The DaVinci Code: Opus Dei

[db44]

I (finally!) started reading The DaVinci Code this weekend and I'm finding it a nice, light, enjoyable read.

From the beginning of the book though, and what seems to be the on-going conflict of the book is the secret war of two factions, both of which exist in reality. The two factions are one of some of the arguable intellects through history (as the title indicates, the likes of DaVinci) against what Opus Dei: an ultra-Conservative sect of Roman Catholicism. In the middle is the main character, who is a historian and art expert whos main field is the hidden iconography.

I'm curious if people here have read the book or know of Opus Dei. I've just started looking the Opus Dei site(http://www.opusdei.org/), and I will be next looking at the site of an awareness group that has set up shop against Opus Dei (www.odan.org/ ), who (O.D.) has been accused of financial impriorities and brain washing in recent years.

The Opus Dei site has an article about the book: http://www.opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017. Needless to say the O.D. isn't too happy. Here's a passage from their article, referring to the inaccuracies of the book:

For example, the Da Vinci Code presents as fact the absurd notion that the fourth century Roman emperor Constantine invented the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, when in fact the New Testament and the very earliest Christian writings manifest the Christian belief in the divinity of Christ. Likewise, the novel asserts that it was Constantine who chose to include the four Gospels in the Bible, when in fact they had always been recognized as authentic.

I haven't gotten to the segment of the book this refers to, but thinking as how Constantine introduced the the "divinity" of Christianity to the masses, it seems to me the O.D. may be mixing words up, but I'll find out when I get to that part of the book.

[young again]

I read the book last summer. It was good vacation reading - a pretty average mystery/thriller with some interesting content grafted onto it but not integrated as fully as it could have been. I was aware of the general scope of the historical controversy (not regarding the grail specifically but regarding the idea that the church over the years made decisions promoting or discarding various beliefs and practices, and that there was not always perfect agreement about this) but I don't know how much fiction is mixed in with history in the case of this book. I'm not inclined to believe in consipiracy theories generally* and the sheer clunkiness of what is outlined in the book doesn't make me any more convinced.

* Actually, I am inclined to believe that where wealth and power are concentrated you will find a certain amount of conspiracy (look at Enron or Iran-Contra). But not on the kind of scale Brown describes.

[princessKT]

I finally received a copy of the book in the mail a couple of weeks ago, but haven't been able to read it yet. I think I'll start tonight and get back to you with my point of view.

I've been interested in this book since my Pastor did a sermon on it.

[MerrySunshine]

I don't know much about Opus Dei.

But I have read The DaVinci Code and I have read a book or two on the history of Christianity. The easiest one is Church History in Plain Language by Shelley.

Constantine became a Christian by (a) praying to the Christian God for aid (victory) and, upon becoming victorious, (b) converting because he figured he must be on to something. Constantine did a lot to spread Christianity by making it acceptable in the Roman Empire, but he didn't make decisions about doctrine or about what should be canonized in scripture. Basically, in early 312, there was a battle for centralized control of the Roman Empire between Constantine (from the East -- around Turkey) and Maxentius from Italy. Constantine headed west to topple Maxentius and capture Rome. He encountered Maxentius's army at a bridge just outside of Rome. In a dream he say in a cross in the sky with the words "in hoc signo vinces" (in this sign you will conquer.) So he decides to pray to the God of the Christians, goes ahead and advances on Maxentius's army and, hey presto, he wins. And he saw this victory as directly attributable to the Christian God. Some historians have considered his conversion to be merely political because he still was a bad dude (like all Roman emperors) and did some rather unChristian things (conspiracy, killings, etc.). But he also maintained a Christian household, raised his kids a Christians, allowed Crhistian ministers to enojoy the same priviliges and pagan priests, abolished execution by crucifixion, built magnificent church buildings. Tellingly, after his baptism he refused to wear the imperial purple and continued to wear his baptismal robes. Anyway, the point is that The DaVinci Code makes all of this seem like a clear cut political manipulation and flat, boring history is less black and white about it. Really, it could be either, I suppose, but the true bottom line of the matter is that without Constantine's indulgence of Christianity, Christianity would not have flourished.

