The Da Vinci Code

It reminds me alot of the lead up to the release of the Last Temptation of Christ.

I hope there are protestors outside the theatre this go around as well. Being that I'm in South Carolina, I'm betting there's a good chance.

The reason so many people have gotten all bent out of shape about the Da Vinci Code is because, though it is obviously fiction (and everyone calls it fiction) a great many people with little background in the actual history of the church have bought into the backstory as though it were gospel truth (literally).

I actually enjoyed the book, but the only thing separating it from a dime-a-dozen thriller is that it tries to turn Christian history into a conspiracy. Eco's The Name of the Rose is not only better history but also better fiction.

I hope there are protestors outside the theatre

I wonder, what are the chances that Dan Brown would protest his own movie the way Kevin Smith did with Dogma? Now that might get me out to see it. :)

1. The Name of the Rose is a very good book.
2. Once again, the Roman Catholic Church reacts much more wisely than American fundamentalists. Cardinal Ruini said that Da Vinci Code is an opportunity for the Church to spread its gospel to people.

Pat Buchanan is the self-appointed Defender of the Faith? What a crock! This is the same guy who said FDR should have left Europe to Hitler's tender mercies so that he and Stalin could wipe each other out (and take tens of millions of innocent people with them). He's a worthless mass of pond-scum, plain and simple, and even the Republicans were embarrassed by him.

The holocaust denial comparison always creeps me out. Regardless of what you think about laws on denial, why reach for that comparison when you could just point out that Europe has blasphemy laws?

Once again, the Roman Catholic Church reacts much more wisely than American fundamentalists.

And one more reason to wish I were Catholic (almost).

The holocaust denial comparison always creeps me out. Regardless of what you think about laws on denial, why reach for that comparison when you could just point out that Europe has blasphemy laws?

Which countries?

Personally I found the book rather predictable, it was an average read at best. There are some elements to the history that may or may not be based in fact, the Dead Sea scrolls, etc., suggest that there was a lot more contention in the early church than the church would like you to believe. I read one of those Catholic response websites recently (morbid curiosity) and found two or three instances where they were either misleading or factually incorrect regarding Judaic culture, the timeline for the Gospels, etc.

Actually, Roman, the CC's reaction is a bit less "wise" than you seem to think. Check out this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR20060…

At the Vatican, language from some church leaders has been equally strong. Last month, powerful Archbishop Angelo Amato, the second-ranking official in the Vatican's Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, said Catholics should "should boycott 'The Da Vinci Code' and speak out against it and reject its lies against the church." Soon after, highly visible Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze said Christians should consider "legal means" against the film and the book, though he did not elaborate.

Ken-

Kevin Smith is the shiznit, isn't he? I loved that. And frankly, I just don't care that so many Catholics were offended by Dogma - it's a very funny movie.

Roman wrote:

2. Once again, the Roman Catholic Church reacts much more wisely than American fundamentalists.

Except that Pat Buchanan is a Roman Catholic.

Ed, the official Church, not some member freaks.

I live a few blocks from Sony Pictures Studios and there were three or four protesters in front of the studio last Friday. They weren't there very long -- I don't know if the studio had them removed or they just gave up. Somehow I don't think that they found a very sympathetic audience in our neighborhood.

I'll check to see if they are there today.

"Only idiots think it's real."

The story is fiction and most people get that, but Dan Brown does a good job of convincing many readers of the veracity of his claims about the Catholic Church, Freemasonry, and the so-called secret history of Jesus. A couple years ago I was asked, in my capacity as a student of Masonic history, to sit on a the panel of a public discussion group to help people sort of the fact from the fantasy in Mr. Brown's book. With me on the panel were a professor of theology who also happened to be a nun and a professor of art history whose specialty overlapped with some of the pieces Mr. Brown uses as grist for his mill.

The panel was held at the local Methodist church situated just off campus at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. All of the folks in attendence appeared to be older folks of the academic or professional classes. My two co-panelists and I were frankly amazed at how many of Mr. Brown's claims were accepted at face value by this audience of apparently highly educated people. For example, the room gasped audibly when I informed those present that the Priory of Sion was a Post-World War II hoax. I was actually asked at one point if my local Masonic lodge practiced sex magic like that portrayed by Mr. Brown! The art historian systematically debunked all the claims made that involved his field, much to the consternation of the audience. And the theologian disappointed many when she noted that she was not fond of the Opus Dei and their politics, she nonetheless was certain that the organization was not composed of world-beating ninja Illuminati.

Folks: it's a novel. A book of fiction. It's being made into a movie, also a work of fiction.

The novel itself may be fiction, Ed, but the information about DaVinci, the Priory of Sion, and the Holy Grail theories is quite a topic of research. Check out Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation, The Woman With the Alabaster Jar, and The Sion Revelation.

The novel The DaVinci Code itself is not really the bone of contention. It's the theory about the bloodline of Jesus, his relationship with Mary Magdaline, Rosslyn Chapel and the rest of the information that the protagonist in The DaVinci Code deals with that is the issue. In other words, The DaVinci Code is the messenger for information that runs counter to some of the bedrock of the Christian faith.

Jeff-

Just having the phrase "world-beating ninja illuminati" uttered on this blog is cooler than I can express.

dogmeatIB,

the Dead Sea scrolls, etc., suggest that there was a lot more contention in the early church than the church would like you to believe.

That's funny, since the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Christianity (in many cases, by 200 years or more). In fact, there is no evidence that any of the DSS are aware of Christianity. Almost all of them are in Hebrew and consist of Old Testament interpretation, apocalyptic writings and priestly manuals of discipline. The DSS are actually our best evidence of the diversity of thought in Second Temple Judaism (out of which Christianity grew), and tell us nothing at all about the diversity of early Christianity.

Probably you mean the Nag Hammadi Library (you're forgiven, Dan Brown made the same mistake, one of many), but they are 4th century and represent traditions that probably only go back to the 2nd C. (at the earliest). There was indeed controversy in the early church - you could learn that from the Church Fathers - but nothing like the conspiracies Brown claims.

dogmeatIB,

the Dead Sea scrolls, etc., suggest that there was a lot more contention in the early church than the church would like you to believe.

That's funny, since the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Christianity (in many cases, by 200 years or more). In fact, there is no evidence that any of the DSS are aware of Christianity. Almost all of them are in Hebrew and consist of Old Testament interpretation, apocalyptic writings and priestly manuals of discipline. The DSS are actually our best evidence of the diversity of thought in Second Temple Judaism (out of which Christianity grew), and tell us nothing at all about the diversity of early Christianity.

Probably you mean the Nag Hammadi Library (you're forgiven, Dan Brown made the same mistake, one of many), but they are 4th century and represent traditions that probably only go back to the 2nd C. (at the earliest). There was indeed controversy in the early church - you could learn that from the Church Fathers - but nothing like the conspiracies Brown claims.

