More on The DaVinci Code

[barondave]

In today's Bartcop-E I write about the repression of women that's the core of The DaVinci Code. It's a long article (scroll down just a little from the top) so I won't reproduce it here. Annoyingly, the ankh symbol is larger than the cross, which I fixed on my computer but was unfixed while posting.

Comments

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Just as a note, if anyone wants to examine a pretty gender-balanced book of the bible, the Gospel of Luke is actually pretty kewl in that regard. Every time he has a miracle happen to a person of one age and gender a few verses later he has a pretty similar miracle happen to someone of the opposite age and gender.... and he frequently mentions the women who supported Jesus and travelled along with him. It's sort of a "if you want to see a part of the bible composed by someone for whom women were definitely not invisible" kinda thing.

also.... http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/05/da-vinci-code-women-and-catholicism.html

While I wouldn't say I agree with every single one of his points.... I think he does bring up some concepts that sometimes get forgotten (like the fact that one of the biggest criticisms against Catholicism from other Christian groups over the centuries has been that Catholicism was too accomodating of so-called 'pagan' concepts. I do admit that for a organization which significantly prioritizes the idea of trying to act in concert, the truth of the matter that the principle is far more honored in the breach than in the observance)

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Interesting article. One of the points raised in the book, but not the movie, is that given Jewish culture of Jesus' day it would have been an oddity for a mature young man such as himself to have NOT been married.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. The second half of the article (which I probably won't write) is about that, and the child mentioned by name in the New Testament...

[(Anonymous)]

Except that since his parents knew he was the son of God, and so did he (some indications even before he was baptized), why would he necessarily follow a normal cultural mode?

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

And how do we know that God's whole purpose wasn't to have His son experience what was the normal life of His people?

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, it's also completely possible that he WAS married. It doesn't change anything. His disciples clearly left their lives and established responsibilities behind them to follow him, he could also have left a "normal" life when he became fully aware of his ministry.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Except that since his parents knew he was the son of God, and so did he (some indications even before he was baptized), why would he necessarily follow a normal cultural mode?

There's much wrong with this statement. First, his parents would be using "son of G-d" in the sense that any holy person would be. Remember, it was much later (Nicea, or thereabouts) that claimed divinity. Second, he had a briss before he was baptized: By his words, you had to be Jewish before you could be Christian. Third, this wasn't some fleeting "cultural norm", it was religious practice. As a very devout Jew, he would follow the precepts of Judaism and (just as important) no one would take him seriously if he didn't.

If someone wrote a biography of your life, Anonymous, your story might not include what kind of car you drove. But if you didn't drive a car, that would be a major detail. Kapesh?

[(Anonymous)]

I can't imagine that many people had an angel come to them and tell them they had been chosen to be impregnated by the holy spirit. Which makes that child pretty unusual right there, even if his parents were the only people to know about it. Was John the Baptist married? He wandered off into the wilderness to follow a religious calling. He also was revealed to be a special child before birth.

I'm not even saying that Jesus wasn't married, I just don't think he had to be and I don't think it changes anything if he was. It isn't significant.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine that many people had an angel come to them and tell them they had been chosen to be impregnated by the holy spirit.

Quite a few, according to the convention of the time. (Very short recap: As the equivalent of a nun in the Essenes, Mary would have been waiting for just such a purpose, and wouldn't have gotten officially married until pregnant.)

Most of the evidence is circumstantial (eg whether cousin John the Baptist was married), but there's a lot of it. And what was left out is as important as what was put in. This applies to most texts, including the Pentateuch, but they are different discussions.

I'm not even saying that Jesus wasn't married, I just don't think he had to be and I don't think it changes anything if he was. It isn't significant.

Again, "had to be" is too strong; we also don't know which Haftorah he read for his Bar Mizvah, but we know he had one. We know he kept Kosher (it's in the Sermon on the Mount) but we don't know what he had for lunch. It's highly likely that he was married. I agree that, in the larger scheme of his teachings, whether he was married or not doesn't change things. However, that Mary Magdelene was his wife certainly changes much of the meaning of his story. And the religion that grew after his death. For example, one of the prime reasons women can't be priests is that none of the Apostles was a woman. If, in fact, his wife was above the Apostles in trust and devotion, then that reason flies out the window.

Edited from 6/6 post to correct typo.