As for the divinity of Christ, that goes back farther than Constantine. Starting in about the year 40 or 50, the Caesars were worshiped alongside the Roman gods. The main conflict between the Roman empire and the Christians was, in fact, the requirement in the Roman Empire to swear that Caesar is Lord. It was a test of political loyalty to wear that Caesar is Lord. Christians would not do that because they believed that Christ is Lord. So Christians would refuse to swear Caesar is Lord, they'd then be suspected of various treasons, and they'd be killed in a variety of ugly and painful was. When Constantine in 312 said, "Hey, maybe I'll pray to their God," that all changed and Christians were free of such requirements and persecutions. But, at any rate, the concept of Christ as devine predates Constantine by at least 200 years or so.

Finally, canonization of scripture was not a "ta-da! it's done" sort of action by Constantine. The OT canon was easy -- Jews in Palestine during the arly hears of chrsitianity has a canon of 39 books, which now make up the Protestant OT. (In Catholocism, there are additional books known as the Apocrypha that the Protestants don't recognize -- the Apocrypha can be linked to Jews outside of Palestine, the Greek Jews.) What to include in the NT was a more difficult matter. The criteria was that the books were "self-authenticating," that they were used in Christian worship, and their close association with an apostle (the 12 who were Christ's homies, basically). Discussions about what should be included began, not with Constantine, but with this guy names Marcion in around 140, who believe that the God of the OT and the God of the Christians were different entities. He rejected the entire OT and any Christian writing that favored a sort of "Jewish" reading. He was basically all about Paul's writings (which is ironic since Paul never actually lived with Jesus or worked with him -- seems that Marcion thought that Paul knew more about Jesus's teaching, than, say, Matthew, who had been one of the 12). Anyway, the discusson raged on among the Christian and peri-Christian community until around the year 400 (60 or 70 years after Constantine died) we come up with what we know as the New Testament. So Constantine had very little to do with canonization of scripture except for that his openness to Christianity made these sorts of discussions possible during the 4th centure (the 300s).

Now, some may say, "ah-ha!," then men formed the New Testament. It's a vast conspiracy and a power play. Well, I'll let Mr. Shelley address that:

In one sense, of course, Christians created the canon. Their decisions concerning the books were a part of history. In anoter sense, however, they were only recognizing those writings that had made their authority felt in the churches. The shape of the New Testament shows that the early churches' primary aim was to submit fully to the teacings of the apostles. In that purpose they shaped the character of Christianity for all time. The faith remained catholic [note catholic means simply unified] precisely becasue it was apostolic. p. 66.

And I would add that from a Christian standpoint, it only makes sense to submit to the teachings of the apostles because they were the first hand witnesses of Jesus's life and ministry. They would be the people in the best position to tell the story. That the books we have today in the New Testament are there because, in my opinion, it was God's silent hand guiding the churches in the right direction. (Of course, there will be those who will say that the "right" direction was not taken, but on that point I have to place faith in God that He did not let error pervade the world. If someone disagrees with that, well, that's their choice to stand by. I'm standing by mine.)

Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded about the church history thing, but my point is that The DaVinci Code gives Constantine too much credit for control over the Church's history. Too, the book makes a lot of claims about the Masons (Freemasons) that are far-out (according to my dad the Master Mason who has also read the book). It's a story that takes history and twists it to create a fictional world (much like our own, but nevertheless fictional) with a fictional paranoid conspiracy. The danger of books like this (not just this book, but really any sort of historical fiction) is that the reader will take what is presented in the text as objective fact. All "history" presented in the book is presented by characters with agendas to forward the plot. It's bent to create tension and intrigue and is not "the real deal." To get "the real deal" pick up a boring old history book. Brown's not an objective historian, he's an author looking to sell a book -- and he's done very well at it. ;)

[princessKT]

Thanks for the info Mer! Good to see you around ;)

[MerrySunshine]

Yeah. I float in and out every once in a while. We have a firewall at the new office, so I can only post from home now . . . . And, besides, with the new job comes a new life and I'm out there living it instead of arguing on the computer all the time! :D ;)

[DecemberDream]

I have that book but I haven't read it yet, I don't have time yet! Sounds real interesting though.

[princessKT]

Originally posted by MerrySunshine
And, besides, with the new job comes a new life and I'm out there living it instead of arguing on the computer all the time! :D ;)

Good for you! :D When are you going to spend some of that life coming to DC? ;)

[MerrySunshine]

Hmmm. Maybe later on in the spring. How long are you there for?