Pokerwolf-

And again, I reiterate that anyone who believes such theories has been smoking too much dope. No educated person should take them seriously.

Here's the wikipedia article on Blasphemy laws. Surprisingly, some states also have anti-blaphemy laws on the books, despite being ruled as unconstitutional in 1952(!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

Britain is the most prominant example of still having blasphemy laws on the books, even though the last conviction of this offence was in 1921.

...she nonetheless was certain that the organization was not composed of world-beating ninja Illuminati.

THAT's how the Church could respond to this movie: by financing, and/or otherwise encouraging, the making of action-suspense movies showing Opus Dei ninjas as good guys, crushing heretics and upholding Truth, Justice, and the Vatican Way the world over. All profits from such movies going to charity, of course. Or to settlements with victims of pedophile priests...

I can only conclude that people in positions of religious power are afraid that people will believe that this is real, instead of believing in what their religion teaches. If your faith is so weak that it can be shaken by a work of fiction, it doesn't bode well for you if you happen to run across some non-fiction discussing the "historical Jesus", the history of Christianity, the history of the Bible, or anything else that runs counter to the idea that God handed the Bible down to King James himself in the holy language of English.

Of course, the fact that it's fiction (and simple, easy to read fiction at that) means that it hits a wider audience, and makes it "dangerous". The fact that its going to be in a movie now makes it even more "dangerous" because you're hitting a large chunk of the population who won't even crack open a book.

Britain is the most prominant example of still having blasphemy laws on the books, even though the last conviction of this offence was in 1921.

... and the first law mentioned is in Massachusetts.

Or to settlements with victims of pedophile priests...

Let's keep repeating "pedophile priests" as long as it takes to convince people that only priests are pedophiles.

Roman Werpachowski:

"Once again, the Roman Catholic Church reacts much more wisely than American fundamentalists. Cardinal Ruini said that Da Vinci Code is an opportunity for the Church to spread its gospel to people."

That is an unsubstantiated statement. Many Roman Catholics are reacting forcefully, organizing boycotts, etc. And many fundamentalists (I have to guess about what you mean by that word, since you didn't bother to define it. Do you mean Protestants? If not, what defines a fundamentalist?) are either simply ignoring it, planning to see it (I am), or likewise plan to use it as an evangelistic tool. Your generalization is without merit.

Actually it was a CC website that was listing the DSS as being post cannonized New Testament. I was torn between listing multiple sources of the 28 +/- gospels left out of the Bible, or listing a known religious source from the formative time period (+/-), went with the known source.

They botched a few other things on the website.

The novel itself may be fiction, Ed, but the information about DaVinci, the Priory of Sion, and the Holy Grail theories is quite a topic of research. Check out Holy Blood, Holy Grail, The Templar Revelation, The Woman With the Alabaster Jar, and The Sion Revelation.

If by "research" you mean "invention," this is true. As Jeff Rients pointed out above, all the "Priory of Sion" stuff has been debunked over and over, and so have pretty well all the other claims made in the books mentioned here. And the debunkers, I'd like to point out, are not motivated by any interest in Christian orthodoxy, but by a concern for facts. (I highly recommend the article by Norris Lacy at http://www.smu.edu/arthuriana/lacy.pdf as a debunking starting point.)

I think it's fascinating that so many people are prepared to believe Brown's claims about Jesus, the Templars, the Grail myth, and all. I'm not a Christian and never have been; I don't care whether Jesus was or was not married to anyone or whether he had any children; I'm aware that disproving all the current nonsense proves nothing about those questions one way or the other. But as a medieval historian, I'm concerned that I'm going to have one more set of falsehoods to un-teach to my students. One inaccurate movie is a great tool for getting students to look at sources, evaluate claims, and the like, but as many of them as we've seen lately means that I spend whole semesters telling students that things they think they know are false. And it gets old.

Many Roman Catholics are reacting forcefully, organizing boycotts, etc.

Is boycotting a movie a "forceful" reaction?

See, I totally understand why historical scholars would want to set the record straight about a book or movie like this. But to claim that this movie proves that American culture is "satanic"? Well, that's just delusional.

Roman Werpachowski,

The point, which I think most would grasp, is that mant RCs are reacting as strongly as American "fundamentalists," if not more so. After all, they view the book not just as an attack on the gospel accounts of Jesus, but on the Vatican as well.

I think the Catholic Church's reaction has varied by country, as it often does. Catholic groups in the US aren't going to call for the movie to be banned because they know it won't happen. But in countries where that can happen, they are pushing for exactly that. India, for example. It's quite similar to the response to the Muhammed cartoons. You didn't hear American Catholics arguing much that such mockery should be banned, but they said it a lot in Europe. A Vatican spokesman said that no one should be allowed to mock a religion in that manner. It's all a matter of political convenience, not principle. They push for as much as they can get away with in any particular place.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail was shown to be tabloid history decades ago. As far as I'm concerned, it's a falsehood about a falsehood

That said, another novel that covers similar territory--well, early Xian history, and the search for a lost gospel--with lots of reliable research to back it up is Wilson Barnhardt's Gospel.

Poland is a strongly Catholic country, where Catholic priests sacrifice many new official buildings, with conservative abortion laws etc. But I heard virtually NO calls for banning "Da Vinci Code" in Poland. Not even from the most radical Catholic media.

dogmeat,

a CC website

CC?

I was torn between listing multiple sources of the 28 +/- gospels left out of the Bible, or listing a known religious source from the formative time period (+/-), went with the known source.

No problem, but I'm curious whether you've actually read any of those "alternative gospels"? The only one that scholars think might derive from the 1st C. (The Gospel of Thomas, found in Coptic translation at Nag Hammadi) is little more than a collection of sayings that have been heavily edited according to later Gnosticism. The rest of the non-canonical gospels are little more than imaginative fairy tales about Jesus' childhood or resurrection (whether pious or heretical) and entirely lack the Jewish background that is evident in the four that came to be accepted.

After all, they view the book not just as an attack on the gospel accounts of Jesus, but on the Vatican as well.

The most radical and backwards Catholics are those which are not too friendly with the Vatican. You know, Vaticanum Secundum and all that.

It's all a matter of political convenience, not principle. They push for as much as they can get away with in any particular place.

Following your line of thought, one could say that all ex-convicts are crypto-criminals and will return to their evil ways once an opportunity arises.

Which is clearly nonsense.

See, I totally understand why historical scholars would want to set the record straight about a book or movie like this. But to claim that this movie proves that American culture is "satanic"? Well, that's just delusional.

The widespread willingness to accept Brown's assertions as truth surely proves that a lot of American culture is delusional, though, no?

Sorry, "The rest of the non-canonical gospels" should be "MOST of the rest of the non-canonical gospels." There are a couple of fragmentary gospels that are probably early (P. Egerton 2 is an example) but they aren't particularly controversial, nor heretical. They certainly don't shatter the foundations of Christianity.

