Helvetica said:
I've not read the Da Vinci Code, and it's not high up on my to-read list - but I have read some of the so-called Gnsotic gospels available on the net, and Jean-Luc Leloup's translation and commentary of the Gospel of Mary (very beautiful book). They do intrigue me.
Does anyone know of any unbiased historical and/or theological study of these? I mean unbiased either way!! (I imagine the most unbiased would be atheists!)
Sophie, we have to stop meeting like this! LOL
Actually I did a large part of my religion degree on gnostic Xianity. Although it's not perfect, the most credible and accessible entry text would be Dr. Elaine Pagels'
The Gnostic Gospels, which is a pretty solid, unbiased overview of the texts and the themes explored/raised therein. (
Although it may only focus on Valentinian Gnosticism... I have to check...) That said, I would not rush Brown's novel to the top of any of your stacks... n.b.: it's a beach book in mock-damask. Every time someone compares it to Eco I think a small part of me dies.
EricTheHermit said:
In the Da Vinci Code Decoded documentary, one of the interviewees says that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the apostles did not really write the gospels that bear their names.
I've following this thread for a few days and didn't want to squelch anyone's enthusiasm; but reading the posts I thought maybe a couple of further reading recs might not be amiss.
The thing to remember about the
Da Vinci Code Decoded is the reason the documentary was created: the timing, the target market, the shelf-life. And that it's based on a book by Martin Lunn which contains some extremely dubious scholarship. Don't get me wrong, I have a streak of the conspiracy theorist in me, but homework must be done even for TV documentaries. Lunn is dissecting Dan Brown's novel very much
after the fact AND using many of the resources that Brown used to
write the book. So there's a circular logic there, an ideological feedback loop if you will. Of course the scholars he cites are intrigued by the possible truths of the novel; the truths were lifted wholesale from their own work, substantive and otherwise. And the scholars Brown consulted run the gamut from conservatively unimpeachable (a few) to the wacky and non-credible (more than a few).
That is also not to say that it's not an interesting topic to discuss or an interesting challenge to dogma. The thing is, this stuff is my meat; I studied it at university, and I continue to throw textual logs on the flame every year. So I'm immediately wary of the mass-marketed, fast-food, People-magazine scholarship that dips into topics with glossy soundbites
sans real grasp or credible references. Go for the full meal! I DO think there is real controversy in this subject and I can say without a doubt that Catholicism, Inc. has spent millenia manipulating and hiding events and facts.
If this book and the subsequent media maelstrom has really piqued people's interest, I hope they'll be spurred to dig deeper. Check out ANY of Dr. Pagels' books. Read Walter Burkert's
Ancient Mystery Cults or Samuel Angus' book on early Xianity called
Mystery-Religions. For primary textsof "pagan" and "monotheistic" origin, there's a nice collection called
Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook, edited by Marvin Myer (I think). And definitely take a look at the Nag Hammadi texts for yourself, they are fascinating and wildly contradictory. For most of the early centiuries of Xianity, Gnosticism was its most popular mutation. In fact, until the Council of Nicea in 325, it was pretty much the only option. Gnosticism is a fascinating thread of thought in Xianity
and Judaism that has many branches and sects if its own.
In religion (and history), nothing is simple. If you're genuinely interested or even just curious, flesh out your knowledge before you let other folks' opinions take hold in your imagination. Opinions and scholarship don't come out of a vacuum... like Tarot (or civilization for that matter) they build on what comes before. Demand excellence. Not to be overdramatic, but it's like eating: sure you can survive on junk food, but can you live? And why would you want to?
Tarot-wise, I can also recommend a SUPERB starting point. Robert Place's fantastic new book makes a very credible case for the Tarot's relation to Neoplatonic (i.e. Renaissance Gnostic) thought... definitely worth checking out by anyone interested in history or religion and its relation to Tarot. It's reviewed on Aeclectic
here.
Anyways, now I realize that I've just had another one of my weird braindump manifestations and I hope I'm not being a buzzkill, but I just wanted to "speak my truth," even if it's only mine.
Peace Out
Scion
