Thoughts
on the film
The DaVinci Code
by Prof. James D. Tabor
Some Personal Reflections the Morning
After Seeing the DaVinci Code
I went to see the DaVinci Code film yesterday and it has been
much on my mind since. As one who has been quite critical of the book
I came
away very positively impressed. It is, of course, highly dramatic,
fast-paced, with MI and James Bond kinds of elements—chase scenes,
impossible escapes, murders, and a constantly shifting plot—which
one would expect for a film of this type, built upon the book which
many people found hard to put down. But given its genre, from start
to finish I thought it was exceptionally well done and that it effectively
conveyed its central message regarding the humanity of Jesus. I highly
recommend this film.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that many of the historical errors
that were in the book, and that have been correctly and endlessly pointed
out by scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Ben Witherington, were either
corrected, considerably softened, or even eliminated entirely. For
example, the false claim that the divinity of Christ was invented by
the emperor Constantine at Nicea in 325 AD is spouted by the character
Teabing but then disputed by the main character, Prof. Langdon, who
argues that such ideas came in much earlier. When the Gospel of Philip
is quoted, just at the part about Jesus kissing Mary Magdalene often
on the ________, Teabing's reading is interrupted so we don't get the
word "mouth" inserted. The text itself has a break just at
that point, and Brown had been criticized for adding the word "mouth," as
some translators have done, in order to imply something sexual. I notice
probably a dozen more places like this where the film was trying to
be more accurate and more balanced than the book. Apparently Ron Howard,
I assume with Dan Brown's approval, was trying to be responsive to
some of the legitimate criticisms of the book in terms of its factual
errors.
The film and the book are of course works of creative fiction and I remain
unconvinced that there is any solid historical evidence that Jesus
was married or sexually involved with Mary Magdalene and had children
with her. It is not that I find the idea offensive or shocking in any
way. I just think it lacks any historical source. That is not to say
that the Jesus family has no offspring today, since we do have evidence
that James and the other brothers, and we might assume Jesus' sisters
as well, were married and had children, the descendants of whom are
surely on the planet today. It has also been demonstrated that the
entire notion of the Priory of Sion, made famous by Baigent's Holy
Blood, Holy Grail, is a fictitious creation based on a hoax. I suppose
there is a "danger" that the masses of readers and film goers
exposed to The DaVinci Code story will naively believe it is the truth.
But the interviews I have seen seem to indicate that people are aware
of the fictional nature of the story. Surely the Christian opponents
of the film have worn themselves out pointing out these elements to
any who will listen, as a simple Google search on the Internet will
abundantly demonstrate.
Frankly, these fictional elements do not overly worry me because
I think the film on the whole conveys an important message loud and clear—that
Jesus of Nazareth was an extraordinary teacher and prophet, but a human
being, not a God—and that the recovery of his humanity can free
Christianity of a wrong turn it took many centuries ago and allow us
to discover
him anew and hear his message unclouded by theological dogma. Since
the primary purpose of my own non-fiction book, The Jesus Dynasty,
is to give the reader a glimpse at the historical Jesus as a human
being in his own place and time, I found that element of the book,
and particularly the film, to be laudatory, and in some sense, complementary,
to my own work. Also, the film speculates on the possibility that the
DNA testable remains of the Jesus family might indeed be found, and
as far-fetched as that might sound, if the ossuary or "bone box," that
came to light in 2002, inscribed "James son of Joseph, brother
of Jesus" turns out to be authentic, such an option might be possible.
The latest on this subject is conveniently archived at the Biblical
Archaeology Web site and I relate the story of the dramatic
discovery of this artifact in the Introduction to my book.
Of course there are millions of Christians who believe that the salvation of
their eternal souls depends on faith in Jesus as God, but if people are willing
to educate themselves regarding the origin and development of this idea it
would open the way for Jesus as a Jew who honored the One God of Israel and
quoted the Shema to emerge from obscurity. Such an insight can in turn lead
to a new type of devotion to Jesus more in keeping with his own message.
The essential Jewishness of Jesus is a theme that scholars have abundantly
explored now for over 100 years, but without really penetrating the wider
public consciousness.
The ending of the film, when Prof. Langdon and Sofie Neven share their
parting thoughts and carry on their extended conversation about Jesus
Christ and his place in history, I found to be exceptionally moving
and well executed. It had an emotional impact on me beyond what I felt
in just finishing the book. There was a message there, loud and clear,
and I think it offers possibilities for a more informed and historical
view of Jesus and even for the notion of the "miraculous," that
modern people can live with without checking their intellects at the
door of their churches.
James D. Tabor
Circulate as you wish... |