The real discussions surrounding the historical Jesus focus almost entirely on which parts of the canonical gospels are historical and which are later accretions.

Roman wrote:

Following your line of thought, one could say that all ex-convicts are crypto-criminals and will return to their evil ways once an opportunity arises. Which is clearly nonsense.

Wow. Roman, that may be the dumbest argument you've made in weeks. My statement was quite simple: the response from Catholic groups to things like this varies by country. They don't call for the banning of movies, books or cartoons in the US because they know the law won't allow it. But in Europe and elsewhere, where they know laws against bashing religions can sometimes be enforced, they will call for precisely that. I gave two examples of such equivocation; I could easily have given many more. It's not that they're against banning books or movies that offend them, they just know that they can't get that done in the US, while they often can elsewhere (Italy, for example, where they actually bring people up on charges for daring to offend religions, or India, where they actually have a government agent whose job title is "Censor", for crying out loud). What on earth that has to do with ex-convicts becoming recidivists is beyond the ability of any rational person to understand.

nm wrote:

The widespread willingness to accept Brown's assertions as truth surely proves that a lot of American culture is delusional, though, no?

Delusional? That's a little strong, perhaps. Easily taken in by faux history? Absolutely. Easily fooled by people peddling nonsense as truth? Beyond any doubt. In fact, Americans appear to be far more prone to that than most other cultures.

What on earth that has to do with ex-convicts becoming recidivists is beyond the ability of any rational person to understand.

You rule out the possibility of large Catholic groups NOT WILLING to ban offending movies, that means: correcting their previous, evil ways (since in the past practically all Catholics would call for such censorship).

Just like some people rule out the possibility that a criminal may correct himself.

Is it clear now?

Roman -

Can you give some examples of such Catholic groups or is this meant as a theoretical possibility?

Throughout history people have been taken in by faux history, just because some people today are accepting a piece of fiction as fact doesn't mean Americans today are any more ignorant or delusional than any other group in history. Prime examples, Columbus and the "world is round," Queen Isabella pawning the crown jewels to finance his expedition, Columbus being a great leader (and to some a great man at all), the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, the Native American "fear" and "worshiping" of European explorers. None of those events are historically factual but each of them are often (and in some cases regularly) taught in K-12 history classes.

All of these issues were created as fiction and were adopted as fact.

Ken,

CC= Catholic Church

I've read excerpts as part(s) of journals/books on the subject(s), but the full gospels, no. I'm not particularly interested in the early Christian church(es) except regarding how they fit into overall culture at the time. Even then I'm more of an American Historian than world/European, so we're talking about perhaps 10% of my time dealing with that issue/time frame.

All of these issues were created as fiction and were adopted as fact.

Which perfectly illustrates why Christians are not inclined to let The Da Vinci Code go unchallenged. Sometimes the way we go about it is poorly thought-out, but you can't fault the desire to set the record straight. Even censorship, while totally unacceptable in my view, makes sense when you realize that no matter how many thorough debunkings are written, the movie will have a far greater cultural impact than all of them combined. Inherit the Wind anyone?

Roman,

No one is arguing, or even suggesting that only priests are pedophiles, but the FACT that the Catholic church actively suppressed these incidents and relocated the priests knowing what they had done in an effort to hide their misdeeds provides a rather different status for the Catholic church than for any other religious group. There is a major difference between an individual sicko preying on kids and a systematic insitutional effort to not only hide priests who had committed these crimes, but to intimidate and harass the victims and their families.

Understandably, given this history, the Catholic church and their "pedophile priests" share a special place in the hearts and minds of Americans.

Ken,

The problem is, IMO, censorship to protect the Catholic Church is literally censorship of fiction to protect fiction. Bowing to pressure from Catholic groups, or any Christian group for that matter, to supress or censor something they didn't like? How long before that leads to censorship of evolution (as if it isn't already partially)? Lots of Christian groups don't like that one. And geology, anthropology, some elements of non-Bibilical archaeology, paleontology, etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, my response is quite simple, don't like the book/movie? Then don't read it or go to see it.

It's right up there with "don't like gay marriage? Then don't marry a dude."

The widespread willingness to accept Brown's assertions as truth surely proves that a lot of American culture is delusional, though, no?

Delusional? That's a little strong, perhaps.

You're right. I was kidding.

Easily taken in by faux history? Absolutely. Easily fooled by people peddling nonsense as truth? Beyond any doubt. In fact, Americans appear to be far more prone to that than most other cultures.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. We just tend to be unaware of other peoples' favorite bits of faux history, that's all. When I was in Spain working on my dissertation I discovered that they've got their own (easily and frequently disproven) myths about the middle ages, for instance. Someone in every group is gullible about some things for some reason.

That's why I find it fascinating (although hair-tearingly frustrating) that this particular falsehood is so popular here and now--what on earth wish/need/fear is it answering?

No one is arguing, or even suggesting that only priests are pedophiles, but the FACT that the Catholic church actively suppressed these incidents and relocated the priests knowing what they had done in an effort to hide their misdeeds provides a rather different status for the Catholic church than for any other religious group.

Or not, as the case may be.

Roman wrote:

You rule out the possibility of large Catholic groups NOT WILLING to ban offending movies, that means: correcting their previous, evil ways (since in the past practically all Catholics would call for such censorship).

I don't rule out the possibility that the Catholic Church can change. The Catholic Church clearly has changed over the years, almost all for the better. But that doesn't change the fact that, if they could get away with it, they would almost certainly still be engaging in censorship. The fact that they still call for censorship where the laws support it. The Church does as much as the law will allow them to do in every place it operates. That doesn't mean that no Catholic in the world is against censorship, nor does it mean the church can never change. But it's still the reality today, which you have not even attempted to dispute.

Ken Brown wrote:

Which perfectly illustrates why Christians are not inclined to let The Da Vinci Code go unchallenged. Sometimes the way we go about it is poorly thought-out, but you can't fault the desire to set the record straight. Even censorship, while totally unacceptable in my view, makes sense when you realize that no matter how many thorough debunkings are written, the movie will have a far greater cultural impact than all of them combined. Inherit the Wind anyone?

A good example. And as I said, I'm never opposed to combatting falsehoods with the truth, and I totally understand the desire to set the record straight. What I don't get at all is the silly notion that this is some sort of satanic conspiracy or evidence of anti-Christian bigotry, which is the kind of silly rhetoric we're hearing shouted from the rooftops over this movie.

dogmeat,

Did you miss the part where I said censorship is "totally unacceptable in my view"? Many things that are totally unacceptable are still understandable, and may even be based on acceptable motives. An absurd example would be a parent who doesn't wish their kid to get hit by a car and locks them in their room to protect them. You can accept the motive while strongly condemning the action.