[young again]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/books/review/22MILLERT.html (you'll need to register, but it's free)

The Da Vinci Con
By LAURA MILLER

Published: February 22, 2004

The ever-rising tide of sales of ''The Da Vinci Code'' has lifted some pretty odd boats, and none odder than the dodgy yet magisterial ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. A best seller in the 1980's, ''Grail'' is climbing the paperback charts again on the strength of its relationship to Dan Brown's thriller (which has, in turn, inspired a crop of new nonfiction books coming out this spring, from ''Breaking the Da Vinci Code'' to ''Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to the Mysteries Behind The Da Vinci Code''). ''The Da Vinci Code'' is one long chase scene in which the main characters flee a sinister Parisian policeman and an albino monk assassin, but its rudimentary suspense alone couldn't have made it a hit. At regular intervals, the book brings its pell-mell plot to a screeching halt and emits a pellet of information concerning a centuries-old conspiracy that purports to have preserved a tremendous secret about the roots of Christianity itself. This ''nonfiction'' material gives ''The Da Vinci Code'' its frisson of authenticity, and it's lifted from ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' one of the all-time great works of pop pseudohistory. But what seems increasingly clear (to cop a favorite phrase from the authors of ''Grail'') is that ''The Da Vinci Code,'' like ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' is based on a notorious hoax...

<very interesting 2-page article snipped>

... Plantard's hoax was debunked by a series of (as yet untranslated) French books and a 1996 BBC documentary, but curiously enough, this set of shocking revelations hasn't proved as popular as the fantasia of ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail,'' or, for that matter, as ''The Da Vinci Code.'' The only thing more powerful than a worldwide conspiracy, it seems, is our desire to believe in one.

[MerrySunshine]

Wow! Thanks for that, young again! I knew the info in the book was faulty from my own studies, but I didn't know that there had actually been a hoax and that the hoax had been debunked!

[princessKT]

Originally posted by MerrySunshine
Hmmm. Maybe later on in the spring. How long are you there for?

Until the end of May. :)

Thanks young again!

[db44]

Well, I have now read the book.

First off, now that I understand the Opus Dei quote, I stand by my first impression; that OD is stretching the truth to argue an enemy. The book claims the four Gospels were some of the oldest testimony of the life of Jesus... What the book suggests is that Constantine selected the four as the most mystical-sounding stories of the life of Jesus, as opposed to the other Gospels which portrayed Jesus as a (regular) human being.

The book only briefly mentions that "Grail" book, although that is a continuing theme (the main plotline for that matter) throughout "Code." Therefore I wonder if there's a reason the Times article seems to harp on this one bit. I would love to see a bibliography for this book, to see if "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is the only reference point. "Code" does often refer to works to add and detract from it's main points, so I'd like to know amore about them. I wonder how much Dan Brown wrote of this book as fiction and how much he researched... Arthur C. Clarke (one of my favorite authors) writes fiction based on research and scientific hypothesis, citing his influences. The DaVinci Code would have been that much better if it had a list of sources.

Has anyone here actually read or heard what the Dead Sea Scrolls say?

I find The DaVinci Code believable to some extent. The chase is relatively irrelevant and I don't believe there is a hidden stash of documents out there whcih could shakedown the whole Christian belief system, but the theological points of view described are ones I concur with. Again, I wish there had been a bibliography. However because two sources disprove a "hoax" doesn't mean it is a hoax... A handful of sources said there were WMDs ready to be launched at allies within 45 minutes and that it was a hoax that Saddam said he didn't have such weapons. Well, the non-Saddam claim seems to be more the hoax now, huh?

[tiger_rascal]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are written in three different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I have not read the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have heard that all of the books of the Bible are represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bascially, they are just very old copies of what we already know and they support what we already know. Its amazing really.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by oxymoron

And yet, I believe that it is equally foolish for someone like me to believe that rational beliefs must necessarily be superior to irrational ones. After all, it is much more difficult to hold an irrational belief in an age of reason. And in people of true faith, we can see the enormous power and conviction exercised on behalf of their irrational beliefs.

Lastly, rational beliefs are rather boring.

Boring? I don't know... I think there is something beautiful in the symmetry and precision of rational beliefs. But, I also enjoy the mysticism and mythology of irrational beliefs.

They can coexist, yes? A touch of magic, a bit of logic. I find myself getting in trouble when I lean too far in either direction and get stuck there.