed that portions of The Da Vinci Code were historically accurate, decided to “play his game.”
Of course, evangelical scholars would "win" at this game. There is, after all, more evidence to support their “side”.
“Look,” they say, “we have document upon document, testimony upon testimony to support our side.”
And, in some ways, they are right. But there is one big problem with this approach: it plays into Dan Brown’s hand. “That,” he says, “is precisely the point.”
See, The Da Vinci Code is trying to make the point that, well, naturally there would be much more documentation to support the “traditional” interpretation of history. That’s because (so the thesis says) the “opposition” was forcibly silenced. “That,” Brown says, “is precisely why there is such a thing as The Priory of Sion. These are the folks that have secretly kept the real truth, until such time as the world seems ready for it. So, of course there would be more evidence to support the traditional side. In fact, now that I think of it, you can place that as another tally mark on the ‘alternative’ side!”
This is why, in reading much of the evangelical response to The Da Vinci Code, I became more than a little concerned. Many (if not all) of the responses I read basically took the tack of merely recounting the events of the first three hundred years of the Christian church. I suppose the writers thought, “If we can just clear up what actually happened, then people will see that the version they’ve always heard is the true version.”
But (don’t you see?) this is a little like two children having an argument and both are trying to convince their parent that their version of who broke the cookie jar is the authentic truth.
One says: “Honest, Mom! I wasn’t even in the room! Let me tell you what happened.” And then, the little brat tells his version of the story, which, I must say, does sound very convincing, and he does, in fact, have evidence to back up his version of the story. Hm. Sure sounds plausible to me.
And, just when Brat Number 1 has Mom convinced, Beast Number 2 decides to chime in. She, after all, will not go down that easily. (See, they both have something to lose…)
“No, that’s not what happened!” she says. “Let me tell you what happened.” And, I must say, her version sounds really convincing too. And, she does have evidence to support her story.
So…who to believe?
You see? You can’t deal with Dan Brown’s version of “what actually happened” simply by retelling your version of the story. Now, what makes it (either side, pick one) so convincing for many is the fact that there is evidence. And, I must say, it does sound scholarly.
But, with all due respect, I don’t care how many codices you produce, or how adept you are at accurately interpreting the original Latin or Greek (or Swahili, for that matter!). It all amounts to the same thing: one person’s version against another’s. And just because you can demonstrate an intimate knowledge of names and dates and documents does not mean you have actually made a case for yourself. It’s all the same: you’re simply playing the game of “Let me tell you again, one more time, what actually happened”. And, let’s be honest, simply telling our version again is about as convincing as Brat 1 locked in a yelling match with Beast 2. Eventually, you don’t care which one is right (and one of them is right, by the way—but that doesn’t matter to you). You just want them both to shut the heck up, please. Be done with it. Take two ibuprofen and go to bed, for heaven’s sake!
A third approach
I’m writing this because I think a third—and simpler—approach has been overlooked. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this approach has not been considered in the debate, but I do have a theory:
Modern American evangelicalism is addicted to evidentiary apologetics.
Clear as mud, right? I’ll explain.
The word “apologetics”, roughly defined, means “the defense of the Christian faith.” There are two big ways to “defend” the faith. One way is by amassing evidence in support of the viewpoint in question.
So, for example, if I wanted to demonstrate that the documents of the Old and New Testament are historically reliable, I could investigate the evidence afforded by the science of textual criticism. This science is used in order to (among other things) validate the authenticity of ancient documents and ascertain their original content. Textual critics are needed because, of course, original copies of priceless accounts have been lost forever to history. But we do have copies. And, in many instances, we have many copies. By comparing copies with copies, we can fairly well ascertain what was in the original document and even the decade in which it was probably written.
In this instance, the science of textual criticism is one significant piece of evidence that Christians can use to build confidence that the Bible we have today is reliable and accurate. The important thing to keep in mind, as it concerns our particular discussion, is that this is a classic example of evidentiary apologetics. That is, it is an attempt to “defend” the Christian faith based on evidence.
But, there is another approach that can be taken. This approach has been dubbed “presuppositional apologetics.”
The presuppositional apologetic is really more a philosopher’s apologetic. One example of presuppositional apologetics involves examining the merits of particular viewpoints through exploring the consequences of each respective viewpoint.
So, for example, if I wanted to debate with an atheist as to whether or not there is a God, I could take two different tacks.
Were I to use the “evidentiary” approach, I would attempt to amass evidence (possibly “scientific” in nature), proving that there is a God.
or
I could use the “presuppositional” approach. Were I to do so, I would simply grant the atheist their presupposition and then examine the consequences of that view of reality. “So,” I would say, “what if you’re right? What if there is no God? What then?”
The presuppositional approach follows the logic to its “absurd” end, as it were. It relies on the “If this…then that” line of reasoning.
For good examples of the presuppositional approach read Francis Schaeffer, Ravi Zacharias, Peter Kreeft or C.S. Lewis.
You’ll notice I haven’t given any names for the evidentiary approach. You can probably tell which method I lean towards (smile). That is not because I think the evidentiary approach is without value or merit. It is simply because I think the presuppositional approach may be more effective, given the fact that we are living in a postmodern world. I will not say now why I believe this to be the case, but perhaps later I can do so. For now, let us simply note that (to my knowledge) the presuppositional approach has not been utilized in The Da Vinci Code debate. Therefore, let us explore what this approach would contain.
We'll dive into that tomorrow, however, as this gives us enough to ponder, I think.
To go on to the next part of "The Alternate Account" click here.
teachings | Comments (0) | March 09, 2007