Christians obviously do not believe that their religion is fiction, and do not wish to see lies about it accepted as truth. This motive is understandable even when the ways they go about preventing this are reprehensible (as they sometimes are).

Ed,

What I don't get at all is the silly notion that this is some sort of satanic conspiracy or evidence of anti-Christian bigotry, which is the kind of silly rhetoric we're hearing shouted from the rooftops over this movie.

And I'll gladly join with you in condemning that kind of rhetoric.

Dave S.: Can you give some examples of such Catholic groups or is this meant as a theoretical possibility?

Polish Catholic Church, and even its extremist fringes.

Ed Brayton: But that doesn't change the fact that, if they could get away with it, they would almost certainly still be engaging in censorship. The fact that they still call for censorship where the laws support it. The Church does as much as the law will allow them to do in every place it operates.

Perhaps, but they don't always shout for new laws to be erected. Anyway, all institutions and individuals tend to use law for their profit, not just CC.

Two theories about the Christian hysteria around the Da Vinci Code:

1. A lot of religious authors and ministries are making good money selling their anti-Da Vinci diatribes.

2. Pastors must think that the uninformed masses filling their churches will be taken in by a fictional novel since they see them swallowing similar nonsense hook, line, and sinker in their sermons every Sunday morning.

Seriously, if Christians were well grounded in their faith, and fully comprehended their religion, the Da Vinci Code would not be such a threat. The problem is that many people have a "simple faith" (i.e. they don't fully understand the tenets of the religion they adhere to--it just "feels right") and Christian fundamentalist leaders fear the worst.

I doubt the Methodists and Episcopalians are too worried about Dan Brown's novel.

nm wrote:

That's why I find it fascinating (although hair-tearingly frustrating) that this particular falsehood is so popular here and now--what on earth wish/need/fear is it answering?

I suspect there may be just a little truth in the "anti-Christian" rhetoric -- or, rather, not so much "anti-Christian" as "anti-fundamentalism." From what I can tell it's the liberal, anti-authoritarian Christians, neo-pagans, and great mass of "spiritual but not religious" folk who seem ready to accept this as fictional, sure -- but based on fact. The Churches are bad guys who have distorted the True Loving Message of Jesus, etc.

Secular humanists have pretty much uniformly panned the book's so-called "historical background" as bad scholarship, but many liberal forms of theology don't emphasize method so much as getting a pleasing, exciting conclusion when it comes to determining spiritual "truthiness." And Americans love a good conspiracy theory, especially if they can slip themselves into the role of the Common Man who figures out the hoity-toighty experts are wrong. I think that's a good part of the appeal.

In his review in "Free Inquiry," Bob Price points out that "Books that claim to 'blow the lid off Christianity' by means of new discoveries, real or imagined, find an avid public. Many of those readers might be called sophomoric skeptics: having learned proper suspicion towards their inherited Christian faith, they remain uncritical about the assertions of those who would substitute any other hypothesis, often equally wild. Despite their avid curiosity, these seekers just do not know how to separate fact from fiction."

Another humanist reviewer said something to the effect of "this book is what happens when New Agers try to 'debunk' traditional religion." They just end up with another silly form of pseudo-rationalist apologetics which stirs the imagination enough to qualify for the coveted "anything is possible" leap.

Several of my women friends told me they admire this book because they say it gives them a deeper appreciation of how important women really are in Christianity. Since they always suspected this, the history is now plausible. So it's not so much being against Christianity per se, I think, but trying to elevate it by knocking Institutions as arbiters of spiritual truth. Follow your heart, and watch how it ends up turning reliable after all...

Ken,

I didn't mean to imply that you were in favor of censorship, my point was simply that advocacy for censorship in this case (as it is in most cases) is wrong. I can understand how they feel as well.

Miriam,

Good point, problem is that the issue with Catholic priests was discovered first, the coverup was discovered first, and the convictions, etc., happened first. What that means, historically, is that even if you found that there were 5x or even 10x as many incidents in Jewish Orthodox Synagogs, or in another Christian denomination, this will likely be seen by history as a Catholic problem. Also, your link doesn't really impact how my post responds to Roman's statement.

Wow, after all this heated discussion it seems even more pedantic to go back to a couple of the first comments and say that the Eco novel that foreshadows The Da Vinci Code is not The Name of the Rose, but Foucault's Pendulum. But I couldn't let it pass. Both are among my favourite books.

On the other hand, both The Island of the Day Before and Baudolino are mediocre at best. I'm not sure if I want to read his latest.

As far as I can tell, the real panic in the various Christian churches are the ideas in the book that the divinity of the rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, was not universally accepted in the early church, and that the "bible," at least the New Testament, was not necessarily divinely inspired. I was raised Roman Catholic, and I certainly never learned the early history of the Christian movement as a member of that church - the existence of various sects with different interpretations of the teachings of Jesus, the debate over whether non-Jews could be included in the movement, the fact that some believed Jesus was never divine, some thought he became divine as a result of the sacrifice of his death and some believed he was divine from the very beginning. I have also read quite a few historical accounts of the time that pretty convincingly trace the concepts of early Christianity, including the Trinity, back to their pagan roots.

None of this is acceptable to any "orthodox" Christian Church because, IMHO, the church has morphed into a cult of Personality around the man Jesus, rather than focusing on his teachings (and that transition came about with the rise of Christianity as the official Roman religion). Like any other movement, political power and money became the driving forces for many of the leaders of the church - and led to the division, for instance, between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

To admit all this early history - some of which Dan Brown gets right, some of which is just hyperbole - is to admit the fallibility not only of the early churches and their leadership, but also of the "Scripture" of which the "bible" is comprised. The Roman Catholic church, as well as the modern evangelical movement, relies heavily on the infallibility and universality of the "truths" they claim to teach, so of course they cannot abide any work that might undercut their authority.

Interestingly, in their zeal to attack the book and film, at least one of the "Christian" groups is just making things up. Robert Knight, of Concerned "Women" for America (www.cwfa.org, if you care to explore their idiocy), makes the claim that the Da Vinci Code argues Jesus survived the crucifixion and then impregnated Mary Magdalene - which is simply wrong (the argument is she was pregnant at the tiem of the crucifixion). That is a different heresy, from a different work recently published. Perhaps his arguments would make more sense if he actually read and understood the book first.

Roman wrote:

Perhaps, but they don't always shout for new laws to be erected.

Okay, but I never claimed otherwise.

Anyway, all institutions and individuals tend to use law for their profit, not just CC.

Not all institutions or individuals push to have the rights of others taken away when they are offended.

I wonder how much of the "fear" expressed by Catholics and other xians is that this story, based on an admitted hoax and unsubstantiated writings by people that lived long after the events, is more interesting and believable to many people than the bible (which is a story based on an hoax and unsubstantiated writings by people that lived long after the events).

