Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Europe

Christian leaders' Easter messages blast conspiracy theories

2006-04-17

The Vatican and the Archbishop of Canterbury have used Easter messages to denounce the popularity of conspiracy theories. In his Easter Sunday sermon, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams attacked conspiracy theories such as The Da Vinci Code and the so-called "Gospel of Judas". The latter manuscript claims Christ himself asked Judas to betray him. "We are instantly fascinated by the suggestion of conspiracies and cover-ups," Dr Williams said. "This has become so much the stuff of our imagination these days that it's only natural to expect it when we turn to ancient texts," he said.

That could be because clergymen like Dr. Williams don't provide a strong and consistent interpretation of the scriptures which would anchor Christianity to Christian thought, rather than to... ummm... whatever the hell else it is that Rowan's interested in.

Dr Williams says the texts are divisive. "We treat them as if they were unconvincing press releases from some official source, whose intention is to conceal the real story," he said. Vatican priests also attacked The Da Vinci Code while in his first Easter Sunday sermon in St Peter's Square, the Pope dismissed the "Gospel of Judas".

I'm apparently wrong in my assumption that the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. I believe it's based on an earlier work of fiction in which the Christ family is somehow tied to the Merovingian pretender in France and similar nonsense. I confess I haven't been following the current story, but if it features 2000-year-old bloodlines, secret societies, and the last of the Merwigs, I wouldn't expect the end of civilization as we know it.

The Gospel of Judas is a similarly goofy story, appealing to those of a reflexively Revolutionary turn of mind, rather than to anyone with any sense. There are a number of Gnostic gospels, to include the Gospel of Peter, and they've been available to both scholars and the curious since they were first written. The Judas gospel apparently fell out of favor with the early Christians even earlier than most, which is why the poor condition of the most recent reprints. That's because Judas' sin was one of betrayal, not (like Peter) a lapse of courage or (like Thomas) a lapse of belief.

The also-ran gospels (sometimes referred to as the Lost Gospels) are more contradictory than the four "real" gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John complement each other, while Peter, for instance, shows a rather un-Christlike Christ in many cases. I believe it was the Gospel of Peter that had the young Jesus turning some local bad boys into bears.

The heart of the two stories, though, is what the Archdruid and the Pope are talking about, and it does represent a serious problem to Western Civilization. I've pointed out before that we live in a world where verities are constantly being turned on their heads. It's a world of sympathetic vampires and evil clowns, where Mom's a bitch, apple pie oozes deadly cholesterol and probably alar, and baseball is the haven of millionaire druggies. The Boy Scouts are homophobes, racism is rampant just under the surface of what only appears to be a tolerant and easy-going culture, and marriage either isn't for anyone or it's for everyone, to include a boy and his dog. There are no heroes, everyone has feet of clay, and there's no such thing as progress. One culture is as good as another, and the differences among Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, and any other system you'd care to name are so negligible as not to be worth mentioning.

That's pretty much post-modernism in a nutshell, I think, and it's a perniciously parasitical growth that will eventually kill its host unless it's excised. It will be, I suspect, the next war after the one we're having now with Islam, unless its presence in our cultural system weakens us sufficiently that we lose this one.

Posted by:Fred

#8 gentlemen: there's a reason it's called fiction. As a Catholic, I was never taught Mary was a prostitute or anything close....other than the sophomoric jokes about the "immaculate" conception and Joseph's worldliness

Posted by: Frank G 2006-04-17 21:13

#7 I have to agree with SM that Dan Brown is not a very good writer and DaVinci Code is a shameless rip off of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Quite an interesting book BTW. Not so much for the descendants of Christ theme, but for showing that much of history is the 'official version' of events promoted by the powers that be at the time.

Posted by: phil_b 2006-04-17 20:38

#6 IMHO Pagels is a bad joke. Her research is a bit on the fantasy side and is not all that well done in terms of modern hermeneutics. She swallows a lot of Gnostic heresies unquestioningly, becasue they agree wit her political leanings - and they make spectacular ways to promote her books.

In my opinion, theologically speaking, she's as reliable for presenting all the facts as asking Jimmy Carter about Iran policy.

I prefer James M. Robinson, one of the world's leading scholars on Gnosticism, and the editor of the Nag Hammadi Library. In an AP story, Robinson said, bluntly: "Does it go back to Judas? No." He says the text is valuable to scholars of the second century but dismissed the notion that it'll reveal unknown biblical secrets: "There are a lot of second-, third- and fourth-century gospels attributed to various apostles," Robinson said. "We don't really assume they give us any firstcentury information."

Robinson is a scholar, Pagels has simply become a new-age artiste, wrapped in a veneer of scholarship. Elaine Pagels published her controversial bestseller, The Gnostic Gospels in 1979 with a minimum of research, very soon after the release of the Nag Hammadi scrolls. This book popularized Gnosticism, not only as an academic curiosity, but also an appealing alternative to orthodox Christianity. Pagels saw in the Gnostic writings a way to forge a successful academic and publishing career, in addition to fighting orthodox Christianity and promoting liberal values.

Gnosticism, especially when run through the interpretive grid of postmodern academia, seemed to support many of the values endorsed by liberal- or post-Christian academics. Gnosticism was envisioned to support feminism, religious pluralism, the supremacy of knowledge, the non-divinity of Christ, the non-literal resurrection, and the self as the source of ultimate meaning. Gnosticism also appealed to the elitism that is rampant in academia.

