The Rants of Issachar

In two words, I'm disappointed. Not terribly surprised, but disappointed. Taking a book to the screen is always fraught with difficulty, and it seems Dan Brown's novel was no exception.

Not a terribly good movie I think...



Still, I'd like to say a couple of things about the whole "Fact or Fiction" controversy.

While the story's exciting, (or at least it was in the book), it's definitely fiction. People prone to believing in a world wide Jewish conspiracy just might find the whole Catholic Church conspiracy angle convincing, but a world-wide Christian conspiracy is about as plausible.



A letter in Friday's National Post talks about the views of Christ; "the [Christian] image, is a divine being who was born of a virgin impregnated by God, who was crucified and resurrected", and the novel's view of a "philosopher who was born of a human woman, got married and had a son". The writer then asks which view is more plausible.

Good question. Is it plausible to believe that the early Christians decided to lie and say that Christ was never married and had no children? Why would they do this? Out of a desire to oppress women? Why would misogynists follow Jesus in the first place? (It is true that Jesus had a very high regard for women). Would they not have opposed Jesus? Is it plausible to believe that they succeeded in convincing the entire Christian world of this? Is it plausible to believe any of this when the history says otherwise and when at least some the facts presented in defense of this hypothesis are demonstrably false?

I wouldn't think so...

Separately, is it plausible to believe in the divinity of Christ and the resurection? That depends on your assumptions. The historical record of the divinity of Christ and the resurection is necessarily religious. People who believe Christ is divine are called Christians. Discounting records of Christ's divinity because they're not secular records, (as some do), doesn't make any sense because it is a logical impossibility to have a secular document claim that Christ was divine.

If you start from the assumption that the divine does not exist, then Christ as divine is implausible, but that's begging the question.

If you take out that assumption start with the premise that the divine may exist, then Christ as divine is at least plausible. Then you look at what Christ said and did to determine if he's divine. The letter to the editor says more about the writer's unspoken assumption than it does about the divinity of Christ.

Unexamined assumptions... Bad for discussions.


Image from Wikipedia. The image is copyrighted, although I believe my use of the scaled down image constitutes fair use as does Wikipedia's use of the image.

Posted by:  Sarah

I'm heading out to see the movie right now. I loved loved loved the book - it actually got me back into reading fiction again after many years. So I have high hopes for the movie, and I hope I don't come off disappointed. I'm also a huge fan of Audrey Tautou, and I just can't imagine one of her movies would disappoint me. I'll comment after the movie...

Posted by:  Sarah

Ok, I saw the movie, and I really liked it. It wasn't competely faithful to the book but the details that were changed were small and weren't all that important to the plot. I think it was probably necessary to change/leave out a few things to keep the movie under 3 hours long. Audrey Tautou didn't disappoint me - she was brilliant. But Ian McKellen as Teabing was the highlight. Tom Hanks - well I don't know if I would have picked him if I was doing the casting, but I can't think who would be more appropriate off the top of my head. The music score was gorgeous too. Whatever your thoughts on Jesus and the bible, I really don't think that a book and a movie that promotes this much discussion can be a bad thing.

Posted by:  issachar

Paul Bettany as Silas was my favourite. I do find it mildly amusing that there's a group protesting the negative portrayal of albino persons in hollywood. It was a very different role for him though. I mostly associate him with A Knight's Tale.

Ian McKellen's great, but I like him much better as Magneto.

Posted by:  Valerius

Okay, it’s taken me a little while to organize some thoughts on this one. I can’t really say anything to this letter, unless of course there was a mirror that didn’t require registration (hint). But a couple of thoughts on your questions.

Issachar said “Is it plausible to believe that the early Christians decided to lie and say that Christ was never married and had no children? Why would they do this? Out of a desire to oppress women?”

Or perhaps it was just too difficult to make claims about the divinity of Christ when gods’ grandkids are running around? After all, if Jesus is divine, then what are his children? And if Jesus was married and had children like everyone else, wouldn’t that make it more difficult to deify him?

On the second question...

To accept the divinity of Christ you have to make a big assumption that too often goes unexamined - which you’ve touched on here - that the religious record is historical, i.e. the bible must be read literally. Without this assumption, saying that the religious record is not enough, that some kind of historical corroboration is required, not only makes sense but is necessary. I think this would be valid whether or not you started with the premise that the divine may exist.

Too often this assumption is paired with others. Is the divinity of Jesus necessary to validate his teachings? If Jesus never actually spoke the words the bible says he did, does that detract from their value?

So perhaps the author of the letter (speculating without having read the letter) isn’t making an unexamined assumption, but rather excluding one? At any rate, we probably all have some assumptions that could use some time under the microscope.

Posted by:  Carla

I saw the movie and thought it was crap... but I probably would have loved it if I hadn't read the book.

Actually, I get a kick out of all the controversy the film has caused (most of it pre-film release)

Of course it's fiction!!! Although, some peeps seeking the so-called *spotlight* on this matter seem to confuse "fiction" with "lie". Whatevs.

I completely agree with Sarah that Ian McKellen was the best actor in the movie.

Posted by:  issachar

Valerius...


Sorry it's taken me a while to get back. (Teaching in a high school in May and all that...)

Of course you could you could come up with other reasons why the apostles might lie about Christ, but mysogyny was one of the motivations mentioned in the book if I recall correctly. Actually, I think maintaining patriarchy was the primary one. That theory is self-contradictory as no self-respecting mysogynist would have followed the biblical Jesus, let alone Dan Brown's characterization. Again, this isn't necessarily an indictment on the fictional story as fiction is allowed to be unbelievable, but it is an indictment on people who think the fiction is true.


On the other issue:

Talking about whether or not the Bible should be read literally would unnecessarily muddy the waters I think. That phrase is normally associated with the first few chapters of Genesis. And there is serious debate among scholars about whether or not those chapters were intended as literal accounts of creation.

As far as I know, no serious scholars have ever suggested that the gospels were not intended to be read literally. i.e. The writer meant to say that Jesus actually turned water into wine and that he actually fed 5000+ people after having been given only 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish.

So the record in the gospels is intended to be historical. It is either an accurate history or it's a historical lie, but I don't think it can be anything else as the authors meant to write history.

In any case, I don't see how a historical record that says Jesus is divine and performed miracles can be anything but a religious record. How could one have a secular record that made claims about divinity? It's like a square circle. (Or am I missing your point?)


As for your last point... If Jesus never actually spoke the words the bible says he did, does that detract from their value?

If you're only talking about what I'd call the dumbed-down hollywood version of what the bible says, then I guess it doesn't. On the other hand, the dumbed-down version isn't what Jesus said, nor is it what's written in the Bible. It's mere pablum.

Among other things, the bible records that Jesus said that he was the only way to be reconciled to God. Something along the lines of "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". The bible records that Jesus predicted his own death and resurection. If Jesus never said these things, I'd say they're seriously devalued.