It is all rubbish, the DaVinci Code and the fairy stories that inspired the orginal hoaxers and Dan Brown. Take it as fiction and it is a marignally interesting mystery, take it as true and you reveal yourself as deluded as those that claim the bible is literally true.

I find this particularly amusing given their love for Passion. Their criticism of Da Vinci seems to be that you shouldn't write alternate history on matter pertinent today. So while a novel where Germany wins WWII is ok... a novel where the holocaust didn't happen isn't ok. Given their love for the alternate history that was Passion I can't imagine why they've flip flopped here.

The Roman Catholic church, as well as the modern evangelical movement, relies heavily on the infallibility and universality of the "truths" they claim to teach, so of course they cannot abide any work that might undercut their authority.

Rubbish. The RCC does not "rely heavily" on infallibility and in its teachings it underscores heavily that ALL MAN ARE FALLIBLE.

Not all institutions or individuals push to have the rights of others taken away when they are offended.

Most of them.

Take it as fiction and it is a marignally interesting mystery, take it as true and you reveal yourself as deluded as those that claim the bible is literally true.

Yeah, as if we didn't have other choices.

*sigh*

If the Vatican is so smart, how come they haven't figured out that the weight of Dan Brown's and Sony's wallets is directly proportional to the amount of fuss they make about this movie...?

Britain is the most prominant example of still having blasphemy laws on the books, even though the last conviction of this offence was in 1921.

Actually, I think a gay magazine was "successfully" prosecuted for blasphemy sometime in the 1970's, for publishing a poem. Since the net effect of the legal action was to cause the poem to be read far more widely than it would have been otherwise, it showed up exactly how dumb blasphemy laws really are.

Since the net effect of the legal action was to cause the poem to be read far more widely than it would have been otherwise, it showed up exactly how dumb blasphemy laws really are.

As opposed to the efficient censorship, which is smart?

As opposed to the efficient censorship, which is smart?

Not quite sure what you mean. Blasphemy laws are (I suppose, although I'm not sure) supposed to prevent God from being insulted. If the net result of bringing a prosecution for blasphemy is that the supposed blasphemy is then repeated to a wider audience than would otherwise have been the case, then the prosecution has been spectacularly counter-productive.

But it's a general case that when someone in authority stands up and says "Don't go and see this movie! It's immoral!", generally more people will go and see it, just to see what all the fuss is about, if nothing else. In the case of the Da Vinci Code, the sensible thing for the Roman Catholic Church to do would be to just repeat the line "It is a work of fiction", and maybe point people in the direction of the historical research that debunks it.

As far as I know there haven't been any blasphemy prosecutions in the UK for a while, but several films have been cut or denied a certificate for blasphemy in recent years. The most (in)famous example was Visions of Ecstasy in 1989.

Other examples in Europe recently include an Austrian cartoonist prosecuted by the Greek authorities for a book which included among other things a picture of Jesus surfing.

Rubbish. The RCC does not "rely heavily" on infallibility and in its teachings it underscores heavily that ALL MAN ARE FALLIBLE.

I was not referring to the RCC's teachings about normal mortals, Roman, I was referring to their defense of their theology as the "truth" and the only "truth" that is valid. As a Catholic in the 70s and 80s, for instance, I recited the Nicean Crede with everyone else in the church, never questioning its components, and never analyzing the inherent contradictions in the Crede. And, of course, the Pope is alleged to be infallible, at rare occurrances. But because of misunderstandings of the actual nature of the Pope's infallibility, many Catholics I know believe that infallibility covers most, if not all, of the Pope's pronouncements and often believe the bishops are covered as well.

And one cannot deny that the relatively recent history of the RCC, say from Gallileo onward, is one where any dissent is attacked quickly and fiercely - and even the response of some Catholic bishops to this film is a prime example.

Christians obviously do not believe that their religion is fiction, and do not wish to see lies about it accepted as truth.

This has got to one of the funniest lines ever. You could easily change it to 'Muslims obviously do not believe, or Hindus do not believe'. What is odd about this angle of argument is that it presupposes the belief is correct in the first place.

It is perfectly reasonable to think Jesus(if he existed) had a wife and a family. The only thing that prevents this rather normal thought is dogma and an irratioanl belief that a few snippets of a story account for the entirety of a life.

Whats really funny is that an organization like the RCC goes on talking about this fictional story while at the same time talking about eternal virgins and the like. You simply can't make this type of humor up. The dicotomous mind is something to behold.

This was a pretty good exchange also:

All of these issues were created as fiction and were adopted as fact.

Which perfectly illustrates why Christians are not inclined to let The Da Vinci Code go unchallenged.

Kinda sums up alot of religion huh? It now seems alot of 'moderns' are defending the fiction as fact until another fiction comes along to threaten the previous fictions societal standing.

Not quite sure what you mean.

I mean that those laws are bad because they are bad, not because they are ineffective.

Dan Brown is a hack -- his later book, "Angels and Demons,' just followed 'Da Vinci Code's' template: Robert Langdon, now with a new sexy female sidekick, a crazed killer, a surprise villain etc.

He is just not very careful. Discovery Channel (I think it was them) did a great debunking of the Priory de Sion stuff. And what was with Mr. Brown's theory that the CC suppressed Magdalen because they're afraid of the sacred feminine?!

Hello? Mary, Mother of God? Ring a bell, Mr. Brown? Just weird, sloppy thinking.

The only part I found interesting was his mention of some of the older Gospels, and that there was a Gospel of Magdalene that morphed into a male protagonist (John).

Oh, another mistake in his book -- he went on for a good bit about how the left side of the brain is the seat of intuition... except it's not. It's the right side that is supposedly responsible for intuition. I wonder if he fixed that in later printings?

Just a sloppy hack.

TikiHead: Angels and Demons actually came out before Da Vinci Code and was a disappointment (though I think since the Da Vinci blowup). His next book is called The Solomon Key and will supposedly continue in the same vein. I don't particularly care for his style of writing either. I think the ridiculously short chapters and cliched characters are a gimmick that, while incredibly successful, aren't doing anything good for literature. Its also leaked over into genres I love, like the Dracula clone of Da Vinci, The Historian (which is even worse).

One thing in Dan Brown's defense -- a ton of reviewers have claimed the book depicts Opus Dei as an organization staffed with crazed assassins. The book does no such thing. Sials, the albino killer, is working without the knowledge or approval of Opus Dei. But you'd have to suffer throught the whole book to find that out, which is something I'm sure most book reviewers don't do.

Thanks for the correction, Matthew! See, Dan Brown's sloppiness is contagious! :)

Chance,

You could easily change it to 'Muslims obviously do not believe, or Hindus do not believe'. What is odd about this angle of argument is that it presupposes the belief is correct in the first place.

