Decoding the Past

I got a chance to catch the History Channel's first installment of "Decoding the Past" which purported to be a rational, "historical" evaluation of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. For the most part, I must admit, they did a good job of balancing the myths and legends from historical fact. The show was quick to point out that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction and therefore only requires plausibility to make the claims that it did. For example, the story hinges on the plausibility of Jesus (who was after all a real man, living in a real culture) and Mary Magdalene being husband and wife. I'll admit, it's beyond plausible that a First Century Jew would be married. One also has to admit that Mary played an important part in the early Jesus movement. But as a matter of fact, of historical fact, there is no documented evidence to support the claim that Mary bore Jesus' child. That goes for the whole notion that Jesus has an actual bloodline in southern France or that the Church actively suppressed this radical "truth". (Then again, the lack of proof only proves the conspiracy, right?!?)

The crux of the story for my wife and I is the strange case of Da Vinci. Our take on it is: "So what if Da Vinci thought there was some cover-up? So what if he thought Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife?" Granted, Da Vinci was a genius, but that does not make his thoughts true or false, especially when his ideas on this particular subject were never explicitly stated. This goes for the legends of Mary Magdalene's flight to Egypt and subsequent "oar-less" boat ride across the Mediterranean to the south of France. There are always people with alternative theories, stories and plausible re-constructions.

Plausibility never equals truth.

Granted, the Church has always had a dark side to it; violent suppression of heterodoxy is fairly common in the history of the Christianity. In the end, if you feel the Church is radically misogynic, suppressed vital information about the progeny of Christ, then you can safely construct a model on which to make this claim--just as it's plausible to make the case that Christianity directly caused the Holocaust. You will, though, be forced to admit, that your conclusion is based purely on speculation and a unique interpretation of the documentary evidence.

For more information on this topic, particularly the Council of Nicea check out "Breaking The Da Vinci Code"