Mark Dawes, Staff Reporter
Dan Brown
LAST MONTH, The Gleaner asked a few persons studying theology at some of the nation's seminaries to view The Da Vinci Code movie and to give a response to the film. On viewing the film, the consensus was that it was heretical, and would likely shipwreck only those whom are weak in their Christian faith.
The movie's central plot is:
Jesus was married. He married Mary Magdalene.
Jesus and Mary Magdalene produced children who became the royal bloodline of France.
Jesus was only a man who the bishops at the Council of Nicea in AD 325 declared to be God in a narrow vote. (Nicea is a town in modern Turkey)
The Christian Church has worked aggressively to suppress various gospels in an effort to cover up the 'facts'.
Fursan Zu'mot, a Jordanian and first year Anglican student at the United Theological College of the West Indies (UTCWI) reported that after viewing the movie, he "realised why the Christians and Muslims leaders stopped showing this movie in the Holy Land, Jordan, and other parts of the Middle East."
DANGEROUS TEACHINGS
"The movie has very dangerous teachings, because it has been built on the Last Supper painting which was painted in 1498 meaning after almost 1,500 years from Jesus Christ. Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519), the Last Supper painter, has painted a woman beside Jesus Christ.
According to his imagination, Mary the Magdalene was beside Jesus Christ at the Last Supper because Jesus loved her. But Leonardo Da Vinci was born 1452 years after Jesus Christ, which means that he was not with Jesus to know if Mary the Magdalene was beside him or not. Therefore, we cannot take Leonardo Da Vinci's imagination as a foundation of our faith."
Randoph Williams, a college student in Scripture at St. Michael's Theological College, said the movie, like the book, presents no reliable evidence that Jesus either married Mary Magdalene or left her in charge of His church.
DIALOGUE
He notes "There is reference in a dialogue in the movie to the Gospel According To Phillip in which Mary Magdalene is described as the companion of Jesus. It is said, the word which is translated 'companion'could mean wife. Could it not also mean disciple?
"There is another dialogue in the movie of Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene and reference is made to the Gospel According To Mary Magdalene for this. Neither of these two books are in the canon of the New Testament and these slight references cannot support the proposition that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene."
ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY
Davidson Asante, a third-year student at the Jamaica Theological Seminary said the movie "seeks to attack the very heart of Christianity" and is "misleading and filled with historical fallacies."
He said Constantine had nothing to do with the collation of the Bible.
Mr. Asante, in refuting the movie's claim that 'companion' as used in the Gospel of Phillip can mean spouse, cited apologist Josh McDowell (www.jesusanddavinci.com) who explained that the word is neither Aramaic nor Coptic but Greek. As such, when it is translated in Greek its semantic range includes 'friend' or 'associate' not spouse.
The Da Vinci Code, Mr. Asante said, "is a wanton cry for attention, which it has received". He suggested, "Maybe Dan Brown could try his creativity by writing a nice fiction fused with historical accuracy concerning Islam and its prophet, Mohammed. He will get all the attention he is dying for."
Steve Williams, third-year student at the Institute for Theological and Leadership Development (a school of the International University of the Caribbean) said the film "mixes truth with lies". He rebuts the film's view that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. He pointed out that if Jesus did have an immoral sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene this would have eroded his standing in the eyes of His disciples.
The canonisation of the Bible, he said, was done with integrity and "there is no reason for us to doubt it after putting our confidence in it for hundreds of years."
Kamaaleo Burnett, third-year student of the Jamaica Theological Seminary said while viewing the movie, the thought crossed his mind that the basis of both The Da Vinci Code movie and book was the painting of Leonardo Da Vinci, a man who is acknowledged to have had no love for Christianity or any other religion. "To use him then as the source of some authority is definitely unwise."
TOOL FOR EVANGELISM
Mr. Burnett said too that there is no biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was present at the Last Supper, as suggested in The Da Vinci Code book and movie. The film, he said, must be accepted as a tool for evangelism.