It presupposes nothing of the sort; it is certainly true that "Muslims obviously do not believe their religion is false, and do not wish to see lies about it accepted as truth." I don't believe in Allah, but I could certainly understand Muslims not wanting blatant falsehoods passed off as the "real" history of Islam.

It is perfectly reasonable to think Jesus (if he existed) had a wife and a family. The only thing that prevents this rather normal thought is dogma and an irrational belief that a few snippets of a story account for the entirety of a life.

Many things are perfectly reasonable, that doesn't mean Dan Brown's wild speculations warrant the same consideration as the conclusions of centuries of historical-critical study of the gospels (by the way, I don't see any theological problem with the possibility that Jesus was married, I just don't find it historically credible).

Of the thousands of scholars in the Society of Biblical Literature, no more than a handful (if that) deny that the canonical gospels (especially Matthew, Mark and Luke) are our earliest and best witnesses to the historical Jesus (even fewer deny that he existed). Besides a few stray quotes from the gospel of Thomas, no well respected scholar considers the gnostic gospels to be anywhere near as historically credible as those three. This isn't accepted as dogma, it is obvious to anyone with a modicum of familiarity with 1st C. Jewish culture who takes the time to read these various gospels.

Nobody's passing these "blatant falsehoods" off as the real history of Christianity either. It can't be emphasised enough that the Da Vinci Code is a work of airport fiction.

Many things are perfectly reasonable, that doesn't mean Dan Brown's wild speculations warrant the same consideration as the conclusions of centuries of historical-critical study of the gospels

Nobody thinks they do. They're not wild speculations - they're fiction.

Ginger Yellow,

Nobody thinks they do. They're not wild speculations - they're fiction.

Oh really. Dan Brown does indeed claim that the backstory is fact (on the first page of the book, and in subsequent interviews), and many people have bought into it.

Ken Brown:

I don't know if that's true or not (that Brown believes his book), but there is absolutely NO doubt that Mel Gibson believes his Passion film, and that film got little criticism outside of the Jewish community. Even though historians correctly pointed out that only one of the gospels portrayed the Jews as being a responsible party.

Matthew,

there is absolutely NO doubt that Mel Gibson believes his Passion film, and that film got little criticism outside of the Jewish community.

I know, and I find it despicable. While it is more subtle and less controversial (hence the muted response), in my opinion Mel Gibson's Passion is nearly as bad as The Da Vinci Code, worse perhaps because its distortions are less obvious. It isn't based on historical-critical study of the gospels either, but on Medieval passion plays (which were often tragically anti-semitic). Actually, it's rather ironic that both Mel Gibson and Dan Brown seem to think that folks from the middle ages (like Da Vinci) knew more about Jesus than modern scholars do. Idiots come in all stripes.

Ken Brown,

"Even though historians correctly pointed out that only one of the gospels portrayed the Jews as being a responsible party."

That's not correct. Each of the four canonical gospels portrays some some Jews and some Romans as being the agents of Jesus' murder. On the other hand, an understanding of any of the gospels makes it clear that the real killers are all saved sinners--past, present and future. Perhaps you refer only to the phrase: "His blood shall be on us and on our children." This appears only in Matthew's gospel--but that does not mean that Jews are not implicated in Jesus' murder in the other gospels--they most certainly are.

Oops, previous comment should have been directed at Matthew. Apologies to Ken Brown.

David,
I think you have missed Matthew's point, which is that Gibson's Passion does portray the Jews as the responsible party. He could add that the depiction of the Jews compared to the Romans is ridiculously negative. The Romans leadership is presented as clean-cut, powerful and compassionate (always filmed from below) while the Jewish leaders are presented as extravagantly dressed but powerless and conniving (always filmed from above).

[...] Medieval passion plays (which were often tragically anti-semitic).

A side remark: recently, Simon Wiesenthal Center protested against a traditional Passion play in Poland on the same grounds.

I wasn't commenting on Gibson's movie, only the comment from Matthew that historians correctly point out that only one gospel portrayed the Jews as being a responsible party. I believe that stands alone as an assertion--and I believe it to be demonstrably incorrect.

by the way, I don't see any theological problem with the possibility that Jesus was married, I just don't find it historically credible

This is just simply ridiculous. Historically credible? There is no 'history' of Jesus outside a few gospel stories. Nothing else to base any history on in either case.

that the canonical gospels (especially Matthew, Mark and Luke) are our earliest and best witnesses

I would agree with that which also speaks to the weakness of the account itself. To pretend that these three books along woth John are somehow orthodox and the other gnostic/gospel type books are heresey is simply humorous. They all contain sayings and outlandish accounts of supposed supernatural events. Just because group A gets together and chooses to accept this book(s) doesn't make the others less viable.

to the historical Jesus (even fewer deny that he existed).

Perhaps, but that has little to do with the argument itself. More and more people are starting to examine the Jesus who may have actually lived as opposed to the Jesus in the story.

And I missed this earlier:

The only one that scholars think might derive from the 1st C. (The Gospel of Thomas, found in Coptic translation at Nag Hammadi) is little more than a collection of sayings that have been heavily edited according to later Gnosticism.

So? And I don't agree with this position.

The rest of the non-canonical gospels are little more than imaginative fairy tales about Jesus' childhood or resurrection (whether pious or heretical) and entirely lack the Jewish background that is evident in the four that came to be accepted.

Again so? Imaginative fairy tales? How does that differ from the rest of the story? Does that in an itself not lend the idea that it could all be so whether or not a jewish background is incorporated into the story?

And heretical is one of the funniest words tossed around in these discussions. When group A chose books 1,2,3 and anything disagreed it became heresy.

But all this is off topic, the book is fiction. No one looks to it for any pertinet information. Much like many do with the religion of their choice.

Another thing about Mad Mel's Pasion: why was Jesus portrayed by a European actor? Had Mary had a fling with a Celt or a Norseman or something? Or does Mad Mel subscribe to the KKK's "Jesus was not a Jew" rubbish?

Yes, the book and movie are clearly fiction, and advertized as such. However, they do present other people's theories and assertions on matters of fact and doctrine; and people (like me) who either know nothing of these matters, or have studied them briefly and shallowly, could be persuaded by the story, simply because we have no other source to counter or debunk the book's assertions. This is what the doctrine-enforcer types are afraid of; and it's what we'd be afraid of, and rightly so, if a blockbuster fiction-movie came out depicting a cabal of Jews fabricating stories of the Holocaust.

Even though I know Robert Graves' I, Claudius is fiction, it ends up being my default-source for my picture of Roman political history in the period from Augustus to Nero. I don't consciously believe it's really Claudius' long-buried-recently-rediscovered memoirs; I just don't have time to verify any of it.

I mean that those laws are bad because they are bad, not because they are ineffective.

Ah, I see. Yes, I agree. Actually, I'd say blasphemy laws in a society that allows freedom of expression are both bad *and* ineffective. In a society where you can legally put blasphemers to death, I guess they're just plain bad.

