Sunday, May 14, 2006

DaVinci Code - SPOILER

I admit it. I read The Da Vinci Code. And you know what, I enjoyed it. It's an easy read, it's pretty gripping and was the perfect commuter book. I'm sure it would also be good on a plane or a beach. It wasn't great literature, but I don't mind stuffing my head with all kinds of crap. I'm easy that way.

If you are one of the few people (it seems) who haven't read the book, but do plan to go to the movie and don't want to know how it ends - look away now. But if you have no intention of reading it or bothering with the film - go ahead, I sum up everything - and then I tell you the really controversial bit!


Ok, so basically the whole premise of the book is that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and that they had a kid. Not only that, but the kid survived and has descendants alive today.

And not only that, but the the Catholic church hierarchy has known about this for say...2000 years and they've been working to cover it up. Meanwhile, there's another group of people who know and keep the secret. And an albino monk goes mad...and there's lots of driving around and visiting famous landmarks in Europe...and then, and find out that not only did Mary Magdalene and Jesus' baby live, but they became French and Mary Magdalene is burried beneath the weird glass pyramid at the Louvre (which explains why they built over the objections of just about everybody in France).

Last night I watched a bit of a show looking at the different aspects of the Da Vinci Code - and they went through the contentious bits fact by fact. I have to say, it was all very plausible. Alright, the book is fully of hooey, and a lot of the stuff in there has been floated before... but some of it has validity.

1.Da Vinci's Last Supper - that is a woman sitting at Jesus' right hand side. Yep, it sure is. But why should an Italian renaissance painter know anything about what happened in Nazareth in 33 AD?
2. Mary Magdalene was an apostle of Christ.
3. The rest was all debunked or not proven.

The only thing that matters in all of this is the resurfacing notion that Mary Magdalene (and thus, by extension Martha) were part of the band of apostles. Thus blasting the notion - as I believe Jesus did - that only men can be ordained to do the work of God.

And while I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories, the Church is still denying this?


Put it this way, in any reading of the Bible, Mary played at least a big a role as Peter. Martha was around as much as some of those other lesser apostles. Mary was clearly part of Jesus' religious life and work. So why do some churches still insist that women can't have a formal role in spiritual matters because Jesus didn't choose any women to be part of his work?

old and new


"John Galt" said...

When reading DVC I was able to remember many of the landmarks near the Temple area among the legal offices warren near the Thames. We happened to wander through there once looking for a shortcut to join a walking tour.

Vol Abroad said...

Yeah, I go by there quite frequently - and I've seen the "temple" from the outside, but I haven't been in. When reading the DVC I put it on my list of things to do - but haven't got around to it. It would be within walking distance from my office.

I think I've been to all the other London places.

Terry Frank said...


You've asked a good question about the women issue...and I don't know. You've inspired me to go do some homework on the issue.

Certainly I believe it is clear that women are to do God's work. There are women in the Bible who financed the spreading of the gospel, who were close friends of Paul, who spoke prophesy..and as you say, were close friends of Jesus himself. But formally? I just don't know.

Good questions.

Sam Davidson said...

Thanks for leaving a note over at my place. You've got some good takes, here. It is tragic that Mary and her spiritual descendanst have been locked out of church leadership for years depsite their impact.