by Dan Brown, over the Christmas holidays. It's a page turner. The movie starring Tom Hanks is slated for release in May.
The book is (and I imagine the movie will be) fun and exciting and you can leave it at that.
I wanted to do a little homework after reading the book because it made me want to know a little more about Opus Dei and the story of Jesus's life on earth.
A key part of this fictional book are the actions of a Bishop and a Monk who belong to the Catholic Organization "Opus Dei". If you would like to learn a little more about his organization, Terry Gross interviews John Allen, a journalist who covers the Vatican and author of the book "Opus Dei
- An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church".The interview isn't as exciting as the sinister, manipulative, violent portrayal of Opus Dei in Dan Brown's fictional work, but it is informative. This snippet from the NPR page mentions Josemaria Escriva, the Spanish Priest who founded Opus Dei in 1928 -
"The core idea revealed to Escriva in that 1928 vision, and unfolded in subsequent stages of Opus Dei's development, was the sanctification of ordinary life by laypeople living the gospel and Church teaching in their fullness. This is why one of the leading symbols for Opus Dei is a simple cross within a circle--the symbolism betokens the sanctification of the world from within. The idea is that holiness, "being a saint," is not just the province of a few spiritual athletes, but is the universal destiny of every Christian. Holiness is not exclusively, or even principally, for priests and nuns. Further, holiness is not something to be achieved in the first place through prayer and spiritual discipline, but rather through the mundane details of everyday work. Holiness thus doesn't require a change in external circumstances, but a change in attitude, seeing everything anew in the light of one's supernatural destiny."
The portrayal of Opus Dei and the even more mysterious organization - the Priori of Sion didn't interest me as much as the idea of what might be debatable or controversial regarding the life and teaching of Jesus. I couldn't help but think about who decided what goes in the Bible and why. What makes up the Canon (the authoritative set of books accepted as the holy scripture)?
Even seemingly small changes to scripture can have vast impacts on the meaning. Suffice it to say, Dan Brown's book deals with more than small changes to what we think about Jesus's life on earth.
To see how a small change to the wording of the text can drastically change the meaning, compare, different versions of the Gospel according to Luke - chapter 2 verse 14 -
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests." (NIV)
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."
(NASB)
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
(KJV)
The King James version provides for peace and good will toward men. In the other two translations if you want peace you better please God and gain his favor. If I wanted to find a Christian reason to wage war I'd pick one of the first two.
The Da Vinci Code has more startling news then the tired fact that Christianity can be misused to justify war. Not just a few word changes here and there but a whole section of Jesus's life and teaching has gone missing (at least from the people not in the Priory of Sion, according to Dan Brown's book).
I tend to think the real story isn't quite as simple as a secret society that has the true scoop on Jesus and is waiting for just the right time to tell it like it is. There have been wars fought, people tortured, killed, and burned at the stake. That's all old news, and wouldn't make a good thriller.
Bringing ourselves into the 20th century - there is some interesting information on what makes up the canonical scriptures, and more interesting why the four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were chosen - in this NPR interview with Elaine Pagels on 'The Secret Gospel of Thomas'. Pretty exciting stuff.
Short story is she thinks the Gospel of John was formulated to make Thomas look bad because the writings of Thomas would threaten the hiearchical structure of the church (hint - you're at the bottom of this hiearchy...if you are on the org chart at all..sorry Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists).
The writings of Thomas, or more accurately in this case - the writing of Elaine Pagels do get some people pretty worked up e.g. Beyond Unbelief -- A Critical Response to Elaine Pagels’ _Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas_
The writings attributed to Thomas were unearthed by an Egyptian farmer in 1945. There were other early Christian writings in the earthenware jars the farmer dug up as well...early being around the first century give or take a century depending on who's doing the dating. Suffice it to say the writings attributed to Thomas correspond to the time the other Gospels were written, so from a purely historical context there is no reason to believe they were any more (or less) accurate than the other four gospels. You can read more about the find at the Nag Hammadi Library and read one translation of the writing here.
The CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA has this to say about old Thomas, "Little is recorded of St. Thomas the Apostle, nevertheless thanks to the fourth Gospel his personality is clearer to us than that of some others of the Twelve."
In other words if you want to know about Thomas, read what John had to say about him.
I found the very end of that article most interesting. After hearing Elaine Pagels talk about Thomas, and reading about the find in Nag Hammadi I thought the writings were a big deal. Not according to the encyclopedia -
"Besides the "Acta Thomae" of which a different and notably shorter redaction exists in Ethiopic and Latin, we have an abbreviated form of a so-called "Gospel of Thomas" originally Gnostic, as we know it now merely a fantastical history of the childhood of Jesus, without any notably heretical colouring."
So....the writings unearthed at Nag Hammadi are, "merely a fantastical history of the childhood of Jesus". Hmmmmmmm
Now that might be a real conspiracy.
Postscript - I don't really care much about dissecting the bible, but reading the Da Vinci Code put me a bit of a conspiritorial frame of mind, wanting to find some thing mysterious (the Priory of Sion seems too phony and silly). I look at the bible as someone once said - "a collection of pieces from all over the place - as if a library was blown up and someone pasted pieces from the remaining books/magazines/newspapers into one big book". Unless you are a biblical scholar, who can read Hebrew, Greek and English...it's a pretty tough nut to crack.
Also I don't really care if Jesus had a wife, and a big family...or if Thomas heard Jesus say that we all are son's and daughters of the divine spirit. I don't care if it's faith or works...or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
For me it's all about the "tone" of what Jesus taught - a philosophy (or a religion if you like) that is non-violent, inclusive, compassionate and surprisingly radical in it's rejection of many things we have been taught are worthy of our devotion.
May your faith, philosophy or set of beliefs bring you peace and joy.