Chance,
No offense, but you are displaying rank ignorance about the historical method. We only know about most historical figures through a few scattered works and references - we piece together their history based on what we know of the time period. There will always be gaps in our knowledge but there is a great deal we can credibly reconstruct.

That Jesus was a Jew who lived in the first half of the 1st century, that he was associated with John the Baptist and preached repentance and baptism in preparation for "the kingdom of God," that his concern for the poor and rather liberal interpretation of the Law were quite popular and set him at odds with the ruling elite in Palestine, that he was crucified as a rebel "King of the Jews" by Pilate, even that his earliest followers believed he could perform miracles and had risen from the dead, are all firmly established on historical critical grounds. Their acceptance has nothing to do with defending orthodoxy.

Further, it is not arbitrary to dismiss Gnostic sayings in favor of Jewish ones when you realize that Christian Gnosticism did not arise until the 2nd C., and mainstream Christianity had parted ways with Judaism by 70 CE. This means that the distinctly Jewish nature of the Synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark and Luke) places them within the 1st C. while the distinctly gnostic nature of the other gospels (among other things) places them squarely in the 2nd C. It has nothing to do with what is orthodox and what is heresy (except that the church rejected gnosticism as heresy precisely because it only arose in the 2nd C), it has everthing to do with what is culturally plausible in a 1st C. context.

I figured it would eventually come to this.

No offense, but you are displaying rank ignorance about the historical method. We only know about most historical figures through a few scattered works and references - we piece together their history based on what we know of the time period. There will always be gaps in our knowledge but there is a great deal we can credibly reconstruct

Your probably correct about my full understanding of the historical method(I'm a biologist after all) but your statements here make me question your understanding of it as well. Most historical figures have actual corroboration or things they themselves created. Not so in this case,just a few pieces written by-well thats anyones guess- overlayed with tremendous amounts of material from prior supernatural schools of thought. At best, at best you can construct a prima fascia case that Jesus existed.

The fact anyone can make a coherent argument he didn't exist(and they do) is in itself suffiecient enough to say the evidence is extremely spotty at best.

That Jesus was a Jew who lived in the first half of the 1st century, that he was associated with John the Baptist and preached repentance and baptism in preparation for "the kingdom of God," that his concern for the poor and rather liberal interpretation of the Law were quite popular and set him at odds with the ruling elite in Palestine, that he was crucified as a rebel "King of the Jews" by Pilate, even that his earliest followers believed he could perform miracles and had risen from the dead, are all firmly established on historical critical grounds. Their acceptance has nothing to do with defending orthodoxy

Firmly established on historical critical grounds? Where is the corraboration from outside sources? Where are the records? Eyewitnesses? Who are they? I'm sorry but your failing in terms of reality and the historical method. Every single thing you mentioned comes out of books used within the faith. How do you substantiate he associated with John the baptist? Where is the evidence that his message was popular outside the gospels? Who is supplying this evidence and by what is it supported?

Further, it is not arbitrary to dismiss Gnostic sayings in favor of Jewish ones when you realize that Christian Gnosticism did not arise until the 2nd C

Your correct that Christian Gnostocism didn't form until early 2nd century but the thinking predates Christianity. It most likely had been well underway though in the latter portion of the 1st. Point being there was alot of diversity in the Christian community. It seems foolish to think that because a competeing movement arises a few years after another it's ideas are somehow less valid. It's not as if these people where connected via the mail and telephones.

Early Christianity looked very much like Christianity today hence the comment by Gregory Riley 'Even in the same geographical area and sometimes in the same cities, different Christian teachers taught quite different gospels and had quite different views of who Jesus was and what he did'

In other words there never was an 'orthodox' version until the Romans decreed it to be so by force. It's impossible to know what Jesus said or thought with any accuracy simply because we can't ask him. Hence a world full of religion.

Chance,
You seem to be missing the point that the synoptic gospels are firmly grounded in second temple Judaism and their presentation of that culture is thoroughly consistent with what we know from countless other Jewish and Roman sources of the time period. While this does not mean we should accept their claims uncritically (and New Testament scholars certainly don't do so), it does tell us that these records, though annonymous and biased, are very early and provide at least a broad historical outline of Jesus' life that is culturally plausible.

For instance, we can see that Jesus was closely associated with John the Baptist not only because the canonical gospels say it, but also because the message of Jesus they present is consistent with what we know about John from other sources, most notably Josephus. Meanwhile, the lack of such a Jewish background (as judged on the same grounds) is strong reason to reject the gnostic gospels as later attempts to put words in Jesus' mouth.

A good rule of thumb is the criterion of "double similarity and double dissimilarity" whereby an action or statement of Jesus is likely historical if it is both consistent with but not identical to earlier Judaism, and consistent with but not identical to later Christianity. Thus the resurrection's historicity, though possible (and I think it happened), probably cannot be firmly established on historical critical grounds (though the fact that his followers believed in it can) because it fails the dissimilarity test. In contrast, many of Jesus' parables pass the test, because (from the Jewish side) they are consistent with earlier Jewish literary forms while giving them novel messianic content, and (from the Christian side) the parable form played little role in the later church while many doctrines (as seen in the early creeds of the 2nd C.) are consistent with, but much more developed than, those found in the parables.

Chance wrote:

Firmly established on historical critical grounds? Where is the corraboration from outside sources? Where are the records? Eyewitnesses? Who are they? I'm sorry but your failing in terms of reality and the historical method. Every single thing you mentioned comes out of books used within the faith. How do you substantiate he associated with John the baptist? Where is the evidence that his message was popular outside the gospels? Who is supplying this evidence and by what is it supported?

Jesus was an itinerant priest/prophet/preacher on the outermost edge of the Roman Empire, leading a loose -- nonviolent -- group of locals in a province whose instability generated far more dramatic and newsworthy events. How much documentation do you expect of such a fringe character? Of course all our information about Jesus comes from "books within the faith." Who else had any reason to write anything about him back then? (Remember, typewriters had yet to be invented, let alone telecoms, so writing news was a bit more trouble back then, and one had to have a pretty good reason -- and a bit of cash -- to get a scribe to scratch out such a story on scarse parchment.)

Sorry, but your demand for "corraboration from outside sources" is utterly unrealistic under the circumstances.

History is not mathematics, to put it simply.

though annonymous and biased, are very early and provide at least a broad historical outline of Jesus' life that is culturally plausible.

No, what they tell you is what the prevailing culture was like. All that your really showing here is that the story in the gospels has aspects of the culture at the time. Of that I don't disagree.

But none of this provides any way to prove Jesus wasn't married as per the book. As a matter of fact as study of the culture at the time would make it much more likely that he was.