As for the truthfulness of the Gnostic "gospels", second-century Gnostics were accomplished at taking biblical stories, either from the New Testament or from the Old, and turning them on their heads. For example, in Gnostic stories of creation the world and humankind are created by an evil god. But the good serpent comes to reveal hidden knowledge to people so they can escape the evil creation. This is Genesis turned on its head. Similarly, a creative Gnostic writer refashioned the New Testament story of Judas, making him the hero because he was responsible for the death of the (bad) body of Jesus. That way they denigrate the humanity of Jesus, and emphsize thier view that its all based on human knowledge, not on faith. Along the way, this Gnostic author was also able to denigrate the other disciples of Jesus, those upon which orthodox Christianity based its doctrine and authority. Holding up the reconfigured Judas, therefore, plays perfectly into the Gnostic agenda of attacking orthodox Christianity by subverting Christianity into a Gnostic mystery cult based on leaders with secret knowledge (rather than salvation visible and freely available to all and any).

So take Pagels context and intent into account - with a HUGE grain of salt.

(Much of the above shameless stolen/paraphrased or copied from Mark D Roberts and elsewhere on the web)

Posted by: OldSpook 2006-04-17 16:36

#5 Excellent rant, Fred! Check out http://princeofcairo.livejournal.com for more amusing information on the ongoing controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code. Basically, Dan Brown is a hack who inserts other peoples (fairly questionable) research into his characters mouths whole cloth; a bad habit that landed him in court recently. The Prince of Cairo (a.k.a. Kenneth Hite) has a professional interest in the case. Besides being an extraordinarily good guy, hes also a legitimate expert on conspiracy theories; meaning, of course, that people pay him to write books on the topic.

The Gnostic Gospels are another matter entirely. Before rushing to any judgement on the texts contained within the Nag Hammadi Codex, I urge all of you to read any of three books written by Yale professor of ancient religions Elaine Pagels: The Gnostic Gospels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, and Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. You will find her work enlightening, informative, and intensely well researched.

Posted by: Secret Master 2006-04-17 14:31

#4 Early Church Fathers, in their writings, praised Mary for her discipleship, never once questioning her moral character. Hippolytus of Rome, in a commentary written around the end of the second century or beginning of the third, was the first to call her the apostle to the apostles. It became a favorite title for her.

In the meantime, some biblical commentators [note that they are NOT official theologians of the Church] began speculating whether the Mary of Lukes chapter eight might also be the unnamed sinful woman in his preceding chapter.

So how did it happen? Sixth-century pope, St Gregory the Great, governed in a licentious age, and moral reform was his goal. Deciding that Marys seven demons (biblically, she had 7 demons drive out) stood for the seven capital sins (a theology just then being developed), and the worst one (most emphasized) was promiscuity. He used Mary of Magdala as the prime example of how even the worst sinner could reform (i.e. somone afflicted with demons that caused her to commit all 7 of the cardinal sins).

So powerful and long-lasting was Gregorys influence that a mischaracrurization of his judgment of Mary continued into the 20th century.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, incidentally, has never seen her in any light other than its honorary title for her: Equal to the Apostles.

So there's no conspiracy, and St Gregory did not impugn her character in as much as peopel grabbed it and ran with it, and the church said nothing to clarify it until recently. That Mary Magdelene was a prostitute was never the "official" nor "declared" position of the Catholic Church, to the best of my knowledge.

Just correcting a bit of "not quite the whole story" that you can collect on the internet, from various Catholic-bashing sites.

As Paul Harvey would say, Now You Know the REST of the story.

Posted by: OldSpook 2006-04-17 14:10

#3 Of all the various Eastery things that were on TV this weekend, the Discovery Channel show on Judas got my attention - but what was interesting wasn't Judas or his rehab - I didn't much care about him whether as an icon or a man... it was Mary Magdalene that grabbed me and made me listen - or more accurately she was Miriam of Magdala.

The show examined the "Gospels of Mary" and the biblical references and historical finds and was far more fascinating to me. I don't know (or care) about all this DaVinci Code ruckus. The simple story about Miriam made sense and was extremely interesting.

A decent and seemingly fair overview of Miriam of Magdala.

My favorite factoid was that she was no prostitute - that was a Pope Gregory hit job. My favorite scene was a wall painting showing Miriam (Mary) standing alongside Peter teaching as his equal.

Some things, in the absence of objective proof - such as that wall painting - must be judged on other criteria and there was a solid ring of truth to the story the show presented with its little panel of "experts".

You'll get tons of good hits on "Mary of Magdala" if you're interested in reading more. She was there, from beginning to end, and then the new beginning. Recall, she was "the very first to proclaim the Easter message". And ticked off a LOT of men, lol.

Posted by: Huparong Spereper4395 2006-04-17 05:45

#2 There is some interesting history behind these 'conspiracies'. Of particular note is the copper scroll found near the dead sea and its link to the Knights Templar.

Posted by: phil_b 2006-04-17 03:50

#1 You hit the nail on the hit with this summary. Next Easter, the MSM will probably treat us with the Gospel according to Elvis.
--- My favorite heresy is the "Adamite Heresy"

Adamites were attributed to be in a "divine state of grace" or religious perfectionism as were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. In principle they rejected most civil, moral and social restraints on their behavior. Individuals could regain their innocence by being unfettered of their clothing and the false modesty of Society, as the reasoning went.

Once you're saved, you're saved, right?
From the same source

Adamites behavior has often been attributed to other radical groups. Among these were the Ranters, who exhibited some public "nakedness". Later Ranter images were often based on earlier Adamite iconography.

Haven't seen much of that iconography around Rantburg, though.

Posted by: Crairong Omomotch6492 2006-04-17 03:19

00:00