The Da Vinci Debate

Or should that be The Da Vinci Debacle?

So what is all the fuss about? Some bloke has written a book, marketed as fiction, possibly based on an earlier book, this time marketed as non-fiction, and someone has made a film based upon it.
I haven't read the book myself (yet) nor have I seen the film, but I have read the earlier book.

The underlying concept of both book is that Jesus, at some point in his life, got married, and his wife carried their child to what is now France shortly after his death. Nothing there to get your knickers in a twist about!

Think about it for a moment!

Jesus was a man, possessed by God's spirit, who preached on the ethics and morals of the time, in a country that was under foreign rule, and some of his teachings went against the prevailing religious authorities views. However, his teachings struck a cord, sowed a seed that grew, and upon which the Christian religion was based. But at the time he was hunted and persecuted for his teachings, as were his friends and associates, in the typical fashion of an oppressive regime. So what would be more natural than for his family to flee into hiding? After all his parents fled from Herod shortly after his birth.

But, I hear you say, what family did he have? There is no mention of a wife or child in the bible.

And so there isn't. But think on. There was a wedding that was very significant in his life. It was the scene of his first miracle, and his mother was in some way involved with its organisation. And so what if he was only a teenager at the time, as that is often an arguement against it being his wedding. This was centuries ago, in a culture far removed from what we are accustomed to, when life expectancy was short, and people tended to marry young, and to some extent in that region, still do. You cannot judge life then and there by here and now.

And of course when the bible was finally put together, it was done so at a time of great conflict within the society of the time. The Roman empire was fragmenting, the Christian relgion that was evolving was also fragmented and in the midst of this turmoil, a convention was held to decide what format this new religion would take and how it would affect the positions of the power seekers both in the Roman Empire and the emerging church. And all this in a male dominated society. Women were not seen as being in positions of power and so did not figure in any prominence. A marriage would not have been seen as anything out of the ordinary, and the prime requisite for the new religious texts was the extraordinary. The teachings, the miracles, the torment, the crucifiction, the ressurection. These were the things that the new religion would be expected to stand or fall by, so there was no room in them for in depth personal details. This was not to be a novel where there was plenty of time to build the character and establish his full history. There was just enough space to mention a few tidbits in passing in order to concentrate on the important issues.

And that is the real point to all this!

Does it really matter one little bit whether Jesus was married and had a family? And certainly at this point in time, is there any relevence to anyone claiming to be a decendent of Jesus? What significance would that person have? A divine right to rule over us? I think not! After all, how many people trace their family trees? And if they find they are decended from King Alfred for instance, do they have a claim to the throne of England? They would be laughed out of court. And so a decendent of Jesus would have no relevence, except to those who would want to stir up trouble within the religous community.

The romantic in me would like to think that Jesus did marry, have a family, and that they survived the troubles, but that is as far as I would allow it to affect me.

I would like to think that the Christian religion, and other religions as well, should be able to adapt to the changes in society, where better education brings about an more informed and interlectual population. A Religion that can serve the society that supports it rather that sticking to the old, dubious, writings that reflect the male dominated, under-educated society that as in place at its conception. To my mind there is nothing that says women cannot place an equal role to men, they were not given the chance at the start because that society did recognise them as being mens equals.

So there you have it. My views on this little controversy. The Da Vinci Code and it's predecessor, may have uncovered a secret, but if they did, so what? That secret had relevence centuries ago, but the world has change, mankind has moved on, grown up, and we may need guidence, but we need guidence that is relevent for today. We do not need to hark back to the time of the Roman Empire.

What we do need is the ability to question everything. We need a religion that will encourage questions and testing, and above all, a religion that embraces the whole of society and treats everyone, male, female, white, black, brown, yellow as equals.

And just in case anyone is interested, I am white, male, and a former Christian who accepts the that there is a lot more to God's work than that put forward by Christianity and most other religions. To me, they have become tainted by mankind's interpretations, and twisted to suit the needs to the powerful throughout their history. and I will leave it at that. You can make up your own minds and find your path to the truth.