At best, even if I grant your presumptions, you know only 1-2 sketchy years of this man. You have no idea what happened in his childhood, from the ages of 20-25, 25-30. Think about what happens in the lives of any human over 5 years. The man had experiences. He may have married, perhaps more than once. Perhaps he was a father, perhaps not. You just can't know and it's no use pretending.

For instance, we can see that Jesus was closely associated with John the Baptist not only because the canonical gospels say it,

But the gospels themselves may be forged from each other.

but also because the message of Jesus they present is consistent with what we know about John from other sources, most notably Josephus. Meanwhile, the lack of such a Jewish background (as judged on the same grounds) is strong reason to reject the gnostic gospels as later attempts to put words in Jesus' mouth.

Unless of course he simply agreed with that line of thinking. All of these sources you cite are written so far after the fact that to give any credit to any of the sayings is difficult.

It is also possible(probable) that the writer of the gospel story was quite simply recounting a tale from a jewish perspective while the gnostics(and others) picked up the tale from their perspective.

Thus the resurrection's historicity, though possible (and I think it happened), probably cannot be firmly established on historical critical grounds (though the fact that his followers believed in it can) because it fails the dissimilarity test

Whats so funny about this to me is that on the other side of the aisle are folks who study aspects of mythology who state that this story matches up with the archetypes of the typical resurrected God story and on this aisle we have people who try and study the history of a supernatural event personified. The former state that if one where to find this story in a cave one would see the myth as it is obvious. But in our culture people go around trying to prove it real and spend lives doing it. Odd.

Before one can even begin to accept the historical reality of these events one must also prove that the events discussed are even physically possible. Once you cross that bridge then you can talk about history.

Of course you can hae faith, and that is perfectly fine.

To discuss the history of flying people is akin to discussing the history of flying unicorns. It doesn't much matter how consistent the story is or if the story was written the day after the 'unicorn' was supposedly seen. Flying unicorns aren't known to exist. Their inclusion in the story makes it simply a complex fabric of ideas that may have meaning but is ultimately a fable.

It's not so dissimiliar to those who hunt for Noah's ark.

How much documentation do you expect of such a fringe character?

How about any firsthand material. Either written by said person or by some other credible method.

Who else had any reason to write anything about him back then?

Anyone involved in the various uprisings, death, and life of the man.

Sorry, but your demand for "corraboration from outside sources" is utterly unrealistic under the circumstances.

So basically then you don't require much in the way of evidence for any historical figure? So essentially if we dig up a story with all the applicable cultural background of an individual or could shoot lightning from his eyeballs without any support, you just go. Hmmm, well we're not going to know much about him so, I guess it's true.

Interesting discussion folks. I have enjoyed it. But it is to loooooong!

:-)

Before one can even begin to accept the historical reality of these events one must also prove that the events discussed are even physically possible. Once you cross that bridge then you can talk about history.

No, actually, we don't have to prove any such thing. We can accept and/or debate the bits that are obviously possible (Jesus was born, he lived in Judea, he preached, he may have had kids, he was crucified); and leave open the question of whether the more outlandish tales told about him (the miracles, the Resurection) are true, evolved in Russian-telephone fashion over centuries, or concerted fabrications.

How about any firsthand material. Either written by said person or by some other credible method.

Hello? This wasn't the 20th century, this was a time and place where many people were simply illiterate, or pre-literate -- they simply passed information on orally, rather than in writing. (Historians have similar problems dealing with the pre-Roman Celts.) Furthermore, how many people, other than Jesus' devoted followers, would have considered his actions significant enough to write about at the time? Remember, he was not a political or military leader, and never advocated anything so attention-getting as armed rebellion. And people (like the Jewish establishment at the time) have a way of ignoring and forgetting things they don't want to hear.

So basically then you don't require much in the way of evidence for any historical figure?

We use what evidence we have, understand its limitations, and keep our eyes peeled for more. Is Thycidides' book a perfect source of info on the Peloponnesian War? No, but it's pretty much all we have, so we take it with a grain of salt because it's better than nothing. An incomplete picture is better than none at all.

Raging Bee,

Your dragging me places I don't want to go. It takes to much time. I like the conversation but this is my last.

No, actually, we don't have to prove any such thing. We can accept and/or debate the bits that are obviously possible (Jesus was born, he lived in Judea, he preached, he may have had kids, he was crucified); and leave open the question of whether the more outlandish tales told about him (the miracles, the Resurection) are true, evolved in Russian-telephone fashion over centuries, or concerted fabrications.

I agree with you on this for the most part. I just don't think there is even remotely enough evidence to say Jesus wasn't married historically. And all of what you said we can accept is also questionable. But that is not what happens people will look to a book written decades after the supposed individual and use it as 'proof' of reliablity for said supernatural events. Or in this case presume from this same document a whole host of other ideas.

How about any firsthand material. Either written by said person or by some other credible method.

Hello? This wasn't the 20th century, this was a time and place where many people were simply illiterate, or pre-literate -- they simply passed information on orally, rather than in writing. (Historians have similar problems dealing with the pre-Roman Celts.) Furthermore, how many people, other than Jesus' devoted followers, would have considered his actions significant enough to write about at the time? Remember, he was not a political or military leader, and never advocated anything so attention-getting as armed rebellion. And people (like the Jewish establishment at the time) have a way of ignoring and forgetting things they don't want to hear.

Here I find your point particuarly weak. We have plenty more substance from plenty of minor characters in history. It seems to me your using Jesus's supposed minor activity as an excuse for not having anything when alot of apologists use the crowds and such as proof of the power of his teaching. Enough for the Roman government and throngs of people to demand his execution.

Is Thycidides' book a perfect source of info on the Peloponnesian War? No, but it's pretty much all we have, so we take it with a grain of salt because it's better than nothing. An incomplete picture is better than none at all

But in this case we have far less than that. We have no artifacts, outside sources. Nothing but, in all likelyhood, one document filled with archetypes from previous mythological stories.

But like I said earlier, you can make a prima fascia case for Jesus living. But thats about it. So in that regard I agree.

Ok, really I'm out.:-)

We have plenty more substance from plenty of minor characters in history.

What sort of minor characters? Politicians, officials, establishment bigwigs and even middlewigs, artists, writers, etc...all of these leave more of a paper-trail than an outsider-prophet on the fringes of the then-civilized world. (How many outsider-prophets are preaching today? Who's recording their actions? Assuming no debacle like Waco or Jonestown, if one of those loonies gets a huge following years after his death, how much evidence will they have to back up his alleged life-story?)

It seems to me your using Jesus's supposed minor activity as an excuse for not having anything when alot of apologists use the crowds and such as proof of the power of his teaching. Enough for the Roman government and throngs of people to demand his execution.

First, the "throngs of people" bit is disputed. Second, the Romans crucified people all the time, as a matter of standard policy toward people their officials saw as a threat to domestic peace. Such decisions were made by regional and local officials, based on how dangerous someone -- or his followers -- looked to them; it was really no big deal.