Michael Elliot, an Anglican who graduated this year from the UTCWI said the movie relies on "distorted and incomplete bits and pieces of church history, including the role of Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea in 325 the Christian council that also tackled the question of Jesus' divinity brought into question by Arianism ?"
The movie, said Mr. Elliot, who was recently consecrated as a deacon, "seeks to reposition one's faith away from God and the Gospel (Good News Jesus incarnate coming to save humanity from humanity's sin separation from God) toward personal humanist salvation grounded in self and human strength enlightenment philosophy which is contrary.
OBSERVATION
"An interesting observation I made during the movie was not found on the screen rather, among the audience. I do not know what the make up of the audience (seemed to be mostly young adults 18+ yrs.) that evening was. However, my interpretation of their reaction to aspects of the movie reaffirmed my faith in our Jamaican people's sense of godliness and strong religious awareness.
"There were moments during the movie wherein Jesus' divinity, Christian understanding and belief in the scriptures was questioned the audience was heard to heckle and verbally repudiate the nonsense depicted in the movie e.g. Jesus' possible marriage to Mary Magdalene.
Also, the audience was unreceptive to the idea that Mary Magdalene produced a child for Jesus who became a forebear to Sophie, the female lead in the movie.
"Such responses points to auspicious successes of the Jamaican Church in keeping the fundamentals of Christianity at the forefront of the nation's religious awareness and sensitivity especially among our youth and young adults," Mr. Elliot said.
Dominique Rose, who is pursuing a Certificate in Biblical Studies at St. Michael's Theological College, while concurring with the other respondents in stating that the film is concerned with issues of biblical validity, the humanity and deity of Christ, makes the point that the movie subtly explores "the divine feminine" and the nature of the Holy Grail.
DIVINE FEMININE
According to Rose, "It is easy to bypass the discussion on the divine feminine, as the movie does not detail the concept as well as the novel does. Dan Brown in his novel, The Da Vinci Code, makes a case of conspiracy in that the essential divine feminine figure is excluded by the domination of a macho-patriarchal church intent on subjugating all femininity and replacing it with a male mystery in Christian worship of the Trinity.
Eniola Davis, a ministry intern with the United Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, said the movie "presents nothing new to the age-old landscape of Christianity. All Dan Brown has done is to take the argument of Arius, an Alexandrian theologian, and added more inconsistencies to an argument that had no merit."
Arius, Mr. Davis noted, had proven himself to be an expert in scripture, but in time adopted a distorted view of the Christ by drawing heavily from extrabiblical literature. Dan Brown, said Davis, "argues that it was after Nicea that believers began to accept Jesus as divine. This could never be true, as there was a majority vote against Arius at Nicea.
Dan Brown's novel and the resultant movie, Mr. Davis said, "will not shake the faith of the ardent believers. The Bible has been around for ages and it will continue to exist long after The Da Vinci Code is forgotten, just like the argument of the heretic Arius."
Donna Ree, third-year student at the Jamaica Theological Seminary, stated history disproves the movie's claim that Leonardo Da Vinci could have known about the Priory of Sion.
WARNING
This arm of the Roman Catholic Church was founded 437 years after Da Vince's death, she noted. The theory then, she said that the famous painter was part of this Roman Catholic order which sought to reveal the 'secrets' the church was seeking to hide, is erroneous, she said.
Ms. Ree had a warning for Christians concerning the movie. She said "It is imprudent for Christians to sit by and frivolously assert 'a foolishness dat, nutten nuh go suh' in reference to The Da Vinci Code. It is equally irresponsible for them to refuse to be informed of the wiles of the enemy and the influences he can have when given the opportunity."
Brown's attack is a clear avenue for missions, which is not just going out and telling people about Jesus, but also a call for the Church to 'be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have'."
EDITOR'S NOTE: The full responses of the theological students may be viewed on www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060708/mind/
Send feedback to mark.dawes@gleanerjm.com.
